F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

[aprichelieu]

You clearly missed the point where I pointed out the latest production aircraft are block 3F standard and indicative of what to expect for fleetwide maintenance. This seems to be beyond your comprehension.

No, that is your interpretation of the numbers, yet to be proven.

[aprichelieu]

You are mixing together development cost and the cost including production aircraft.
SAAB is getting payment in advance.
The cost for 60 Gripen E was estimated to 35,6B Sek which includes development cost.

You do not include the development cost of stuff you buy, so the development of the F414 should not be included in the Gripen E development cost, unless SAAB requests custom modifications and pays for them.
GE certainly wants to recover their development cost, but that is included in the price of the engine, and not in the Gripen E development cost.

Exactly my point

General Dynamic/Lockheed Martin has a lot of expertise gained from previous development, but that should not be included in the F-35 development cost.

Youre confusing two accouting practices of how R&D is calculated, but thanks for trying

The Gripen E looks like earlier Gripen, but almost every detail is changed, and developed using new methodologies.

No sorry, you don't get to have it both ways. Its easier a more advanced version of a proven platform in which case we can talk about past perfromance---or--- a whole new airplane that has only 2 prototypes flying, and thus everything we hazard about how well it works is a stone cold guess.

Gripen Fans constantly switch depending on the question. If the Gripen E/F is called too new, and untested and expensive, Gripen Fans fall back on the Legacy platform as proof. If people say it dates back from the 1980s and is comically outdated to be ready by the 2020s, they then say its a brand new animal with not even the same stripes as the legacy birds.

The reason for bringing up F-35 Block 4 is because that is supposed to fix a number of known deficiencies where the F-35 does not meet the requirement spec. Several of the planned deliveries of Block 4 like collision avoidance and SDB II support is already available for Gripen.

the reason for inventing NG is because of known deficiencies in the legacy Gripen.

Sweden has plenty of places where Gripen E can be based, but it will be difficult to defend northern Norway with F-35 bases in Belgium.
If an F-35 is as capable as 4 Gripen, but only manages to do 25% of the sorties of a Gripen, then they are equivalent.
That is why the sustained sortie rate of aircraft is of interest.
Availability rates for F-35 are around 50%. That is why I am asking.
If the single airbase is taken out, all F-35s will stop delivering capability immediately in that part of the world.

So just so I understand the rules, dozens of Gripens hidden all over sweden has more survivability than hundreds of F-35s distributed all over Europe? Sweden is bigger than i realized.

It was already explained that regardless of aircraft Pick, the nations you mentioned were going to one base. So youre blaming the F-35 for things that had nothing to do with it, in an attempt to prove a point based in pure falsehood to start.

Should the F-35 development cost be burdened by the F-22 development cost? A lot of the development cost is the S/W and certainly there is a lot of expertise gained during the F-22 program that is used to develop the F-35.

umm NO. Thats an incredible stretch and I hope you didn't pull a muscle in the attempt.

Is the F-35 called the "F-22NG?" or F-22 B/C/D?? Completely seperate programs, with completely separate airframes and even designations, and everything else.

So your position is,that the F-35 and F-22 which don't even share a name are connected wih R&D, but the GRIPEN A, B, C, D, are wholly different than the GRIPEN E and F????



Again, Saab does not get to say that the NG is built from a proven platform, Reuse the name, and then pretend like its something completely different. The goal to save money is to improve from a legacy Gripen, as much as possible to save development costs. Saab has reiterated several times Themselves over many years that the Gripen NG is a new more advanced development of the proven legacy Gripen.

So who is correct you or SAAB??

I'm waiting.

Brazil will not buy/produce any ”Gripen NG”, they will buy/produce Gripen E/F.

For years and years while trying to sell these Saab used that exact "NG" title, No need to be silly about it. Some people still refer to F-35 as "JSF" get over it.

That proves nothing. You might as well use that graph to prove that the availability quickly drops to 50%.

Got it, facts mean nothing here. I think you've demonstrated that rather well.

I think you have a very untenable position, youre not the first Gripen fan to try and have everything both ways. If the E/F is as new and different as you claim, then we know nothing about its cost, production, or ready rates beyond theory as they only have 2 whole prototypes going. So the only "proof" you can go on is the Legacy Gripen which you say has little to do with Gripen E/F which means you have no proof.


My position is that the Gripen E/F should have been abandoned years ago, its missed its targets in both performance and schedule many times. its expensive for what you get and only Sweden and Brazil are silly enough to go with a follow on design to create a Gen 4.5 fighter that won't be ready until nearly 2 decades after everyone else did it.

Once again we see people trying to defend it by rewriting definitions, and changing words and designations constantly. The GRipen E/F is totally new, except when its not. This isn't my first foray into SAABian Doublethink. The Truth is that many "fans" of this airplane are doing nothing more than regurgitating hype (some of that hype that actually contradicts itself) which shouldn't surprise, given that even Saab themselves have had to change their shiny pamphletson NG, E/F almost monthly with this aircraft in some cases. why theyve even played with the name!

ITs funny that when the Chance to rename it from "GRipen NG" came up they went with "Gripen E/F" when you tell us specifcally they don't have much do with each other. Why not a whole new name?? Strange. Very Strange. Its almost like Saab considers them to be heavily related...

say what you will about F-35 fans, they aren't quoting you 2006 price estimates. But you quickly see 2006 prices quoted for Saab Gripen E/F, right along Legacy Gripen CPFH, they say applies to the E/F that they also say has no relation!

We know that the cost of development and production of 60 Gripen E will cost $5,2B.
When You start a project you do not include R & D money you already spent in the cost of the project. You calculate the R&D cost what You spend on R&D, not what your subcontractors
have already spent designing parts you wish to buy. When the Gripen E project was decided, the R & D money was already spent, and written off on existing Gripen A-D orders.
That is why the R&D cost of Gripen E should be separated from Gripen A-D. Gripen E is certainly reusing a lot of expertise gained by the Gripen A.
The Gripen E is both a more advanced version of the Gripen, and a new implementation of the Gripen.
The Apple TV 4th generation is a more advanced version of the Apple TV as well as a new implementation of the Apple TV.
The Super Hornet is a more advanced version of the Hornet, as well as a new implementation.
There is not a lot of commonality between the Hornet and Super Hornet. When the cost of developing the Super Hornet is calculated, is the cost of the Hornet development included?
The APG-83 radar of the F-16V, which is based on the APG-81 F-35 radar. When the development cost of the APG-83 is mentioned, I doubt the cost of the APG-81 is included even though it seems that it is just a change of size, and a lot of subsystems can be reused.
As for the F-22, it is using the Pratt & Whittney F-119. P & W also designed the F-135 for the F-35, which is claimed to be a derivative of the F-119. The US includes the engine R&D in the cost of the F-135 program R&D. If Gripen E R&D should include the R&D for Gripen A-D, then certainly the F-119 R&D should be included in the R&D for the F-135.
I am not arguing for that the F-22 R&D should be included in the F-35 R&D. I point out that if you want to include the Gripen A-D R&D in the Gripen E (which I don't), then the F-22 argument becomes valid.
As a more advanced version of the Gripen, it can use existing experience to improve maintenance procedures. This is a stated design goal, and if successful will reduce cost of operation. I agree that this remains to be proven. If the CPFH (not related to fuel) is not improved, then SAAB will probably be in break of contract.
Dozens of Gripens in an area does a better job in that area than 100s of F-35s that are not in the area. Denmark and Norway are going for one airbase each, because of the high cost of an airbase capable of servicing the F-35. The Gripen family have much less requirements from their airbases.

Unlike the F-35 Block 4, Gripen E did not become a project to resolve problems with

Guns not hitting the target
Overheating problems
Fixing unanticipated cracks
Achieving advertised service life
Breaking refuel probes

[kimjongnumbaun]

You clearly missed the point where I pointed out the latest production aircraft are block 3F standard and indicative of what to expect for fleetwide maintenance. This seems to be beyond your comprehension.

No, that is your interpretation of the numbers, yet to be proven.

You got it hilariously wrong. But like I said, it is beyond your comprehension. Your inability to understand facts does not preclude them from being facts.

[vanshilar]

have already spent designing parts you wish to buy. When the Gripen E project was decided, the R & D money was already spent, and written off on existing Gripen A-D orders.
That is why the R&D cost of Gripen E should be separated from Gripen A-D. Gripen E is certainly reusing a lot of expertise gained by the Gripen A.
The Gripen E is both a more advanced version of the Gripen, and a new implementation of the Gripen.

You're not understanding the point. By the same token, right now the DoD is working on LRIP 11 for the F-35. This means that the development costs up to now have been paid for in buying batches LRIP 1-10 --they're already spent, they're already sunk, they're already written off. By your logic for the Gripen, we shouldn't consider any development costs for the F-35 program prior to LRIP 11 since they were spent on LRIP 1-10. A LRIP 11 F-35 is much more capable than a LRIP 1 F-35 after all, so much so that there was some consideration as to whether or not they even want to try upgrading past LRIP F-35's to the current standard. You can't have it both ways. If you want to assume the whole development cost of the F-35 program (which by the way includes not just for Lockheed Martin to make the F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C, but also includes the JSF flyoff, the precursor JAST program, military base upgrades, etc. -- it's not like Lockheed just got a check for all that money), then you have to assume the cost to develop the Gripen A-D as well.

[aprichelieu]

have already spent designing parts you wish to buy. When the Gripen E project was decided, the R & D money was already spent, and written off on existing Gripen A-D orders.
That is why the R&D cost of Gripen E should be separated from Gripen A-D. Gripen E is certainly reusing a lot of expertise gained by the Gripen A.
The Gripen E is both a more advanced version of the Gripen, and a new implementation of the Gripen.

You're not understanding the point. By the same token, right now the DoD is working on LRIP 11 for the F-35. This means that the development costs up to now have been paid for in buying batches LRIP 1-10 --they're already spent, they're already sunk, they're already written off. By your logic for the Gripen, we shouldn't consider any development costs for the F-35 program prior to LRIP 11 since they were spent on LRIP 1-10. A LRIP 11 F-35 is much more capable than a LRIP 1 F-35 after all, so much so that there was some consideration as to whether or not they even want to try upgrading past LRIP F-35's to the current standard. You can't have it both ways. If you want to assume the whole development cost of the F-35 program (which by the way includes not just for Lockheed Martin to make the F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C, but also includes the JSF flyoff, the precursor JAST program, military base upgrades, etc. -- it's not like Lockheed just got a check for all that money), then you have to assume the cost to develop the Gripen A-D as well.

Gripen A-D was ordered in several batches, and included upgrades similar to the LRIP story.
Still it is basically the same airframe, same engine, same avionics getting improvements and fixes for deficiencies.
For Gripen E, the airframe has changed, engine changed, radar changed, EW changed. S/W architecture changed.
The move from Gripen C to Gripen E is not at all comparable to ordering a new LRIP.

To compare the R&D costs, the cost of the single Gripen NG demonstrator should be included, I give you that.
Last Year, SAAB claimed the 10 year development cost to get to the prototype was €2B.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... gs-396977/

[steve2267]

If you multiply the number of aircraft for each LRIP by the availability for each LRIP you get around 50%.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... esters-say

"There has been no significant improvement in the F-35’s availability rates since October 2014, the report noted. The system-wide figure is approximately 50 percent, which is 10 percent below the "modest” 60 percent goal. Overall F-35 reliability “has changed little compared to July 2016,” according to the report. However, the later production lots are doing better."

This may mean that availability will always be better for Block 3F, or it may mean that availability is better for newer aircraft.

There are reports published on overall availability which I read some months ago, which confirms this.
I did not save a link though.

From the same article quoted:

F-35 Development, Availability and Reliability Problems Remain, Testers Say
by Chris Pocock - February 2, 2018

...

The company noted that “weapons system reliability continues to improve lot over lot and the LRIP 7 and newer jets are averaging greater than 60 percent availability and some operational squadrons are consistently at or above 70 percent availability.” The company confirmed that the upgraded diagnostics that form part of the Block 3F software will be retrofitted into earlier production aircraft. ”In partnership with the F-35 JPO, we are improving our spares modeling, OEM, and organic repair capability, and parts ordering which will improve the spares inventory and enhance overall readiness,” it added.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-02-02/f-35-development-availability-and-reliability-problems-remain-testers-say

The article seems to contradict itself: "there has been no significant improvement in availability rates since 2014" but then goes on to state that the latest jets are over 70% !?!

I haven't been reading of many problems with maintenance / availability rates of late in the press. If there were, the milpress would be screaming bloody murder about it.

Seems to me that availability for the latest 3F jets are all above 70% and the operational folks are happy. As has been noted, earlier LRIP lots have not been as reliable. But since when is it news that early production aircraft of any program are problem free?

So to pull 50% out of the hat of this story, and use it as proof that the "availability" of the F-35 fleetwide is poor, is disengenous. Reliability has been continuing to improve, availability of current jets is currently over 70% and appears to be trending upwards. 50% is a red herring.

[kimjongnumbaun]

If you multiply the number of aircraft for each LRIP by the availability for each LRIP you get around 50%.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... esters-say

"There has been no significant improvement in the F-35’s availability rates since October 2014, the report noted. The system-wide figure is approximately 50 percent, which is 10 percent below the "modest” 60 percent goal. Overall F-35 reliability “has changed little compared to July 2016,” according to the report. However, the later production lots are doing better."

This may mean that availability will always be better for Block 3F, or it may mean that availability is better for newer aircraft.

There are reports published on overall availability which I read some months ago, which confirms this.
I did not save a link though.

From the same article quoted:

F-35 Development, Availability and Reliability Problems Remain, Testers Say
by Chris Pocock - February 2, 2018

...

The company noted that “weapons system reliability continues to improve lot over lot and the LRIP 7 and newer jets are averaging greater than 60 percent availability and some operational squadrons are consistently at or above 70 percent availability.” The company confirmed that the upgraded diagnostics that form part of the Block 3F software will be retrofitted into earlier production aircraft. ”In partnership with the F-35 JPO, we are improving our spares modeling, OEM, and organic repair capability, and parts ordering which will improve the spares inventory and enhance overall readiness,” it added.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2018-02-02/f-35-development-availability-and-reliability-problems-remain-testers-say

The article seems to contradict itself: "there has been no significant improvement in availability rates since 2014" but then goes on to state that the latest jets are over 70% !?!

I haven't been reading of many problems with maintenance / availability rates of late in the press. If there were, the milpress would be screaming bloody murder about it.

Seems to me that availability for the latest 3F jets are all above 70% and the operational folks are happy. As has been noted, earlier LRIP lots have not been as reliable. But since when is it news that early production aircraft of any program are problem free?

So to pull 50% out of the hat of this story, and use it as proof that the "availability" of the F-35 fleetwide is poor, is disengenous. Reliability has been continuing to improve, availability of current jets is currently over 70% and appears to be trending upwards. 50% is a red herring.

You're wasting time on this fanboy. I've already stated the 3F blocks are showing 70% readiness rates, which is the final build. Earlier builds obviously have lower readiness rates since they have unique parts in them.

Unlike the F-35 Block 4, Gripen E did not become a project to resolve problems with

He clearly thinks that the Gripen E has no problems even though no information is released on its development on the same level as what the JPO makes public about the F-35. How he knows there are no development issues with the Gripen E makes me question how he is privy to such information. It also makes me wonder if the development is so flawless as he claims, what the hell has Saab been doing since 1980 to take 4 decades to make the Gripen E?

If he wants to hold on to that 50% blanket let him, he can be shocked when no one orders the Super Gripen.

[hornetfinn]

If an F-35 is as capable as 4 Gripen, but only manages to do 25% of the sorties of a Gripen, then they are equivalent.
That is why the sustained sortie rate of aircraft is of interest.

F-35A has already demonstrated sustained sortie rate of 2.0 with 2.5 hour average sortie length a day according to latest SAR. There is no way Gripen can do much better than that and definitely not eight 2.5 hour sorties...

Gripen is a nice jet, but it's nothing really special when it comes to sortie rate, sortie length or reliability. Turn-around time is good, but not that much faster than what F-16 or F/A-18C/D for example can do with equivalent weapons and fuel load. F-35 can carry a lot more weapons and fuel than any of these, so it might take a bit longer but sortie rate seems still be very good.

[mk82]

You clearly missed the point where I pointed out the latest production aircraft are block 3F standard and indicative of what to expect for fleetwide maintenance. This seems to be beyond your comprehension.

No, that is your interpretation of the numbers, yet to be proven.

Hmmmmmmm.....but you seem to understand that later builds/lots of the F35 have better availability rates. Going forward....it’s pretty obvious that the F35’s fleetwide availability rates will improve significantly over time as more later build/lot F35s join the F35 fleet (i.e. a greater proportion of the F35 fleet will be later build/lot F35s).

On another note, kimjongnumbaun’s graph showed the combined availability and mission capable rates of all F35 variants...with each variant having its unique foibles and challenges. The combined numbers for the later build/lot F35s are pretty reasonable in light of this fact.

[SpudmanWP]

The reason for bringing up F-35 Block 4 is because that is supposed to fix a number of known deficiencies where the F-35 does not meet the requirement spec. Several of the planned deliveries of Block 4 like collision avoidance and SDB II support is already available for Gripen.

The components of Blk4 that are "fixes" are <$5k as Block 4.1 is a software-only upgrade.

Btw, SDB2 just went IOC so Saab has not has the time or access to build in support yet. Gripen just got SDB in their "version 20" update 2 years ago. They may show it in pictures, but support for it does not exist.

[mk82]

Aprechelieu: “ The Gripen E is both a more advanced version of the Gripen, and a new implementation of the Gripen.”

Stop playing word games. It’s either one or the other PERIOD.

Aprechelieu: Unlike the F-35 Block 4, Gripen E did not become a project to resolve problems with
Guns not hitting the target (Suprisingly the gun pod for the B and C variants are doing quite well aiming/accuracy wise. The aiming for the A variant internal gun can definitely improve further (the gun itself definitely shoots straight))

Overheating problems (It’s not a problem in real world OPERATIONAL environments)

Fixing unanticipated cracks (Sure for the earlier build/lot F35s (one of the downsides of concurrency). But these fixes are not part of the Block 4 upgrade program. Get it right)

Achieving advertised service life (Been there......done that......bought the T shirt especially for the A and C variants. The F35 test beds/airframes which underwent fatigue testing definitely met (and possibly exceeded) airframe life requirements )

Breaking refuel probes ( A fix in progress but once again....not part of the Block 4 upgrade program)

[aprichelieu]

You clearly missed the point where I pointed out the latest production aircraft are block 3F standard and indicative of what to expect for fleetwide maintenance. This seems to be beyond your comprehension.

No, that is your interpretation of the numbers, yet to be proven.

Hmmmmmmm.....but you seem to understand that later builds/lots of the F35 have better availability rates. Going forward....it’s pretty obvious that the F35’s fleetwide availability rates will improve significantly over time as more later build/lot F35s join the F35 fleet (i.e. a greater proportion of the F35 fleet will be later build/lot F35s).

On another note, kimjongnumbaun’s graph showed the combined availability and mission capable rates of all F35 variants...with each variant having its unique foibles and challenges. The combined numbers for the later build/lot F35s are pretty reasonable in light of this fact.

The point is that the Block 3F aircraft are also fairly new aircraft, so You do not know if the 70% availability rate is due to the planes beeing new, or due to them beeing Block 3F.
Unless you have details about the reason for non availability, you can only attribute high availability of late LRIPs to Block 3F when they are as old as the early LRIPs are today.

[aprichelieu]

Aprechelieu: “ The Gripen E is both a more advanced version of the Gripen, and a new implementation of the Gripen.”

Stop playing word games. It’s either one or the other PERIOD.

Aprechelieu: Unlike the F-35 Block 4, Gripen E did not become a project to resolve problems with
Guns not hitting the target (Suprisingly the gun pod for the B and C variants are doing quite well aiming/accuracy wise. The aiming for the A variant internal gun can definitely improve further (the gun itself definitely shoots straight))

Overheating problems (It’s not a problem in real world OPERATIONAL environments)

Fixing unanticipated cracks (Sure for the earlier build/lot F35s (one of the downsides of concurrency). But these fixes are not part of the Block 4 upgrade program. Get it right)

Achieving advertised service life (Been there......done that......bought the T shirt especially for the A and C variants. The F35 test beds/airframes which underwent fatigue testing definitely met (and possibly exceeded) airframe life requirements )

Breaking refuel probes ( A fix in progress but once again....not part of the Block 4 upgrade program)

So is the Apple TV gen 4 not an advanced version of the Apple TV (compared to the gen 3)
Is the Apple TV gen 4 not a new implementation of the Apple TV?
Does the R&D cost of the Apple TV gen 4 include the R&D cost of the Apple TV gen 3?

[aprichelieu]

The reason for bringing up F-35 Block 4 is because that is supposed to fix a number of known deficiencies where the F-35 does not meet the requirement spec. Several of the planned deliveries of Block 4 like collision avoidance and SDB II support is already available for Gripen.

The components of Blk4 that are "fixes" are <$5k as Block 4.1 is a software-only upgrade.

Btw, SDB2 just went IOC so Saab has not has the time or access to build in support yet. Gripen just got SDB in their "version 20" update 2 years ago. They may show it in pictures, but support for it does not exist.

The estimated R&D cost of Block 4 is $4B which needs to be paid by someone.

[SpudmanWP]

There have been plenty of reports as to "why" the availability rates started low, but get better per LRIP.

1. ALIS version: A better ALIS version means better prediction and more importantly, planning so you have less unplanned maintenance.

2. Concurrency: Parts for older LRIPs are no longer produced in the numbers as compared to newer blocks. This means that older LRIPs are more subject to delays due to Depot issues.

3. Depot Stand-up: The DoD is 5+ years late to getting the Depots properly stood up. The primary reason for this is the budget sequestration & heavy use of "Continuing Resolutions" during the Obama admin. Lack of proper Depots contributes to the problem of #2 above.

4. Late to the Party: The end of SDD is 5+ years late so earlier blocks (and their parts planning) have suffered through having to last longer than planned.

The estimated R&D cost of Block 4 is $4B which needs to be paid by someone.

The "$4B" is the TOTAL for Block 4.1 and 4.2 to dev, buy, and install. Block 4.2 includes a "Tech Refresh3" (ie new hardware) to include:

Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) Design Competition, Development, Integration, and Test. This is the design phase of TR-3 program fully supports Block 3F functionality and allows incorporation of all Block 4 capabilities documented in the System Requirements Document (SRD). TR-3 hardware redesign is required to support 4X processing growth factor based on the current processing estimates for all 3F capabilities. Redesign of TR-3 subsystems Integrated Core Processor (ICP), Aircraft Memory System (AMS), and Panoramic Cockpit Display (PCD)) configurations will contain new backplane technology, commercial operating systems, and modified middleware necessary to take the design of the TR-3 System through Critical Design Review (CDR).

A new AdvEOTS is also in the works and Lot 15 will be getting a better & cheaper EODAS sensor.

None of that has anything to do with "fixing" Block 3F so it's no different than any other fighter block upgrade for any other country.