Gripen operational cost lowest of all western fighters

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23166
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Jul 2012, 00:52

Already posted here: Gripen operational cost lowest of all western fighters: Jane’s 07 July 2012

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... pen#227544

STROLL DOWN.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Jul 2012, 01:18

So it is Spaz, my bad.

It is a very interesting read, definitely worth a look.
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 821
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post10 Jul 2012, 02:00

The Gripen only has the lowest costs untill you realize that you are going to need over a 100 of them to shoot down one F-22.
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post10 Jul 2012, 03:27

alloycowboy wrote:The Gripen only has the lowest costs untill you realize that you are going to need over a 100 of them to shoot down one F-22.


Grippens won't be flying against F-22s in any likely scenario.

Against probable adversaries, they will be fine - considering they employ American missiles and other technologies.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post10 Jul 2012, 03:29

This should be a no-brainer that Gripen is the lowest cost fighter. It's powered by a single F404 for heavens sake!

But what exactly does this post have to do with the F-22 and F-35??

Probably better off to be posted in a different forum next time?
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23166
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Jul 2012, 04:03

'geogen' perhaps if you read the excerpts [or entire article] here the F-35 references will be clear:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... pen#227544
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post10 Jul 2012, 05:07

geogen wrote:This should be a no-brainer that Gripen is the lowest cost fighter. It's powered by a single F404 for heavens sake!

Actually, a F-5E/F would still have lower operating costs, and countries like Brazil have have upgraded them to at least 4th gen standards, and could integrate AESA and EO systems into the upgraded jets.
geogen wrote:But what exactly does this post have to do with the F-22 and F-35??

The Gripen NG could be described as a 4.5th gen fighter at best, comparing it the F-35 is misguided at best.
geogen wrote:Probably better off to be posted in a different forum next time?

Maybe the mods should create a 5th gen X vs Y forum??
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Jul 2012, 05:25

The article compares operating costs of current fighters including 'projections' for F-35 operations. Seems relevant to an F-35 thread to me.
What would be interesting would be a comparison which included Russian and Chinese gear as well but of course I can't see that showing up anytime soon.

Although...apparently the Russians are going to Red Flag this year. Maybe we'll get to hear some scuttlebutt from there.

EDIT: On second thought
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/07/farnborough-flight-demos-also.html

So it looks like the Voice of Russia story about the Russian Federation Air Force attending Red Flag at Nellis was wrong--really wrong. And it seems Nellis public affairs dropped the ball in confirming the that the Russians were attending.

This is what they had sent me originally:

"Yes, The Russians will be participating in Red Flag 13-1.

Thanks for your interest in Nellis.

-Nellis Public Affairs"
This is what the USAF headquarters sent me today:

"The Voice of Russia reporting is a complete fabrication. The Russian Air Force (RFAF) was supposed to observe RED FLAG-Alaska (RF-A) 12-2, 6-14 Jun 12 but RFAF observation was cancelled due to reciprocity issues.

Instead, a RFAF one-star general participated in the Executive Observer Program at RF-A 14-19 Jun 12. RFAF participation at RED FLAG-Nellis was never considered and no further RFAF observation/participation in RF is planned at this time."

Shame.
Offline

river_otter

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 09:42
  • Location: Arizona

Unread post10 Jul 2012, 16:39

jeffb wrote:The article compares operating costs of current fighters including 'projections' for F-35 operations. Seems relevant to an F-35 thread to me.


I agree about relevance to an F-35 thread. However, the article doesn't compare operating costs. The article compares the hourly costs of flying one single plane. “The Saab Gripen is the least expensive of the aircraft under study in terms of cost per flight hour (CPFH).” That's a very important qualifier. What the article actually does compare would be a valid comparison if they were Cessnas just ferrying joyriding passengers from A to B (or for scenic flights from A around A and back to A) over friendly territory. It wouldn't even be a valid comparison for airliners. A 747-ER may have higher operating costs per flight hour than an older model 737, but it has much lower costs per passenger mile, much lower costs than the number of 737s required to carry as many passengers over that route, and it can fly flight routes the 737 couldn't due to speed and (massive) range advantages.

Likewise, you need fewer F-35s and support aircraft to perform many of the same missions, and they can perform missions the Grippen simply can't. Or it can perform those missions with fewer airframes and a massive advantage in terms of not losing a bunch of expensive airframes doing so.
Offline

HaveVoid

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 281
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2009, 02:50
  • Location: USA

Unread post10 Jul 2012, 18:48

Against operating cost, you have to compare operational capability and "value". And while I'm not knocking the Gripen, I don't think many of us would put it in the same category as AESA equipped F-35s, F-22s, F/A-18Es, and F-16Es, let alone the non-AESA but soon to be EF2000 and Rafale-and thats just for A2A.

In many ways you get what you pay for here, and while the Gripen is cheap to operate, I'd imagine that a fleet of Sper Tucanos would be still cheaper, yet we don't see anyone proposing that we procure 1700+ of them instead. The comparison in this article carries about as much value as the Tucano example in the end I fear.


HV
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post11 Jul 2012, 05:51

river_otter wrote:
jeffb wrote:The article compares operating costs of current fighters including 'projections' for F-35 operations. Seems relevant to an F-35 thread to me.


I agree about relevance to an F-35 thread. However, the article doesn't compare operating costs. The article compares the hourly costs of flying one single plane. “The Saab Gripen is the least expensive of the aircraft under study in terms of cost per flight hour (CPFH).” That's a very important qualifier. What the article actually does compare would be a valid comparison if they were Cessnas just ferrying joyriding passengers from A to B (or for scenic flights from A around A and back to A) over friendly territory. It wouldn't even be a valid comparison for airliners. A 747-ER may have higher operating costs per flight hour than an older model 737, but it has much lower costs per passenger mile, much lower costs than the number of 737s required to carry as many passengers over that route, and it can fly flight routes the 737 couldn't due to speed and (massive) range advantages.


It is an important qualifier but by the same rate the comparison does include maintenance costs and depot level work as well as fuel usage and expendables.

The authors point out the weaknesses with the comparisons themselves but add that given that every force calculates the total cost slightly differently, making any sort of apples to apples comparison is very difficult unless you take the steps that the authors have in this article. As such it isn't a perfect comparison, the authors admit this themselves, but it is a comparison which tries to level the field so that it is more an apples to apples comparison rather than the usual apples to oranges to pomegranates comparison.

river_otter wrote:Likewise, you need fewer F-35s and support aircraft to perform many of the same missions, and they can perform missions the Grippen simply can't. Or it can perform those missions with fewer airframes and a massive advantage in terms of not losing a bunch of expensive airframes doing so.

Indeed, if the performance matches the brochure then this may well be true. It will still be a number of years before the truth of this can be determined. If it does, will the F-35 maintain that capability gap up to and beyond IOC? Time will tell.

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest