F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

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

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24612
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post02 Feb 2020, 04:24

'lufki' said in the long last post on previous page this thread:
"... 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...."

Sure there are secrets - perhaps the 63 page PDF below will help explain some F-35 helmet/data fusion stuff? Of course there is a lot more info, especially about the F-35 HMDS III+ helmet, amongst other things; but perhaps another day....

Graphic In PDF: https://www.ncoic.org/apps/group_public ... 090225.pdf
Attachments
F-35sensorFusion&helmet02feb2020 PRN pp63.pdf
(3.52 MiB) Downloaded 289 times
IntegratedVfederatedSysArchiFORUM.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6417
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post02 Feb 2020, 04:53

lukfi wrote:
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.


or the laws of economics. not everything is equal.

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.


We don't have to include depreciation

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.


you may want to re-read it.


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.


not really no. Youre changing the subject. If its about cost we know what it costs. Thats my point. thats a point I've made several times.

Saab: our airplane is super cheap to run!!

Oh? what are the numbers your customers have officially disclosed on budget documents line by line.

Saab: super cheap!!

This airplanes key selling point is costs no one can pinpoint on estimates that have been proved to be unbelievably too good to be true.

Then as if by magic, when air forces actually get a look at it with binding and official numbers, it loses. How bizarre.

its ridiculous that the Saab Gripen, whos main argument is cost, lacks credible and/or official numbers. its unbelievably suspicious and those of us who work in the business, and understand this are dumbfounded that anyone actually believes this.

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


and costs are going to continue to drop annually. thats been my point. Even we disagree on the numbers and I do disagree-- THERE ARE ACTUAL NUMBERS. which is my other point. We also have for example the times when JPO has put F-35 cost at within 10 percent of the F-16.


where are the Gripen Es? we have the Swiss estimate that I feel is going to be pretty accurate. And then we have non applicable numbers from original gripen operators that are basically guessing the price of gas.

I said it before I'll say it again to bring this full circle. What if F-35 falls short of the 25,000 CPFH goal but lands at say 27,000 and what if the Swiss turn out to be 100 percent accurate and the Gripen E is 27,000 CPFH. Thats very much within the realm of possibility. its very possible to botch the Gripen E. its not guaranteed to meet its cost goals, or sales goals, or capability goals. I wouldn't take any of it for granted.


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.


I think the fact that it mentions the hawk trainer, is a pretty big swing at the Gripen. He is saying what a lot of us are saying. We are being given numbers that we don't even see used on unarmed, radarless, trainers and in some cases helicopters that cost more than the quotes for an armed, combat capable Swedish super fighter.

credibility gap.
Choose Crews
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1254
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post02 Feb 2020, 06:55

spazsinbad wrote:'lufki' said in the long last post on previous page this thread:
"... 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...."

Sure there are secrets - perhaps the 63 page PDF below will help explain some F-35 helmet/data fusion stuff? Of course there is a lot more info, especially about the F-35 HMDS III+ helmet, amongst other things; but perhaps another day....



He's not here to learn, He's here to go "yes, but" He's not absorbing anything and is going to repeat falsehoods, that are already disproved. My hat's off to xander and yourself for bothering. There will be no conclusion. Till either he leaves or everyone has him on ignore
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

lukfi

Banned

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

Unread post02 Feb 2020, 12:02

XanderCrews wrote:not everything is equal.

When you can't defend your point anymore, a litre of jet fuel is not equal to a litre of jet fuel :thumb:
you may want to re-read it.

You're right, I did need to re-read it. So let's go through it in detail:

1. They expected a flyaway cost of $52M per F-35, even lower than LM's wishful thinking at that time. For the Gripen the cost was $70M per plane but according to Saab that price "included initial training, initial spares and all mission planning and support systems".

2. Sweden offered a guaranteed price of operation for 20 years. "The Norwegians, however, claim to have estimated costs that were three times higher." How does that matter if the price is guaranteed and Saab bears the risk?

They ultimately did not decide based on cost but perceived risk (that Saab would not sell enough planes, or that they'd go bankrupt and the aircraft would not be developed further). But their cost calculations were very sketchy if the article is to be believed.
not really no. Youre changing the subject. If its about cost we know what it costs. Thats my point. thats a point I've made several times.

Actually you have demonstrated the complete opposite. You have no idea what the Gripen E costs to fly and the only thing you "proved" is that you are ready to believe a dubious estimate over real world numbers if it suits your argument.
its ridiculous that the Saab Gripen, whos main argument is cost, lacks credible and/or official numbers. its unbelievably suspicious and those of us who work in the business, and understand this are dumbfounded that anyone actually believes this.

"Official numbers" can't exist until the aircraft is in service.
where are the Gripen Es? we have the Swiss estimate that I feel is going to be pretty accurate. And then we have non applicable numbers from original gripen operators that are basically guessing the price of gas.

"You feel". Talk about a credibility gap! :D
I said it before I'll say it again to bring this full circle. What if F-35 falls short of the 25,000 CPFH goal but lands at say 27,000 and what if the Swiss turn out to be 100 percent accurate and the Gripen E is 27,000 CPFH. Thats very much within the realm of possibility. its very possible to botch the Gripen E. its not guaranteed to meet its cost goals, or sales goals, or capability goals. I wouldn't take any of it for granted.

No, that's very much not within the realm of possibility. The Swiss calculated with a labor cost which is higher than anywhere else in the world, so even if they were 100% correct, for any other country the cost would be lower. Conversely, if the Swiss buy F-35 and pay pilots and maintainers Swiss wages, their CPFH is going to be higher than any other operators'. Even more so if you believe that they have much more expensive fuel than the Czechs (our countries are some 300 miles apart). Their estimation of fuel costs is completely outside the norm of what Gripen C and F-16 operators are saying the cost of fuel is for a similarly sized fighter. It's very possible to botch the cost estimate. It is not guaranteed to be 100% accurate. I wouldn't take any of it for granted.
I think the fact that it mentions the hawk trainer, is a pretty big swing at the Gripen. He is saying what a lot of us are saying. We are being given numbers that we don't even see used on unarmed, radarless, trainers and in some cases helicopters that cost more than the quotes for an armed, combat capable Swedish super fighter.

If he's referring to the famous $4700 figure, then perhaps yes it's a swing at the Gripen. But nobody is actually claiming that a Gripen costs less than a Hawk to fly, when CPFH is calculated the same way.
Offline

operaaperta

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2017, 21:42

Unread post02 Feb 2020, 12:48

Lukfi wrote-

Actually you have demonstrated the complete opposite. You have no idea what the Gripen E costs to fly and the only thing you "proved" is that you are ready to believe a dubious estimate over real world numbers if it suits your argument.
its ridiculous that the Saab Gripen, whos main argument is cost, lacks credible and/or official numbers. its unbelievably suspicious and those of us who work in the business, and understand this are dumbfounded that anyone actually believes this.
"Official numbers" can't exist until the aircraft is in service.




Lukfi, according to Australian Government Budget documents the RAAF is currently operating the F35A with a ‘Total Cost of Ownership’ CPFH of A$42k. That converts to US$28k per hour . That is a real world number and it aligns well with the CAPE estimate.

How about you take a look at your governments budget documents and get a good idea of what the Gripen costs the Czech tax payer to operate for a year. It would be a good starting point for getting a feel for whether the Gripen is the Wunderkid it’s claimed to be.

[img]
33DF7C67-923E-4169-B86E-D4C364F41E3C.png
[/img]
[img]
33DF7C67-923E-4169-B86E-D4C364F41E3C.png
[/img]
Attachments
33DF7C67-923E-4169-B86E-D4C364F41E3C.png
E1805309-FC07-41A3-87E8-FF515A0A6482.png
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2728
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Feb 2020, 17:16

lukfi wrote:2. Sweden offered a guaranteed price of operation for 20 years. "The Norwegians, however, claim to have estimated costs that were three times higher." How does that matter if the price is guaranteed and Saab bears the risk?


lukfi wrote:The Swiss calculated with a labor cost which is higher than anywhere else in the world, so even if they were 100% correct, for any other country the cost would be lower.


1- So, the Norwegians said that the Gripen's operational costs reported by Saab/Swedish are far lower than the real/actual values.

2- The Swiss did the same or resuming, came to the conclusion that the real Gripen's operational costs are far higher than the values reported by Saab/Swedish.

3- The Gripen's operational costs reported by Saab/Swedish are so low that even the fuel cost alone would be as much or even higher than many/most if not all of the operational costs reported by Saab/Swedish.

And yet, you want us to believe on Saab's claims while at the same time you're "skeptical" about all the OFFICIAL reported values regarding the F-35. Yeah right... :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6417
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post03 Feb 2020, 21:42

When you can't defend your point anymore, a litre of jet fuel is not equal to a litre of jet fuel :thumb:


fuel costs do indeed vary and fluctuate, and I think that we already established theres more to CPFH than the cost of fuel??


1. They expected a flyaway cost of $52M per F-35, even lower than LM's wishful thinking at that time. For the Gripen the cost was $70M per plane but according to Saab that price "included initial training, initial spares and all mission planning and support systems".


No comment on saabs "wishful thinking" at the time :D I think you might have missed the point anyway

2. Sweden offered a guaranteed price of operation for 20 years. "The Norwegians, however, claim to have estimated costs that were three times higher." How does that matter if the price is guaranteed and Saab bears the risk?


Because saab isn't a charity and the Norwegians wouldn't actually expect them to pay. I like Saab and all but I don't think they would be nice enough to fund the Norwegian fighter arm to the tune of 3 times their estimates for decades on end, even if they had the money to do so.

Moreover, 20 years isn't 40 years. I thought the point had been made that costs could skyrocket as time went on

They ultimately did not decide based on cost but perceived risk (that Saab would not sell enough planes, or that they'd go bankrupt and the aircraft would not be developed further). But their cost calculations were very sketchy if the article is to be believed.


Well, Sweetman is a Gripen fan afterall. Norway has with time turned out to be pretty accurate. Some apologies from Team Gripen would be in order, but I would never expect such.


Actually you have demonstrated the complete opposite. You have no idea what the Gripen E costs to fly and the only thing you "proved" is that you are ready to believe a dubious estimate over real world numbers if it suits your argument.


That's rich. When the Swiss picked the Gripen NG everyone was convinced the Swiss super men had made the most enlightened military decision of the 21st century after examing every conceivable angle. Then suddenly the Gripen fanbase started to get upset when the Swiss were releasing bad news about costs and capabilities, and eventually of course the referendum.

I really find it hard to believe the Swiss of all people got their homework wrong, but it has been fun watching all the Gripen people dump on them whenever they can. Divorce sure can get ugly, especially when those dirty secrets become public knowledge

"Official numbers" can't exist until the aircraft is in service.


So every Saab numbers is completely from thin air until it reaches IOC?

"You feel". Talk about a credibility gap! :D


I've explained exactly why several times in fact why the odds are against the little Swedish fighter. Ive watched the estimated costs climb constantly, ive watched it put on weight, ive watched sales goals go unmet. I've watched estimates and claims evaporate on multiple occasions.

You have "fuel costs" from South Africa for a variant that has nearly nothing in common with what we are talking about, with cost claim numbers so ridiculous even officials are having a fine laugh over it, just like many professionals do when Saab cost claims come up.

I've expained a few times at great length in some cases and in multiple threads why youre clinging to falsehoods and dubious company propaganda. I really post it not just for you, but for anyone else who stumbles upon this thread looking for info on the Gripen NG

No, that's very much not within the realm of possibility. The Swiss calculated with a labor cost which is higher than anywhere else in the world, so even if they were 100% correct, for any other country the cost would be lower. Conversely, if the Swiss buy F-35 and pay pilots and maintainers Swiss wages, their CPFH is going to be higher than any other operators'. Even more so if you believe that they have much more expensive fuel than the Czechs (our countries are some 300 miles apart). Their estimation of fuel costs is completely outside the norm of what Gripen C and F-16 operators are saying the cost of fuel is for a similarly sized fighter. It's very possible to botch the cost estimate. It is not guaranteed to be 100% accurate. I wouldn't take any of it for granted.



I'm not talking about botching the estimates, I'm talking about Saab botching the Gripen E and thus their estimates and pamphlet numbers and other propoganda fall completely apart. Don't say it can't happen, because I've already witnessed it many times.

in the meantime the F-35A costs less to buy, so now Team Gripen desperately clings to the "well just because it costs more to buy, doesn't mean it costs more to operate!" cliff by the fingertips. even though thats been the Argument used against F-35 for over a decade.

We also have in this very thread people who have posted published official verifiable evidence that (brace for it) the F-35A CPFH is actually below the Swiss estimate. my point, the one I've maintained from the start is that even if the Gripen E is "cheaper" to operate how much "cheaper" is critical. If its a difference of $10,000 or more for example thats worthy of note. if its less than $1,000 thats absolutely disastrous for the Gripen E. god help them if its more costly than the F-35, and they've already lost that battle on fly away cost.

[img]Saab is projecting potential long-term unit sales for the JAS Gripen of between 400 to 450 jets, including all variants, over the next 15 years. This forecast, which may prove conservative, is a twofold increase on the company’s original export sales estimate.

Local production guarantees on the Gripen-E, coupled with generous technology transfer arrangements, will form the backbone of Saab’s future packaged industrial-investment offers to prospective clients going forward.
[/img]

"which may prove conservative" :lmao:


Image

Somewhere in linkopeng is a Saab employee in a fuhrer bunker moving invisible sales all over a fake map :mrgreen:

Keeping in mind we have to add the Brazil deal to see Gripen exports hit over 100 for all variants.

If he's referring to the famous $4700 figure, then perhaps yes it's a swing at the Gripen. But nobody is actually claiming that a Gripen costs less than a Hawk to fly, when CPFH is calculated the same way.


make up your mind, you've posted stuff that contradicts that

Anthony Oglivy, Saab:
"The figure we gave of $4,000 to $4,500 Canadian per hour covers the direct operating costs, which are basically the fuel, oil, all consumables, all spares, all first- and second-line servicing, everything you would need to operate the aircraft on and off base. The only thing we don't include there is the labour charge for off-base operation. There are too many variables there."


Image


geewhiz, what propogandist has been trying to muddy the waters on true costs this whole time...

Image
Choose Crews
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6842
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post04 Feb 2020, 01:37

marsavian wrote:Yes it's due to the zero drag index of wingtip missiles on F-16 for which Corsair wanted a source and now he has two; previous one from the manual by garrya. On modern F-16s the CFTs only have 12% of the drag of a center line 300gal fuel tank i.e. negligible while having 450gal of capacity* so along with these wingtip missiles a modern F-16 is unfettered in exploring its full envelope in intercept missions.

* http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... v.-28.html



The F-16 doesn't fly at Mach 2 in the real world. Anymore than the F-15 fly's at Mach 2.5 not even close! What don't you get???

This has been explained over and over to you..... :?
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1254
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post04 Feb 2020, 03:07

lukfi wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:not everything is equal.

When you can't defend your point anymore, a litre of jet fuel is not equal to a litre of jet fuel :thumb:


Sorry mate, I stopped reading after that. The cost of a litre of fuel varies so much, that it isn't funny. An example, you have the home base price, the forward deployed base and then A2A refueling. How much do you think a litre of fuel costs off of Omega Air Refueling in a conflict zone? You can google it. A craft that requires more refueling costs more. I would guess that 44 gal drums of fuel at a forward support base, would be the dearest.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 927
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post05 Feb 2020, 10:50

Well, F-16 doesn't hit mach 2.5 like an Eagle. However, a F-16C block 50 with 6 AMRAAMS+pylons could hit mach 1.9. That is on par with a F-14.

Feel free to check HAF flight manual for verification.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6842
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 03:27

gta4 wrote:Well, F-16 doesn't hit mach 2.5 like an Eagle. However, a F-16C block 50 with 6 AMRAAMS+pylons could hit mach 1.9. That is on par with a F-14.

Feel free to check HAF flight manual for verification.



Neither one get remotely close to those speeds. Honestly, how many times do we have to discuss this??? :?
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1220
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 12:08

Corsair1963 wrote:
gta4 wrote:Well, F-16 doesn't hit mach 2.5 like an Eagle. However, a F-16C block 50 with 6 AMRAAMS+pylons could hit mach 1.9. That is on par with a F-14.

Feel free to check HAF flight manual for verification.



Neither one get remotely close to those speeds. Honestly, how many times do we have to discuss this??? :?


Other aircraft can possibly outrun the F-35?! Heresy!
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1220
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 12:18

This article is more about the Gripen E
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/fi ... 56.article
Candidate number three – Saab’s Gripen E – late last month arrived at the Finnish air force’s Pirkkala air base, before Helsinki received updated request for proposal responses from the Swedish firm and its rivals on 31 January. The deployment marked the first overseas commitment made using the new-generation model.
Saab sent its newest Gripen E test aircraft, 39-10, to the Satakunta Air Command facility on 29 January, with its dedicated two-seat sensor development platform 39-7 following two days later. The pair were involved in evaluations to test the type’s suitability as a potential successor to Finland’s Boeing F/A-18C/Ds.
***
Uniquely among the HX candidates, Saab’s proposal to Helsinki includes GlobalEye surveillance platforms, to be adapted from Bombardier’s Global 6500 long-range business jet.

Finnish personnel flew aboard a Global 6000-based example from Saab’s Linkoping site in Sweden in support of the recent evaluation. The aircraft involved is among those nearing delivery to launch customer the United Arab Emirates.

Equipped with Saab’s Erieye ER airborne early warning radar, a Leonardo Seaspray maritime radar, electro-optical/infrared sensor and electronic warfare (EW) equipment, the heavily modified is capable of simultaneously monitoring airborne, naval and land threats.

Carp notes that GlobalEye’s long-range performance could provide Finland with an extra 20min warning of an attack while acting as a “flying C2 [command and control] centre”. The aircraft would also enable it to use its Gripen Es in the most efficient manner when combat air patrol duties are required. “We hope the Finnish air force will appreciate this force multiplier,” he adds.
***
Lockheed Martin’s F-35A will follow next, with four of the type having departed Luke AFB in Arizona on 4 February. The Lightning II has an evaluation window within the period 7-17 February.

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will be the last to visit, with Washington having given its initial approval for Helsinki to also be offered the EA-18G Growler electronic attack variant. The HX Contest evaluations will wrap up with the Boeing type on 26 February.

The defence ministry has requested that contenders do not reveal the specifics of its technical evaluation, but has previously outlined a need to assess “the performance of electro-optical systems, but possibly other active and passive systems” under Finnish winter conditions.

Assessment activities are split across five areas: counter-air; -land; and –sea tasks; long-range strike; and ISTAR (intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance) and C2.
***
Skogberg notes that the Gripen E will achieve full operational capability in 2023, following the completion of operational testing by Sweden and Brazil. Noting that its 2019 outline “could give some hints” about the capability now on offer, he notes: “we can supply a substantial number of fighters.”

According to Skoberg, offering a subset of Gripen Fs means Saab has “a very sophisticated and powerful approach when it comes to EW in the HX programme.” And he adds: “If it weren’t for the cost-efficiency of the Gripen E, we wouldn’t have GlobalEye in there.”

Its pitch also includes initial in-service support until 2030, plus a “substantial weapons package”, simulators, initial training and mission and ground equipment.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 20:02

Gripen E/F + GlobalEye seems a nifty package, however only for countries that have a limited budget and cannot get access to F-35.

F-35 will not face competition until 2040 the earliest, when FCAS/Tempest may start to become available. However even those newer 5.5 gen fighter will most likely struggle in the international marketplace against the much cheaper F-35, just like 4.5 gen Typhoon/Rafale struggled against the cheaper 4. gen F-16... History repeats itself it seems...

Anyway, good that they are building new a/c in Europe, think about the "New Generation Fighter vs F-35" thread, for sure it will be hundreds of pages even before the first prototype takes off :D

Who knows, perhaps we could even get some French back to this forum...?
Offline
User avatar

lukfi

Banned

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

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 20:33

operaaperta wrote:Lukfi, according to Australian Government Budget documents the RAAF is currently operating the F35A with a ‘Total Cost of Ownership’ CPFH of A$42k. That converts to US$28k per hour . That is a real world number and it aligns well with the CAPE estimate.

That's interesting, because unless they have a very unorthodox definition of TCO down under, that should include the cost of acquisition. In 2014, Australia bought 58 F-35As at a contract price of US$11.5 billion, or about $198M per aircraft (in addition to 14 aircraft ordered earlier). I assume this price is for the aircraft itself plus some costs directly connected to it, like some tooling and maintenance, and all of this should be included in the TCO. Assuming that the RAAF flies each of the aircraft to its 8000-hour lifetime, this comes out to $24,784 per flight hour. Just for acquisition and some maintenance that most probably does not cover its whole lifetime.

As a CPFH figure the US$28k does not sound unreasonable, but it is suspiciously low. It's lower than the CAPE estimate and RAAF also owns some F-35A from earlier production batches which are supposedly more expensive to operate than the latest ones. That's not saying the number is wrong, it could very well be that RAAF includes different stuff in it than USAF/F-35 JPO/CAPE.

Another thing I found interesting in the document you posted is that one flight hour of a Hornet apparently costs almost the same as of a Hawk 127. Flying a Hornet sounds like a bargain :mrgreen:
How about you take a look at your governments budget documents and get a good idea of what the Gripen costs the Czech tax payer to operate for a year. It would be a good starting point for getting a feel for whether the Gripen is the Wunderkid it’s claimed to be.

We do have some numbers that were made public, but as we are leasing the aircraft instead of owning them, and the contract includes servicing, we can't totally separate the ownership costs from operational costs. Additionally there are some limits of the lease, like a yearly flight hour cap or the inability to deploy to foreign missions.

ricnunes wrote:1- So, the Norwegians said that the Gripen's operational costs reported by Saab/Swedish are far lower than the real/actual values.

In the article that @XanderCrews posted, it says that Sweden offered a guaranteed price, yet Norway ignored it. Am I reading it wrong? Because as such it doesn't make any sense.
XanderCrews wrote:Because saab isn't a charity and the Norwegians wouldn't actually expect them to pay. I like Saab and all but I don't think they would be nice enough to fund the Norwegian fighter arm to the tune of 3 times their estimates for decades on end, even if they had the money to do so.

We are getting dangerously close to tin foil hat territory here. You are saying that Saab offered a contract for aircraft
servicing at a much lower price that it actually costs, guaranteeing the price and taking the risk upon itself, while having no intention to actually uphold that? This is wild conjecture.
Moreover, 20 years isn't 40 years. I thought the point had been made that costs could skyrocket as time went on

After 20 years, costs can skyrocket with any aircraft, especially if structural issues are discovered and it becomes clear that the airframe won't last the advertised amount of hours unless expensively overhauled. But that's not what the Norwegians were worried about. They were worried that it might be expensive to upgrade a fighter whose production run is limited, or that Saab as a smaller company than LM could go bankrupt (would Swedish gov't allow that?) and Gripen operators would be left without manufacturer support. This leads me to believe that the decision was mainly political, which is not unusual in weapons purchases.
XanderCrews wrote:fuel costs do indeed vary and fluctuate, and I think that we already established theres more to CPFH than the cost of fuel??

Worldwide, it is probably no surprise if Brunei or Saudi Arabia have cheap fuel. It would surprise me if the price was much different for two countries in central Europe.
And we are in agreement that there is more to CPFH than fuel. But you keep refusing to acknowledge that the personnel costs, which are a major part of aircraft operation, also vary greatly between countries.
That's rich. When the Swiss picked the Gripen NG everyone was convinced the Swiss super men had made the most enlightened military decision of the 21st century after examing every conceivable angle. Then suddenly the Gripen fanbase started to get upset when the Swiss were releasing bad news about costs and capabilities, and eventually of course the referendum.

I really find it hard to believe the Swiss of all people got their homework wrong, but it has been fun watching all the Gripen people dump on them whenever they can. Divorce sure can get ugly, especially when those dirty secrets become public knowledge

The leaked report from the fly-off was only part of the homework. I'm too lazy to look for a source for this, but I read somewhere that other comparisons were made, comparing economical and political aspects. These were not leaked but they influenced the decision, too. We know that Gripen's results in the fly-off were, ahem, less than great. Which means that for it to be selected anyway, it must have been by far the cheapest. Did the Swiss get their homework wrong, indeed?

I've already explained the problems with the $27k CPFH estimate:
1) It's not directly comparable with American F-35 numbers because personnel cost in Switzerland is higher, and any aircraft the Swiss will eventually operate will cost them more that it would another country because of that.
2) The fuel cost is way too high compared to other countries. You are unable to explain why should the Gripen E need so much more fuel than a Gripen C or an F-16. Another possibility is that Switzerland's jet fuel is so wicked expensive that the cost can't be directly compared to any other country's CPFH.
We also have in this very thread people who have posted published official verifiable evidence that (brace for it) the F-35A CPFH is actually below the Swiss estimate.

Well of course, because for the purposes of comparing with USAF numbers, the Swiss estimate is bogus. So please stop comparing it. Or if you do, don't tell me I'm the one clinging to falsehoods and dubious propaganda.
So every Saab numbers is completely from thin air until it reaches IOC?

We were talking about "official numbers", I took that to mean numbers from real operation in an air force. Saab surely has some estimates, they know that certain maintenance procedures must be done after x flying hours and they know how many man-hours that takes. It's not a number from thin air, but the actual number may be different due to some operating conditions.
I'm talking about Saab botching the Gripen E

Going over the initially targeted weight while keeping the same wing, and an engine that has much more afterburning thrust but not so much more dry thrust, yes, those are things that can negatively impact the plane's performance and maneuverability. In the Canada thread, @ricnunes had a good point that some stuff in development costs the same for a new design as it does for a redesign of an existing plane, and that would be a way to make the plane expensive to make (if you want to recoup the development costs). But to botch a plane in terms of operational costs, something else would have to go wrong. Like, a part that turns out to fail often and so it has to be checked and replaced more often than anticipated. But there is no such indication. Theoretically, replacement parts could become expensive due to their limited production run, but that would only materialize in the future and if Saab fails to sell the Gripen E to anybody else.
my point, the one I've maintained from the start is that even if the Gripen E is "cheaper" to operate how much "cheaper" is critical. If its a difference of $10,000 or more for example thats worthy of note. if its less than $1,000 thats absolutely disastrous for the Gripen E.

Yes, that's precisely the reason I've gotten into this discussion, to get some clarity about this. But I see it's more difficult than I thought. Side note: while this thread is primarily about the Gripen E and so you dismiss Gripen C/D numbers as irrelevant, they are also of interest for me. While the Czech Air Force may look for a new plane to fly after 2027, keeping the C/Ds is also a strong possibility.
XanderCrews wrote:
If he's referring to the famous $4700 figure, then perhaps yes it's a swing at the Gripen. But nobody is actually claiming that a Gripen costs less than a Hawk to fly, when CPFH is calculated the same way.

make up your mind, you've posted stuff that contradicts that

No, I didn't. The only direct comparison between Gripen and Hawk I posted was from the SAAF, which says the Gripens are 60 % more expensive to fly, roughly as one would expect.

optimist wrote:Sorry mate, I stopped reading after that. The cost of a litre of fuel varies so much, that it isn't funny. An example, you have the home base price, the forward deployed base and then A2A refueling. How much do you think a litre of fuel costs off of Omega Air Refueling in a conflict zone? You can google it. A craft that requires more refueling costs more. I would guess that 44 gal drums of fuel at a forward support base, would be the dearest.

Sorry mate, but obviously you haven't been reading too much of our discussion even before that. We were discussing the fuel cost estimate from Switzerland, which is a tiny neutral country so they definitely aren't planning to operate from forward bases, neither do they own an airborne tanker. The comparison I offered was with the CzAF Gripens, which may use aerial refueling from allied tankers from time to time (as part of training) but generally operate from friendly home bases only (domestic + Baltic & Iceland air policing). South Africa is also not fighting abroad as far as I know.

According to Skoberg, offering a subset of Gripen Fs means Saab has “a very sophisticated and powerful approach when it comes to EW in the HX programme.”

This would hint that the Gripen F would not simply be a twin seater variant for training, but something along the lines of a Growler. But it will probably take years before a final Gripen F rolls of the production line.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests