F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

aprichelieu

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 20 Apr 2011, 19:25
  • Location: Stockholm

Unread post13 Aug 2018, 18:25

SpudmanWP wrote: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.

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

:doh:

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.


An improved ALIS would obviously improve things.

Will Block 3F have reduced availability when production moves over to Block 4?
Why would Block 3F aircraft not upgraded to Block 4 not see the same problem as pre Block 3F sees today?
At least the UK are considering not upgrading existing aircraft to Block 4.

If the Depot problem is not solved, then of course availability for Block 3F will drop when the requirement for spares grow with age.

The TR-3 part of the Block 4 upgrade is similar to the Gripen MS20 update, but not to the Gripen E project.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8367
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post13 Aug 2018, 18:56

Will Block 3F have reduced availability when production moves over to Block 4?

No because the Depot issue will be resolved by then. Besides, the TR3 will not drop till ~2023. By then you will have 6+ years of Block 3F jets flying. That is a large parts pool.

Why would Block 3F aircraft not upgraded to Block 4 not see the same problem as pre Block 3F sees today?
At least the UK are considering not upgrading existing aircraft to Block 4.

All 3F jets will get to Block 4.x. The UK may delay that for budgetary reasons, but they will eventually get there. As I stated above, there will be a large parts pool to draw on for 3F.

If the Depot problem is not solved, then of course availability for Block 3F will drop when the requirement for spares grow with age.

That's a non-issue and is already being resolved (ie money in the budget to make it happen). It's a purely budgetary issue and not a technical one.

The TR-3 part of the Block 4 upgrade is similar to the Gripen MS20 update, but not to the Gripen E project.

I only referenced MS20 to point out that Saab just got around to SDB integration 2 years ago. There is no way that they already have SDB2 integration done as SDB2 just went IOC and no FMS contract announcements have been made of any SDB2s being sold to Sweden for integration.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

bumtish

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 378
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 15:59

Unread post13 Aug 2018, 21:00

Almost all pre 3F lots will be upgraded to 3F so there will be way more than 1000 F-35 at the 3F baseline by the time substantial block 4 upgrades will kick in.

Suggesting spares availability can be a problem for F-35 3F but not for Gripen E which has has ~100 orders on the book, not to mention Eurofighter with its three tranches and various block and national mods, is just off target.

Until recently Gripen in the Swedish Air Force has had a crappy availability rate. With ~11,000 hours per year from an active fleet of 80-100 Gripens, pilots have struggled to get their yearly 140 hours on the jet, due to severe spares shortage. I suspect Gripen has never achieved a fleet wide 70% availability...

Sweden doesn't use BAS90 war time distribution anymore as it was scrapped in the early 2000s. They use the same distribution strategies as other nations using other jet types-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_90
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 848
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 16:04

aprichelieu wrote: 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?


I can answer this very simply for you........the Gripen E has so many fundamental changes to its avionics, sensors, software and airframe (actual structural changes) in comparison to Gripen A-D that it is actually a new implementation of the Gripen......not just an advanced version of the Gripen (we are not comparing Gripen A and Gripen C here).

Also talking about actually comparing R and D costs apple to apple......come back to me when the Gripen E can also STOVL and take off + land on an aircraft carrier.
Offline

aprichelieu

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 20 Apr 2011, 19:25
  • Location: Stockholm

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 17:44

SpudmanWP wrote:
Will Block 3F have reduced availability when production moves over to Block 4?

No because the Depot issue will be resolved by then. Besides, the TR3 will not drop till ~2023. By then you will have 6+ years of Block 3F jets flying. That is a large parts pool.

Why would Block 3F aircraft not upgraded to Block 4 not see the same problem as pre Block 3F sees today?
At least the UK are considering not upgrading existing aircraft to Block 4.

All 3F jets will get to Block 4.x. The UK may delay that for budgetary reasons, but they will eventually get there. As I stated above, there will be a large parts pool to draw on for 3F.

If the Depot problem is not solved, then of course availability for Block 3F will drop when the requirement for spares grow with age.

That's a non-issue and is already being resolved (ie money in the budget to make it happen). It's a purely budgetary issue and not a technical one.

The TR-3 part of the Block 4 upgrade is similar to the Gripen MS20 update, but not to the Gripen E project.

I only referenced MS20 to point out that Saab just got around to SDB integration 2 years ago. There is no way that they already have SDB2 integration done as SDB2 just went IOC and no FMS contract announcements have been made of any SDB2s being sold to Sweden for integration.


On the SDB2, I did some further checking.

95EFA70A-DA6F-4748-928E-AAC9844EB995.jpeg


This picture indicates that the Gripen has SDB2 support, but it appears that this is just an artist impression.

I found another version of the same picture (Can’t find it right now) with text similar to this.

D76B7994-9CA0-4240-A33C-B950CE5B1262.jpeg
Last edited by aprichelieu on 14 Aug 2018, 19:01, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

aprichelieu

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 20 Apr 2011, 19:25
  • Location: Stockholm

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 18:10

mk82 wrote:
aprichelieu wrote: 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?


I can answer this very simply for you........the Gripen E has so many fundamental changes to its avionics, sensors, software and airframe (actual structural changes) in comparison to Gripen A-D that it is actually a new implementation of the Gripen......not just an advanced version of the Gripen (we are not comparing Gripen A and Gripen C here).

Also talking about actually comparing R and D costs apple to apple......come back to me when the Gripen E can also STOVL and take off + land on an aircraft carrier.


If it is a new implementation of Gripen, then I do not see why it should be burdened with the cost of the Gripen A-D development.

At the same time the Gripen E contract has clauses of expected performance relative to the Gripen A-D,
so either it will improve on those things, or SAAB will be in breach of contract.
Clauses include reduction in operating cost and improved RCS. The F414 has more power so I guess it inevitably has to consume more fuel.

Comparing R&D cost, I only pointed out that the Gripen E development cost per aircraft is so low that it is similar to the R&D cost of the F-35 even though there will be 30 x the orders. Obviously you can design more with $60B than with €2B.
The cost of developing Gripen M (if it ever comes to that) is unlikely to be similar to the cost of developing Gripen E, since a lot will be identical. Gripen E has a much higher potential to reduce the cost of development, since selling a hundred more is a much more likely prospect than selling 3000 more F-35s.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8367
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 18:13

I think that the picture also showing SPEAR (ie Spear 3) seals the deal that the graphic (just like the F-35's full weapon list) is just the plan and not what is actually done.

I see JASSM on the pic too and there is no trace of Saab or Sweden ever getting their hands on one.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

aprichelieu

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 20 Apr 2011, 19:25
  • Location: Stockholm

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 19:00

bumtish wrote:Almost all pre 3F lots will be upgraded to 3F so there will be way more than 1000 F-35 at the 3F baseline by the time substantial block 4 upgrades will kick in.

Suggesting spares availability can be a problem for F-35 3F but not for Gripen E which has has ~100 orders on the book, not to mention Eurofighter with its three tranches and various block and national mods, is just off target.

Until recently Gripen in the Swedish Air Force has had a crappy availability rate. With ~11,000 hours per year from an active fleet of 80-100 Gripens, pilots have struggled to get their yearly 140 hours on the jet, due to severe spares shortage. I suspect Gripen has never achieved a fleet wide 70% availability...

Sweden doesn't use BAS90 war time distribution anymore as it was scrapped in the early 2000s. They use the same distribution strategies as other nations using other jet types-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_90


There was a significant spare part problem 2014, when flight activity was increased as a result of the Crimea crisis.
Availability is not public, so it is hard to judge.
Hungary managed to do much better during their Baltic Air Policing.
https://dailynewshungary.com/hungarian- ... g-mission/

Even if BAS90 was dismantled, Gripen was built to support the distributed approach.
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 167
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 19:32

SpudmanWP wrote:I think that the picture also showing SPEAR (ie Spear 3) seals the deal that the graphic (just like the F-35's full weapon list) is just the plan and not what is actually done.

I see JASSM on the pic too and there is no trace of Saab or Sweden ever getting their hands on one.


You are being too generous, beyond JASSM, just at a glance the slide also shows Derby, Spice, MALD, Brimstone, and JSOW, none of which is there any record of being integrated on the JAS-39.

If I had to hazard a guess, the slide shows all the weapons that are presently integrated on the JAS-39C or could be integrated on the JAS-39 platform based on competitions they have been involved in. Essentially every weapon that will fit on a NATO compatible weapons station. Even then, since the prototype JAS-39Es just started flying, none of those weapons have completed integration on it yet.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5905
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 20:14

aprichelieu wrote:
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.



Your arguing semantics and changing definitions.AGAIN

If you want to include the cost of the original Hornet with the Super Hornet, by all means please do I don't care.

For the sake of clarity. Lets concede that if the name is kept like say Hornet /Super Hornet, and Gripen/Gripen NG they are related while ATF/JSF and F-22/F-35 and F119/F135 sure seem different... but thats just me. argue away


Dozens of Gripens in an area does a better job in that area than 100s of F-35s that are not in the area.


LOL wut? not only is that irrelevant its invented. The notion that you have to keep your airplanes "distributed" on a postage stamp vs "Not Distrusted" across an entire continent is rather silly. Ive never seen an airplane run into a line on map.

I can debate this ad Nausuem as well. Sweden acts like it invented taking the show on the local road, as a US Marine we do expeditionary warfare, and we do it on roads that are a lot less local and a lot more hostile, and BTW we do it better with no need for much road. I was attached to Harrier units, don't get it twisted.

And BTW we kept up on our operations even after the cold war ended. :wink: Sweden is hardly unique:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm8QKHy9B8k

https://youtu.be/_hgjY_za9vA?t=1m42s

Image

OMG improvised airfields! How Swedish!

Image

What kind of Gripen is this? ^

Image

What desert near Malmo is this?

Expeditionary and field ops have more to do with training and practice than they do with some super unique wonder airplane.(UNLESS IS A STOVL, BECAUSE LANDING LIKE A HELICOPTER IS PRETTY WONDROUS) One of the biggest things the Gripen is celebrated for is also the biggest deception. Sweden is not alone in using distributed ops by a long shot, and its absurd to act as though only the Gripen can do it. Not only can other aircraft do it, many can (And do) do it even better.

I always thought it was funny when people would use the time to reload a gripen and have it back into combat, left out the part where it has fewer pylons than an F-16, and they wouldn't tell us what it was loaded with. Of course eveyone knows too that when it comes to speed and turn around ground crew training is everything... well I thought everyone knew.

Its not new, or unique. The Gripen makes it slightly easier, but that comes at a cost of less capability. it is, afterall a light fighter.... or it was-- We know that the Gripen E weighs about as much as an F-16 does, but with less power. So it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the Gripen E will NOT have the same performance as a legacy Gripen when it comes to roadside operations. Gripen E missed its target weight by 1200 kilos.

Lastly and this is important. 100s of F-35s "not in the area" can be brought there via Aerial refueling (which the US/NATO has) and even wacky inventions like aircraft carriers. I'm speaking from experience here too: Its easier to fly airplanes hundreds of miles than move airbases hundreds of miles. The much easier way to do it is bring the airplane to the base, not the base to the airplane.

I don't think its particularly fair, in fact I would say its Bull puckey to declare that a nation with one base is invariably doomed by a sneak attack, but a nation with a half dozen distributed bases is not equally doomed by a sneak attack, provided the attacker isn't completely fooled, and seeing as even the dumbest fanboys on the internet know how Swedens CONOPs (or think they know anyway) that anyone sneak attacking does as well.

Even a nation with one airbase can train and practice taking their operations to roadside bases, and most nations, even the boring old USAF do exactly that. Nations like Israel, Finland, and others do it as a matter of natural survival. Ive never heard anyone say the Israelis don't have their house in order doing roadside ops with their F-16s, and theyll do them with F-35 as well if they aren't doing them already.

The only thing we are debating with a Gripen roadside op vs everybody elses is simple numbers. If a Gripen can stop in 1000 feet, vs an F-16s 1,500 feet vs a Harriers 0 feet. I would argue there isn't a whole helluva lot worth compromising so much on the Gripen to knock off a bunch of feet, but whatever. Its a point of Swedish pride now, so they won't be logical or reasonable or even comparative with it. Those US Marines, and their silly vertical landings in the middle of places thousands of miles from their home nation, while engaged in actual combat for months on end are nothing compared to landing on a local road in training!

Then comes fixing things on the road and I can tell you right now, its looking like its easier to service F-35Bs on the road (and thats the complex variant) than it is a Harrier II.

Image

Popping it out the back like an F-16 is vastly easier, and that engine carrier there made by Marand in Australia, also aligns the engine so sliding it back in, is a breeze. Compared to have to crane the wings off a HArrier and then Crane the engine out, this is much easier. The Liftfan upfront doesn't need very much service, but even then craning it out is much easier as it weighs significantly less than a Pegasus, and doesn't need nearly the same size crane.

Loading ordnance is also easier on F-35 compared to Harrier, as the conventional tricycle landing gear means balance isn't an issue. Now reloading internal weapons is obviously more tricky and more cramped, but its far easier to do that on a Roadside F-35 than say a pitching ship. A lot of Marines enjoy land based ops because they are easier than shipboard ops by a wide margin. But lets pretend they are super duper harder than Gator ships, or CVNs.

So anyway TL:DR? Its not at all a black and white case that a nation with one concrete base is invariably doomed while a decentralized air forces is invariably successful. There are dozens and dozens of factors involved and its hardly black and white. There is no rule that says the enemy is only allowed to attack to certain targets at certain times. hell the Israelis attacked dozens of bases in 1967, and not all in one country either.


Denmark and Norway are going for one airbase each, because of the high cost of an airbase capable of servicing the F-35.


PROVE IT. I would like dollar for dollar comparison. If F-35 bases are indeed more expensive, by how much exactly? I'm all ears.

I can tell you from experience its a lot of hard work, and it costs money to take the "show on the road" All that logistics from spare parts trucks to bulk fuel transport takes money. Other boring details like for example ordnance (LOL how silly to make your air force completely mobile, yet keep your bombs and AAMs in immobile bunkers??) , and keeping the crews fed and out of the elements. There are other boring things you don't think about as well-- Fixing airplanes outside at night? NOT FUN. Oh and BTW, while finding individual or small groups of aircraft can be very challenging, finding dozens of military vehicles in columns on roads during wartime? not nearly as hard.

I would also appreciate a comparison of the cost to do Gripen roadside operations on several spots-- in the interest of fairness and all.

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


Why are you comparing a block 4 vs a Gripen E when you a block for is an upgrade, yet you claim a Gripen E is wholly new?

And Gripen E become a project to address:

Lack of range
Lack of Ordnance
Lack of sensors
Lack of power
lack of relevance
Lack of government money going into state sponsored industry.

The Gripen was so terribly deficient in all of the above, and the airframe so tapped out that within 10 years of reaching service, they had to start an entire new program to improve it.

:doh: :doh:
Last edited by XanderCrews on 14 Aug 2018, 21:58, edited 10 times in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5905
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 20:24

aprichelieu wrote: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.


If no one knows why are you making declarative and decisive statements based on a lack of evidence??


aprichelieu wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote: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.


Ditto for Gripen E. if its all new, everything is a guess. We actually know far more about F-35s since theyve been produced in much larger numbers and are actually in service right?


I will say it one more time. Let me be clear:

Either the Gripen E is a whole new animal, with little to no relation to the Gripen save for the name and supeficial looks-- in which case we are still years away from flight testing and operational achievements and that is what you have been claiming


OR

The Gripen E is a related to the Gripen family, and all the previous Gripens achievements can be used as evidence and proof in this petty argument of ever shifting facts and word play.


But you don't get to call the Gripen E new and totally different, while still using numbers from an airplane you claim it has little relation to.


PICK ONE PLEASE. STOP Mixing and matching.
Choose Crews
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8367
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 20:41

XanderCrews wrote:We actually know far more about F-35s since they've already been produced in much larger numbers than Gripen E will EVER be and are actually in service right?


FIFY :mrgreen:
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5905
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 21:17

aprichelieu wrote:.

If it is a new implementation of Gripen, then I do not see why it should be burdened with the cost of the Gripen A-D development.


At the same time the Gripen E contract has clauses of expected performance relative to the Gripen A-D,
so either it will improve on those things, or SAAB will be in breach of contract.
Clauses include reduction in operating cost and improved RCS. The F414 has more power so I guess it inevitably has to consume more fuel.

Comparing R&D cost, I only pointed out that the Gripen E development cost per aircraft is so low that it is similar to the R&D cost of the F-35 even though there will be 30 x the orders. Obviously you can design more with $60B than with €2B.
The cost of developing Gripen M (if it ever comes to that) is unlikely to be similar to the cost of developing Gripen E, since a lot will be identical. Gripen E has a much higher potential to reduce the cost of development, since selling a hundred more is a much more likely prospect than selling 3000 more F-35s.


The entire argument is an apples to grapefruit comparison from the start :doh: and so obviously so that the only reason to even bring it up, is to be petty. IMHO.


You think a follow on design to a light fighter optimized for low cost with modest performance improvement and an already developed engine will cost less to develop than say

The largest defense program in history, A tri service 5th generation stealth aircraft with a dozen partners and vastly more challenging requirements that include landing vertically and landing on a CVN without compromising performance and maintains low maintenance costs, while simultaneously changing the entire logistics train??


No way?!

You might as well compare Gripen to C-130. its silly, even some Gripen fans concede this stuff is silly but there is always some fool who will try and ice skate uphill.

aprichelieu wrote:On the SDB2, I did some further checking.

95EFA70A-DA6F-4748-928E-AAC9844EB995.jpeg


This picture indicates that the Gripen has SDB2 support, but it appears that this is just an artist impression.

I found another version of the same picture (Can’t find it right now) with text similar to this.

D76B7994-9CA0-4240-A33C-B950CE5B1262.jpeg



Oh wow the shiny pamphlet doesn't hold up to real life? Let me sit down, I suddenly feel faint. This is such a surprise... :roll:
Choose Crews
Offline

aprichelieu

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 20 Apr 2011, 19:25
  • Location: Stockholm

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 22:07

XanderCrews wrote:
aprichelieu wrote:
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.



Your arguing semantics and changing definitions.AGAIN

If you want to include the cost of the original Hornet with the Super Hornet, by all means please do I don't care.

For the sake of clarity. Lets concede that if the name is kept like say Hornet /Super Hornet, and Gripen/Gripen NG they are related while ATF/JSF and F-22/F-35 and F119/F135 sure seem different... but thats just me. argue away


Dozens of Gripens in an area does a better job in that area than 100s of F-35s that are not in the area.


LOL wut? not only is that irrelevant its invented. The notion that you have to keep your airplanes "distributed" on a postage stamp vs "Not Distrusted" across an entire continent is rather silly. Ive never seen an airplane run into a line on map.

I can debate this ad Nausuem as well. Sweden acts like it invented taking the show on the local road, as a US Marine we do expeditionary warfare, and we do it on roads that are a lot less local and a lot more hostile, and BTW we do it better with no need for much road. I was attached to Harrier units, don't get it twisted.

And BTW we kept up on our operations even after the cold war ended. :wink: Sweden is hardly unique:

...

Expeditionary and field ops have more to do with training and practice than they do with some super unique wonder airplane.(UNLESS IS A STOVL, BECAUSE LANDING LIKE A HELICOPTER IS PRETTY WONDROUS) One of the biggest things the Gripen is celebrated for is also the biggest deception. Sweden is not alone in using distributed ops by a long shot, and its absurd to act as though only the Gripen can do it. Not only can other aircraft do it, many can (And do) do it even better.

I always thought it was funny when people would use the time to reload a gripen and have it back into combat, left out the part where it has fewer pylons than an F-16, and they wouldn't tell us what it was loaded with. Of course eveyone knows too that when it comes to speed and turn around ground crew training is everything... well I thought everyone knew.

Its not new, or unique. The Gripen makes it slightly easier, but that comes at a cost of less capability. it is, afterall a light fighter.... or it was-- We know that the Gripen E weighs about as much as an F-16 does, but with less power. So it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the Gripen E will NOT have the same performance as a legacy Gripen when it comes to roadside operations. Gripen E missed its target weight by 1200 kilos.

Lastly and this is important. 100s of F-35s "not in the area" can be brought there via Aerial refueling (which the US/NATO has) and even wacky inventions like aircraft carriers. I'm speaking from experience here too: Its easier to fly airplanes hundreds of miles than move airbases hundreds of miles. The much easier way to do it is bring the airplane to the base, not the base to the airplane.

I don't think its particularly fair, in fact I would say its Bull puckey to declare that a nation with one base is invariably doomed by a sneak attack, but a nation with a half dozen distributed bases is not equally doomed by a sneak attack, provided the attacker isn't completely fooled, and seeing as even the dumbest fanboys on the internet know how Swedens CONOPs (or think they know anyway) that anyone sneak attacking does as well.

Even a nation with one airbase can train and practice taking their operations to roadside bases, and most nations, even the boring old USAF do exactly that. Nations like Israel, Finland, and others do it as a matter of natural survival. Ive never heard anyone say the Israelis don't have their house in order doing roadside ops with their F-16s, and theyll do them with F-35 as well if they aren't doing them already.

The only thing we are debating with a Gripen roadside op vs everybody elses is simple numbers. If a Gripen can stop in 1000 feet, vs an F-16s 1,500 feet vs a Harriers 0 feet. I would argue there isn't a whole helluva lot worth compromising so much on the Gripen to knock off a bunch of feet, but whatever. Its a point of Swedish pride now, so they won't be logical or reasonable or even comparative with it. Those US Marines, and their silly vertical landings in the middle of places thousands of miles from their home nation, while engaged in actual combat for months on end are nothing compared to landing on a local road in training!

Then comes fixing things on the road and I can tell you right now, its looking like its easier to service F-35Bs on the road (and thats the complex variant) than it is a Harrier II.

...

Popping it out the back like an F-16 is vastly easier, and that engine carrier there made by Marand in Australia, also aligns the engine so sliding it back in, is a breeze.


Denmark and Norway are going for one airbase each, because of the high cost of an airbase capable of servicing the F-35.


PROVE IT. I would like dollar for dollar comparison. If F-35 bases are indeed more expensive, by how much exactly? I'm all ears. I can tell you from experience its a lot of hard work, and it costs money to take the "show on the road" All that logistics from spare parts trucks to bulk fuel transport takes money. Other boring details like for example ordnance (LOL how silly to make your air force completely mobile, yet keep your bombs and AAMs in immobile bunkers...) , and keeping the crews fed and out of the elements. There are other boring things you don't think about as well-- Fixing airplanes outside at night? NOT FUN. Oh and BTW, while finding individual or small groups of aircraft can be very challenging, finding dozens of military vehicles in columns on roads during wartime? not nearly as hard.

I would also appreciate a comparison of the cost to do Gripen roadside operations on several spots-- in the interest of fairness and all.

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


Why are you comparing a block 4 vs a Gripen E when you a block for is an upgrade, yet you claim a Gripen E is wholly new?

And Gripen E become a project to address:

Lack of range
Lack of Ordnance
Lack of sensors
Lack of power
lack of relevance
Lack of government money going into state sponsored industry.

The Gripen was so terribly deficient in all of the above, and the airframe so tapped out that within 10 years of reaching service, they had to start an entire new program to improve it.

:doh: :doh:


Good luck with that ”hundreds of miles”. Even more luck trying to operate Norwegian F-35As from aircraft carriers.
The F-35s will have to fly around three hours just to get there. That is pretty quick reaction time, don’t you think?

C6E394DB-1B3A-4887-BCDE-06F67F662FD3.png


Changing the name makes something totally different?
The GE F404 is totally unrelated to the RM12 engine according to your reasoning.

I do not claim that the Block 4 upgrade is the same as the Gripen E design.
I claim that anyone that buys a Block 3F aircraft would want to upgrade to Block 4 because it will fix a number of deficiencies, (as well as capability upgrades) but since the UK is considering not to upgrade due to the expense, they do not expect that to be cheap. There are comments here saying that everyone will do the upgrade.
This means that saying that the F-35 will cost $80M is not taking into account the cost of the Block 4 upgrade.

And no, Sweden did not invent operating from roads, the Germans did.
Anyone can operate from a straight road in the middle of the desert if the road is long enough.
The big difference is the baggage train needed to support such operations.

Gripen is designed to be serviced by a few conscripts and one regular with equipment loaded on a few trucks.
If you bring in the equivalent of a full airbase, then of course you can operate from roads.

That conscripts can turn around airplanes faster than regulars tells you that the crew is not everything.
An optimized process is the key. A good crew will improve things, but will not succeed if they have to follow a bad process.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8367
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 22:27

The "deficiencies" with Block 3F are being addressed in the Bi-Annual C2D2 updates. They are not waiting for Block 4.1 to fix them.

When Block 4.1 arrives, it's basically a freebie since it's total cost should be about $10k per jet thanks to being all software. That, and throw UAI (Which Gripen will likely never get) which gives it the ability (and cost /time savings) to add a host of weapons without going through multi-year (and $10s of millions) of integration costs.

Btw, the F-35A can use a chute and has a hook so short field ops are doable.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests