F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

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

linkomart

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:30
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post31 Jan 2020, 07:51

ricnunes wrote:Well, I would say that there's always solutions to move things "out of the way". For example, regarding the main landing gear you can move it to the wing root. This was the solution found for the F-35. And curiously this was also the solution found for the Gripen E as well but in this case not the add weapons bays but instead to add extra fuel tanks in the fuselage. :wink:

They are still aroud the centre of gravity, in the area with the max cross section.
(The reason to put the landing gear further out on the Gripen was (among others) to get more pylons under the centre fuselage. The space inside fuselage was used for fuel. The max cross section area increased, but not as much as without the rearrangement.

ricnunes wrote:I hope that I'm not being annoying but I continue to insist that aircraft designed with internal weapons bays aren't or don't need to be limited in terms of speed compared to aircraft that only carries external weapons. And as an example of this, we have the fastest fighter/interceptor aircraft ever built (although it never passed the prototype stage) which was the YF-12 and which of course carried its weapons internally:

Image

You are not annoying, I don't mind. At M=3 the temperature is probably troublesome for external load, so yes Internal will probably be easier. I did read somewhere that F-35 had trouble with the temperature inside the Weapon bay so the problem is not trivial, (viewtopic.php?f=60&t=52580).
YF-12 had the weapons in front of CoG wich doesn't add max area. That is possible with such a large aircraft were the payload weight is small compared to the trimming moment.

ricnunes wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order for the Gripen to have twice the thrust or resuming the same/similar engine as the F-35 then it would have to be enlarged (with its cross section enlarged) due to the much larger engine (more powerful engine means bigger/larger engine) which means that the aircraft's drag and weight penalties would increase similar to if you added a weapons bay instead.


Correct, the bigger engine would need a bigger airduct. But Airduct area (more correct, Capture area) is subtracted from the cross section area since that air is not affecting drag. And yes, A bigger engine would mean that the weight would go up, the structure would need to be beefier (probably or much heavier), and that would add to total cross section. Still I think it would be alot more slender than the F-35, and capable of the speeds suggested.

Edit:
All this said, Even if the drag PROBABLY is smaller without weaponbays, there are a lot of other reasons to use them. Signature being the most prominent.

my 5 cent
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 886
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post31 Jan 2020, 08:09

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Garrya,
The F-16 can carry two AIM-120s and two Mk-84s that speed. For how far? And for how close to the target before getting shot down? And how many sorties are you wanting to do in order to actually hit the target?
You answered ricrunes correctly, but ricrunes phrased it wrong. What 4th gen aircraft can carry two AMRAAMS, two one-ton PGMs, targeting equipment, ECM, and maintain a fuel fraction above 0.3 (0.34 for the F-35A).
Two AIM-120 are 0 DI and 682lb, okay.
Lets use the GBU-10B as our GBU-31 stand-in at 2052lb and DI 15 (lets even split the difference in drag from a Mk-84 AIR at 10, lets call it 12 for the GBU-31)

4,786lb of munitions and DI of 24.

Suspension equipment for the bombs weighs 281lb and DI 15 each.

Now the basic configuration is 5,348lb and DI 54

We need to target these things. Throw that LANTIRN on. 553lb DI 19 for the targeting pod only, which also needs a pylon of 42lb and DI 3.

Now the configuration is 5,943lb and DI 76.


32,910lb and DI 105, fuel fraction 0.218.

Now, the F-16 is incredibly efficient and powerful, so lets look at this configuration. Standard day Sea Level no wind
329
Ground time, 15 min at 25ppm, 375lb fuel used.
Take-off, Mil and Mil accel to Mil climb. 275lb fuel burned, 7nm covered
Climb to Opt Alt of 35k takes another 900lb and covers 55nm.

Top of climb weight 31,360lb, DI 105, 62nm covered.

Now we jump to the end of the flight. Assume bombs are dropped, DI drops to 81. Reserves are ~900lb. Landing weight expected to be not less than 22,544. Max range descent from ~41kft (approx opt cruise for 24klb DI between 100 and 50) uses 240lb covering 75nm, so Top of Decent weight should be 22,784lb. As descent range is slightly above climb range we will use 62nm from base as cruise portion beginning and ending.

So, looking at 31,360lb DI 105 and 22784lb DI 81 I see specific fuel flows of 0.14 and 0.195. As a first order WAG I will average those. 0.1825nm/lb. As there is an absolute maximum of 4,472lb of fuel available for cruise, that yields a maximum flight range range of 816nm. Lets call it 800nm to account for doing a few efficient circles to drop the bombs. half that for 400nm radius, add the climb, 462nm radius.

"Spurts, we aren't talking about range, we are talking about speed" I know, I know. I'm getting there.

So here we have the CLEANEST configuration for an F-16 that matches the (non VLO and less capable EW) abilities of the F-35. DI 100 top speed is.... 1.77M. Lantirn limit is 1.7M.

"Hey, that's still faster than 1.6M!" Yep. DI 100 cruises at 0.85Mach. Due to the acceleration charts available, I will measure acceleration from .85M to 1.6M at 35,000ft from top of climb. It takes 192seconds to cover 40nm and burns 1,870lb of fuel.

It burns 42% of your available cruise fuel to make that dash. This is why EFTs are carried. EFTs increase DI to 175. Kiss top speed goodbye. Drop the tanks to dash while keeping the bombs? Sure, I guess. You probably still had fuel in them. plus at ~$35,000 each you just dropped enough money to provide 70,000lb of fuel (assuming $1/lb for JP-8, ~$0.77/lb for Jet-A nearby)

Everything is a compromise. That the F-35 can carry two large PGMs in a configuration that can go either 600++nm OR 1.6M, and Maybe both (just a dash, I am NOT advocating 1.6M for hundreds of miles) and the non-munitions cost is a mere $18,500 (see fuel cost assumption). The F-16 can go far for $12,000, or it can go fast for $7,000, but to do both will cost $82,000.

I know F-35 in that configuration will have better range and better VLO characteristic than F-16 however I wanted to illustrate that there are many fighter that can carry 2x 2000 lbs bomb and 2xAMRAAM and reach Mach1.6
F-16 can do that then IMHO, Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, Mig-31, Rafale, Typhoon should all able achieve the same feast



sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:SAMs in the area, better take the ALQ pod. 471lb DI 18 and pylon 217 DI 110.1

IIRC, there are various F-16 version with internal jammer such as Turkey F-16 block 50C with ALQ-178 (v5), Turkish, Pakistani, Omani and Chilean F-16 block 50 with AN/ALQ-211 v4 AIDEWS, United Arab Emirates F-16 block 60 with Falcon edge, Greek F-16 block 52M with ASPIS II (ALQ-187 I-DIAS ), Denmark F-16 MLU with ECIPS pylon. You got the point, and Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale also have internal jammer. Thus, I think it is reasonable to assume the competitor won't need to carry a jammer pod.

ASPIS II.PNG

ALQ-178v5.PNG

ALq-211 internal.PNG

Falcon edge EW.PNG

ECIPS.PNG


https://www.aselsan.com.tr/SPEWSII_EW_S ... e_2448.pdf
https://defense-update.com/20120912_aidews_fac.html
https://aviationphotodigest.com/haf-115-combat-wing/
https://www.flightglobal.com/dubai-2003 ... 26.article
https://www.terma.com/media/456885/ecips_cjs_letter.pdf
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4931
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post31 Jan 2020, 16:51

Garrya,
I will defer to you on that. Your time researching ECM/ECCM outstrips mine. In fact, 80% of what I know comes from your blog and I didn't even absorb half of it. I appreciate you reminding me of the advancement of the internal ECM kits, even if it takes an F-35 to make a wormhole.

I was mostly highlighting that ricrunes posed the wrong scenario. It isn't "What 4th gen can carry two one ton bombs to 1.6M?" , because as you showed that is not particularly hard, it should be "What 4th Gen can carry two one ton precision munitions, complete with targeting and self protection equipment, out to 1.6M while maintaining enough fuel to still execute a mission of XXX radius.

An F-16 with CFTs, like a "V" standard, sounds like a best bet. Again, the big liming factor here is the Mach limit of the payloads for the air frame, not necessarily drag. See the F-15 being limited to 1.4M when it has the thrust to go much much faster and the fuel to do it too.

Time and distance are factors too. Why are you accelerating to 1.6+M? A threat? Does that threat allow for going in a straight line for three minutes? Do you have 50-70nm available to get up to that speed? So often people are thinking about fuel (even myself) that we ignore the other two big factors. Is the pilot speeding up to take a missile shot? They probably only have 30-45seconds or 5-10 miles before they actually need to take the shot.

Now, lets have a general discussion about A-G munitions.

In my missile simulator I modeled a GBU-31. A drop from 35,000ft and 0.82M (F-16 max range profile 472KTAS) can reach a theoretical 27nm based on my model. It will take over 4 minutes to get there and assumes the JDAM can fly as slow as 0.3 Mach (speed it has at the end). Actual minimum speed won't matter much, the trend will be the same. The F-35 in full warkit cruises 10-15,000ft higher and 50-80 knots faster. let's look at 45,000 at 522KTAS (0.91M) and 50,000 at 552KTAS (0.96M). And lets look at the difference in time/speed of the 27nm shot AND the new "max range"

The less energetic profile for the F-35 results in the 27nm shot taking a hair over 3 minutes and a minimum speed of 0.71M. New max range is 34nm in ~4.5min.

The more energetic profile results in the 27nm shot taking 3 minutes and a minimum speed on 0.79M. New max range is 37nm in just under 5min.

Let's say an F-35 needs to really get a max range shot. The pilot pumps to 1.6M and rides that up to 50,000ft, releasing the JDAM in a 30 degree climb before pulling away and descending.

... with a .1s time step my simulation only goes to 300s which is a 47.5nm shot but it still has a speed of 0.6M. if I change my time step to .2s I get a max range of 59nm. Well that was a fun thought experiment.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post31 Jan 2020, 20:31

An F-22 did a Mach 1.5 50kft JDAM release at 24nm, are you saying that it could have done over double that range ?

http://www.f-16.net/f-22-news-article1840.html
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4931
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post31 Jan 2020, 21:13

according to my model, which may not be accurate as to the minimum glide speed of JDAM. The bigger take away is the relative range increase by going higher and faster.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post31 Jan 2020, 21:42

FWIW, the USAF give the maximum (subsonic ?) range of the JDAM as 15 miles.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... bu-313238/
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4931
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post31 Jan 2020, 22:00

interesting. My model shows a 35,000ft 0.82M drop to a 15nm target takes 104 seconds with an average speed of 0.90M. The article mentions "If GPS data is denied, the JDAM will achieve a 30-meter CEP or less for free flight times up to 100 seconds with a GPS quality handoff from the aircraft."

So maybe 100s is the maximum powered time for the munition.

The 50,000ft 1.5M 24nm range drop from the F-22, my sim shows 118s. We might be on to something here. Speeds are high too.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post31 Jan 2020, 22:32

Why would 100s be the restriction on an unpowered free fall weapon ? What would determine that ? Is it a question that beyond that, accuracy would degrade and so is not permitted by the targeting system ?
Offline
User avatar

lukfi

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2020, 19:41
  • Location: LKKB

Unread post31 Jan 2020, 22:37

XanderCrews wrote:If I'm remembering correctly a lot of "surplus" Gripens were availiable for sale or lease for example.

one of those reasons is I assume theres a lot of cannibalizing going on. Youre also comparing now as you say drastically reduced flight hours. in the case of Gripen original, you had large fleets of airplanes that were then reduced and thus freeing spares up

I wouldn't be so sure about that. SAAF explicitly stated they are rotating all of their 26 Gripens in service. They fly all of them, just not too much. Czechs keep all of the 14 Gripens operational, none is used as a non-flying organ donor. Sweden may be a different story, but even there, some of the Gripens in storage are considered strategic reserve and it wouldn't do you much good to have a cannibalized husk for a reserve. Plus, self sufficiency in defense being a political matter for them, they are probably taking steps to ensure spare parts don't run out.
I did see a YouTube video from "Wings over the Rockies" saying that the USAF has contacted them to ask if their museum exhibit B-1A has a part they need for the operational fleet. So yes, it could be an issue if the plane has been out of production for a long time. Which the Gripen C hasn't been as of now.
The F-35 will also require less flight hours to achieve pilot competency than a Gripen thanks to its automatic flight control system allowing for far more simulator hours in the training mix.

I don't understand why any feature of the plane would mean the pilot can fly less and train on a simulator more to achieve the same skill.
Theres more to life than fuel costs as well. we seem to disagree on this. in a lot of cases the costs youre putting out for Gripen C with south africa for example, won't even cover fuel costs! which is why I'm suspicious of such claims.

In other words, you don't believe that SAAF, who is flying actual planes, was not telling the truth when they said exactly how much the Gripen costs in fuel? And instead you trust the Swiss estimate? I know that's not everything but fuel should cost more or less the same all around the world, as opposed to labor which is probably more expensive in Switzerland than anywhere else, and fuel was something we could directly compare between SAAF information and the Swiss Gripen E calculation.
They aren't going to have Swedish Gripens doing long range deep strike, while the aussies F-111Cs (RIP) do air policing.

But that's fair, no? Gripen was not designed to be a long range strike bomber. And sure, in training exercises you can have simulated dogfights where the one with less fuel will have to disengage sooner. But would such dogfights happen in a real world conflict? As I already mentioned, the F-35 will supposedly hit you with missiles before you even know it's there.

gta4 wrote:Sorry to blow up Mig's fanboys' bubble

I've read a comparison between the MiG-29 and F-16 by a German pilot (I think) and he too was very critical of the MiG. The Polish can also directly compare the two, so if the MiG is so bad, why is Poland keeping them operational for so long?

Thank you @XanderCrews for the 12-year old article, it was an interesting read. But whether the rumor about applying political pressure is true or not, the article does not say. If there's any truth to it, it looks like the Norwegians had to go to extra lengths to explain why they chose the F-35 over the Gripen, and it boiled down to politics.
ricnunes wrote:And on top of all that and due to the F-35 being far more capable (stealth with more advanced sensors/avionics and as such more survivable, carrying more weapons, having far more range, etc...) a mission that for example requires 12 (twelve) Gripen E's will only require 4 or less F-35's. What does this mean?
It means that even if metrics such as CPFHs could somehow benefit the Gripen E, the REAL operational cost will be far less with the F-35 (compared to a Gripen E fleet) due to the need to having the need to use far less aircraft for a certain missions or roles.

That is of course another aspect of the CPFH. If both cost the same to buy and to fly it would be no contest. In case Gripen is less capable but also cheaper, it would make sense only for small air forces where you don't want to go under a certain number of aircraft. Bulgaria is getting just 8 F-16s and I doubt they would like to replace them with 3 F-35s, however more capable it may be. I may re-visit the "small air force" topic later.
XanderCrews wrote:https://fas.org/man/eprint/F-35-SAR-2018.pdf

Thanks but while the document seems to be from 2018 the numbers are from 2012/2013 (?). I'm still leaning towards trusting numbers published in 2019 referring to 2018 operations.
charlielima223 wrote:What always interested me about the Swedish designs were their expeditionary operating requirements.

Sweden has no requirement for expeditionary operations as they do not intend to attack anyone. They do have a requirement for improvised airbase operations which makes the planes easier to deploy abroad but that's more of a side effect.
madrat wrote:39 Echo. Only babies and trolls call it Gripen. hehe

I've heard something of the sort, but in Czech Republic, the one and only "39" is the L-39 and so the JAS-39 which came decades later is simply called a Gripen.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4931
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post31 Jan 2020, 22:47

marsavian wrote:Why would 100s be the restriction on an unpowered free fall weapon ? What would determine that ? Is it a question that beyond that, accuracy would degrade and so is not permitted by the targeting system ?

electrical power limits. It could be an INS drift limit.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3602
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post31 Jan 2020, 22:55

marsavian wrote:Why would 100s be the restriction on an unpowered free fall weapon ? What would determine that ? Is it a question that beyond that, accuracy would degrade and so is not permitted by the targeting system ?

That's if GPS is denied. It's due to INS accuracy limits.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6449
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post01 Feb 2020, 16:44

lukfi wrote: Sweden may be a different story, but even there, some of the Gripens in storage are considered strategic reserve and it wouldn't do you much good to have a cannibalized husk for a reserve.


really? thats the way the US does it.

even in active squadrons not every aircraft is "up" all the time. one of my buddies just sent me footage of them getting a CH-53E up after 4 months in a hanger.

Plus, self sufficiency in defense being a political matter for them, they are probably taking steps to ensure spare parts don't run out.


yep, just throw money at it.

I don't understand why any feature of the plane would mean the pilot can fly less and train on a simulator more to achieve the same skill.


Then you don't understand.

In other words, you don't believe that SAAF, who is flying actual planes, was not telling the truth when they said exactly how much the Gripen costs in fuel? And instead you trust the Swiss estimate?


Yes Lufki, thats right. I DON'T Believe it. because the numbers are literally UNBELIEVABLE. When I was doing Helicopter contracting for the US Gov our hourly rate in the year 2001 for a single engine Huey was over $10,000 CPFH. everything we know about fuel consts also says its not worth believing.

More on this below.

once again Gripen C is not Gripen E.

I know that's not everything but fuel should cost more or less the same all around the world, as opposed to labor which is probably more expensive in Switzerland than anywhere else, and fuel was something we could directly compare between SAAF information and the Swiss Gripen E calculation.


Feel free to provide us with OFFICIAL numbers, ive provided that courtesy to you after all, and you decided not to believe it either.

This double standard sure is interesting.


But that's fair, no? Gripen was not designed to be a long range strike bomber. And sure, in training exercises you can have simulated dogfights where the one with less fuel will have to disengage sooner. But would such dogfights happen in a real world conflict? As I already mentioned, the F-35 will supposedly hit you with missiles before you even know it's there.


the point being people act like the Gripen is some Amazing wunderkind at red flag, and they give it easier missions while the big boys do the harder stuff.

Whats more pathetic is the Swedes seem to think thats the hard stuff and brag all over the globe :doh: or more accurately Saab brags. (I always laugh when people paint them as some kind of quiet humble dynamos LOL)

Thank you @XanderCrews for the 12-year old article, it was an interesting read. But whether the rumor about applying political pressure is true or not, the article does not say. If there's any truth to it, it looks like the Norwegians had to go to extra lengths to explain why they chose the F-35 over the Gripen, and it boiled down to politics.


what "extra lengths " ??? you blather on and on about lifetime operational costs of Gripens, well Norway looked into operational lifetime costs LOL Did norway actually do their homework? like everyone says they did not since it was so "rigged"?

they quickly found the Gripen NG wasn't a savings-- amazing!! its like what we have been saying the whole time.

My favorite part re-reading it, was the accurate prediction of the Gripen NG sales number. Norway the Nostradamus. How did they know it wouldn't sell?? Its almost like Norway knows what they are doing.


That is of course another aspect of the CPFH. If both cost the same to buy and to fly it would be no contest. In case Gripen is less capable but also cheaper, it would make sense only for small air forces where you don't want to go under a certain number of aircraft. Bulgaria is getting just 8 F-16s and I doubt they would like to replace them with 3 F-35s, however more capable it may be. I may re-visit the "small air force" topic later.


they probably wouldn't prefer just 2 Gripen Es either :devil: (F-35A costs less afterall)

Theres a couple other aspects. I've never seen the promised dramatically larger sized air forces supposedly allowed with Gripen. I'm always told by its fan it cost so much less so you buy more, and then people never buy "more"

Lastly if you're looking at say Canada, like a lot of countries they've set out the number of fighters they plan on buying. This is instantly detrimental to the Gripen sales pitch of "just buy more!!"



Thanks but while the document seems to be from 2018 the numbers are from 2012/2013 (?). I'm still leaning towards trusting numbers published in 2019 referring to 2018 operations.


"Thanks but I'm not going to trust the official US government numbers you gave me. I read something on the internet once about SAAF gripens though, and despite the fact that the Gripen E and Original Gripen share nothing in common, and that the Swiss are somehow stupid, I'll just believe whatever I want really"

There is no correlation between Original Gripen cost numbers and the Gripen E. I'm betting even Loke would agree with this and other Gripen fans would too. Even people are fans of the gripen on other forums have admitted more than a few times that the publicly shared numbers are not accurate. Thats really not that hard to imagine, as I've said we can't run civlian helicopters and lear jets at the costs some Gripen operators claim.

Those numbers are made for civilians who don't know better. Allow me to explain:

You, as a public individual are not party to real performance data for the Gripen. Saab could release that, but its in the company's best interest to overstate its performance in the public sphere. theres even an instance in Canadian parliament where Saab representatives lied, or completely misstated the costs of operating the Gripen NG. Why? They have nothing to lose. The parliamentary testimony is not legally binding: they can't be held to account. By understating the costs they are attempting to throw doubt into the Canadian decision to purchase the F-35, and give their aircraft a chance to compete.

It is in that competition process that Gripen must provide legally binding information; that's called for in Canadian law. This is a microcosm of the situation in the broader public sphere. Saab is the master of providing misleading performance statistics for their aircraft: its not like any purchasing state will use them to make an selection. Rather, they would have a proper competition that required legally binding data in order to assess these aircraft. When actual third party authorities evaluate the Gripen they find much more humble performance figures, and much higher costs. That was the case with the Swiss, where you saw estimated CPFH significantly higher than $5,000 per hour, and performance that was pretty much in line with most other aircraft.

Nevertheless, offering highly inflated data publicly suits Saab's purposes in marketing and selling the Gripen. Its intended to push the public and perhaps less informed or rigorous public officials to make snap political decisions on aircraft. Its not accurate, but neither does it have to be. In reality it gives people like you the sense that this aircraft is a good one that isn't being fairly treated which is part of the aircraft's mystique / selling point.

The difference between Saab and the F-35 is that the latter is a DoD program: it is subject to legal requirements to provide accurate figures to oversights authorities. One such law is U.S. Code Title 10 § 2432, which forces DOD to report publicly how a project is doing against its assessed performance criteria in the form of Selected Acquisition Reports. There are other oversight bodies, like the DOT&E and others. Consequently there is little room for Lockheed Martin to oversell the aircraft in the public, because the data is all publicly available by a third party assessor (DoD, Congress, GAO.)

To bring this all together, you're looking at this from one perspective: the one of a public individual thinking that everything out there is basically accurate and fair information

I provided numbers from official reports, yes. It makes a difference
Choose Crews
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 646
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post01 Feb 2020, 18:35

XanderCrews wrote:
lukfi wrote:In other words, you don't believe that SAAF, who is flying actual planes, was not telling the truth when they said exactly how much the Gripen costs in fuel? And instead you trust the Swiss estimate?


Yes Lufki, thats right. I DON'T Believe it. because the numbers are literally UNBELIEVABLE. When I was doing Helicopter contracting for the US Gov our hourly rate in the year 2001 for a single engine Huey was over $10,000 CPFH. everything we know about fuel consts also says its not worth believing.

Finnish HX project leader had this to say about them:
Publicly available cost of flight hours are not comparable and therefore not useful, for example, to support project decision making. It may not be credible if the hourly rates of a modern multi-purpose fighter aircraft are lower than the Hawk jet trainer. In Finland, the cost of a flight hour covers everything from the Air Force commander's salary and the maintenance of an air base to aircraft technician tools and jet fuel.

https://www.defmin.fi/puolustushallinto ... .9861.blog

He was more than likely referring to Gripen, which is the only one that has suspiciously low quotes out in the open.

No-one probably doubts that it eats the least gas due to being clearly the smallest. But that doesn't begin to cover the whole cost of using the jet. Beyond the cost there's also cost/performance to consider, and ultimately extending that performance consideration to evaluating potential attrition compared to its peers. So in certain cases it might require more missions or alternatively more frames/pilots etc. to achieve the same effect, which is more risk etc. The HX project also has a quote for that. They suggested that a lower performing jet could require a better (ie more expensive) missile to achieve the same result.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6449
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post01 Feb 2020, 21:57

magitsu wrote: It may not be credible if the hourly rates of a modern multi-purpose fighter aircraft are lower than the Hawk jet trainer.


Image
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

lukfi

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2020, 19:41
  • Location: LKKB

Unread post01 Feb 2020, 22:31

XanderCrews wrote:even in active squadrons not every aircraft is "up" all the time. one of my buddies just sent me footage of them getting a CH-53E up after 4 months in a hanger.

Yes, of course, you have some maintenance capacity so you schedule major work in a way that the technicians are always working on one plane, and in addition to that something might break on one of the planes that are flying. And while you're waiting for a replacement to arrive you might use take the part from the plane you're working on so the other one can be repaired quickly. But I don't think you routinely sit one plane at the back of the hangar and cannibalize it for parts.
Yes Lufki, thats right. I DON'T Believe it. because the numbers are literally UNBELIEVABLE. When I was doing Helicopter contracting for the US Gov our hourly rate in the year 2001 for a single engine Huey was over $10,000 CPFH. everything we know about fuel consts also says its not worth believing.
once again Gripen C is not Gripen E.

(By the way I'd appreciate it if you stopped misspelling my name)
There is no correlation between Original Gripen cost numbers and the Gripen E.

There is at least one correlation: neither one is above the laws of physics. For a fighter jet of similar size and weight, I expect a similar fuel consumption. The 39E is heavier, but not that much. There are three possibilities:
1, the SAAF has some very specific usage pattern that allow them to fly extremely economically,
2, it is the Swiss who expect a specific usage pattern with more fuel consumption,
3, one of the numbers is wrong.

I looked for some numbers on fuel consumption.
This article (in Czech) says that a Gripen C needs on average about 2000 litres of fuel per flight hour, and that one litre of fuel costs 30 CZK. Guess what it comes out to in USD per flight hour? $2650, give or take a few bucks. Practically identical to what SAAF says.

For the F-16, according to some numbers I've found on various sources and converted to litres for comparison, it would be 3000 litres an hour in cruise and 4450 l/h in full military power. This article citing numbers from Norwegians says 3500 litres per hour for F-16 and 5600 litres for the F-35, though the latter appears to be an estimate and not a real world number.

The Gripen E is slightly smaller (lighter, less draggy) than an F-16. Worst case, it should need exactly the same amount of fuel. That is basic physics, right? Yet the Swiss somehow calculated a fuel cost more than twice what the SAAF and CzAF are saying, which would put its fuel consumption well above the F-16. Either their number is wrong, or their usage pattern differs greatly from other air forces and thus is not relevant for comparison. I don't suppose jet fuel is so much more expensive in Switzerland than it is in the Czech Republic.

When you say "contracting rate", does that mean the rate at which you sell 1 hour of flight, of an aircraft you own, to the customer? Then the number would have to include aircraft depreciation, which is normally not calculated into CPFH (well, depends, but - I'm pretty sure the SAAF nor Sweden does not factor that in). If that was the case then this would explain a large part of the difference.
what "extra lengths " ??? you blather on and on about lifetime operational costs of Gripens, well Norway looked into operational lifetime costs LOL Did norway actually do their homework? like everyone says they did not since it was so "rigged"?
they quickly found the Gripen NG wasn't a savings-- amazing!! its like what we have been saying the whole time.

I did not do my own research on this, but the article you posted clearly says that the F-35 was selected not because of cost reasons but because of perceived lower risk. I'm not debating the validity of that reason, but it doesn't talk about the actual cost of ownership at all.
Lastly if you're looking at say Canada, like a lot of countries they've set out the number of fighters they plan on buying. This is instantly detrimental to the Gripen sales pitch of "just buy more!!"

That is right, but not always the norm; Finland has a cost ceiling instead of a set number of planes.
When actual third party authorities evaluate the Gripen they find much more humble performance figures, and much higher costs. That was the case with the Swiss, where you saw estimated CPFH significantly higher than $5,000 per hour, and performance that was pretty much in line with most other aircraft.

I get your point, Saab's marketing can release misleading information and the general public is none the wiser. But it's not like we know everything about the F-35, either. Its main selling points are stealth and sensor/data fusion. How stealthy is it, really? We don't know, that's classified. You can find a description how the Rafale's data fusion works. LM claims they do it better but won't tell you how, that's a trade secret. So when you talk about the Gripen's carefully crafted public image and mystique, I don't think the F-35 is any less mysterious in this regard.
"Thanks but I'm not going to trust the official US government numbers you gave me."

I gave you official numbers from the F-35 JPO and the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office, published last May, relating to 2018 real world operations, not some estimates from 2012. That you don't like them is not my problem.
lukfi wrote: https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/featu ... -conflict/
In early May, Vice Adm. Matt Winter, director of the F-35 Joint Program Office, told a House subcommittee that the current flight-hour cost for the plane is $44,000. During the same hearing, Robert Daigle, director of the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Office, said his office projects a cost of $29,000 per flight hour for the F-15EX.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/05 ... ttainable/
“The department doesn’t see a path to get to $25,000 dollars per flying hour by FY25,” said Robert Daigle (…) Both CAPE and the F-35 Joint Program Office arrived at similar projections for the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant’s cost per flying hour in FY24, with CAPE estimating $36,000 per hour and the JPO pegging costs at $34,000 per hour, said Daigle

magitsu wrote:Finnish HX project leader had this to say about them:
Publicly available cost of flight hours are not comparable and therefore not useful, for example, to support project decision making. It may not be credible if the hourly rates of a modern multi-purpose fighter aircraft are lower than the Hawk jet trainer. In Finland, the cost of a flight hour covers everything from the Air Force commander's salary and the maintenance of an air base to aircraft technician tools and jet fuel.

https://www.defmin.fi/puolustushallinto ... .9861.blog
He was more than likely referring to Gripen, which is the only one that has suspiciously low quotes out in the open.

He also said (maybe in another blogpost) that they don't trust any foreign CPFH figure on any aircraft, because their operating conditions are different. You took a quote out of context that makes it look like they have a problem with the Gripen but that's not it.
No-one probably doubts that it eats the least gas due to being clearly the smallest. But that doesn't begin to cover the whole cost of using the jet. Beyond the cost there's also cost/performance to consider, and ultimately extending that performance consideration to evaluating potential attrition compared to its peers. So in certain cases it might require more missions or alternatively more frames/pilots etc. to achieve the same effect, which is more risk etc. The HX project also has a quote for that. They suggested that a lower performing jet could require a better (ie more expensive) missile to achieve the same result.

I agree. I was focusing on fuel costs because you can easily compare that, the price of fuel doesn't vary as much as the price of work, and CPFH can be calculated in many ways but fuel usage is very straightforward.
When I joined this thread I specifically said I don't want to debate aircraft capabilities but focus on cost. Capabilities are difficult to compare when many performance aspects are classified. We do have a general idea that we agree on that an F-35 is more valuable in a fight than a Gripen, but you can't say it's "47% more capable". If you could prove that their operating costs were at least close, then capability would be a moot point.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests