Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

[magitsu]

It might not cost less, but it's likely cheaper to use due to being so much smaller than most. But it certainly delivers less. Weighing the cost of use vs. performance is a bit tricky and none have publicly really tried to do so.

In any case, they should exit now when they have a proper reason. But maybe they'll wait until Finnish tests in Jan-Feb 20 to avoid "repeat offense".

[blindpilot]

... it's likely cheaper to use due to being so much smaller than most...

This is not a given either. Even if it might be cheaper per "air frame hour" to fly, it may be - likely is - more expensive to fly a mission. if I carry half the weapons load, I need two aircraft per F-35 load, ... if my range is less, I need to launch an air refueling sortie to get there, if I need a little EW help, or SEAD support, I launch a few more planes... and on and on.

It is not necessarily (likely) cheaper to fly a half dozen or more aircraft to do what one solo F-35 does on its own. It is not cheaper to fly. That is yet another SAAB lie...

MHO,
BP

[botsing]

It might not cost less, but it's likely cheaper to use due to being so much smaller than most.

I wonder if this is true.

Taking into account other logistics it might actually be that the F-35 is cheaper to run since it needs less support aircraft to perform it's missions. It would be nice to create several mission profiles and then figure out how many F-35 or Gripen plus support aircraft you need to perform those missions and then see what the real costs are.

If you only look at the running costs of the airplane itself, you will not see it's complete economic impact.

EDIT: blindpilot beat me to it.

[ricnunes]

In any case, they should exit now when they have a proper reason. But maybe they'll wait until Finnish tests in Jan-Feb 20 to avoid "repeat offense".

IMO, Saab (and Boeing) are probably waiting to bail out from the Canadian fighter competition after the Federal Elections (which are on the 21st of this month).
If Saab would bail out right now that would likely anger the Canadian Federal Government specially if the Liberals happen to win (again) the elections.
And notice that Saab has other important military deals with Canada such as for example Radars used on the Halifax-class frigates. The same also applies to Boeing (but regarding other equipment of course).

Resuming, I doubt that anyone would see Saab and Boeing bailing out before the 21th of this month (October) but I could be wrong...

[magitsu]

It is not necessarily (likely) cheaper to fly a half dozen or more aircraft to do what one solo F-35 does on its own. It is not cheaper to fly. That is yet another SAAB lie...
BP

Yeah, but that mindset doesn't fully translate to smaller countries. They don't have EW/SEAD/tankers, so those won't be used and add cost. Extra planes for the same job applies in some cases, but it's also mostly for offensive expeditionary ops. Where the non-performance matters the most is what kind of losses they would take during those missions. That's hard to estimate, and can't be just a monetary one. Loss of overall performance is more palatable than assigning cost to lives.

[ricnunes]

... it's likely cheaper to use due to being so much smaller than most...

This is not a given either. Even if it might be cheaper per "air frame hour" to fly, it may be - likely is - more expensive to fly a mission. if I carry half the weapons load, I need two aircraft per F-35 load, ... if my range is less, I need to launch an air refueling sortie to get there, if I need a little EW help, or SEAD support, I launch a few more planes... and on and on.

It is not necessarily (likely) cheaper to fly a half dozen or more aircraft to do what one solo F-35 does on its own. It is not cheaper to fly. That is yet another SAAB lie...

MHO,
BP

Ditto. I fully agree, blindpilot.

[ricnunes]

WIth the 1300km range of Gripen E, was that before or after 1000kg overweight?

Before.
One of the places where that 1300km range figure came up which was regarding the Gripen NG was back in 2008 when the "concept" (again, the Gripen NG) was presented to the Dutch.
http://www.asdnews.com/news-17495/gripe ... rlands.htm






Circa that time, the Gripen NG (which later became the Gripen E) was supposed to weight (empty) around 7,000 kg. But now and as you mentioned, the Gripen E weights more 1,000kg than initially planned or around 8,000kg.

[ricnunes]

According to some media news like the one that I'll post below, it seems that a decision from Saab/Gripen to leave the Canadian competition should come soon:

European-built fighter aircraft: did they ever stand a chance in Canada’s competition?

Canada’s future fighter jet competition has already lost two European competitors.

Will it lose a third, the Gripen built by Saab of Sweden?

At the end of August, the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence and Airbus Defence and Space informed the Canadian government of their decision to withdraw from Canada’s future fighter competition. Airbus had been offering Canada the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Last year the European firm Dassault informed the Canadian government it would not be competing in the competition. It had been planning to offer Canada the Rafale fighter jet.

Airbus and the UK Defence Ministry noted that their decision to withdraw was the result of a detailed review of Canada’s request for proposals which was released to industry on July 23. Airbus pointed to the changes Canada made to the industrial benefits package to appease Lockheed Martin as well as the excessive costs that U.S.-Canadian security requirements placed on a company based outside North America.

“A detailed review has led the parties to conclude that NORAD security requirements continue to place too significant of a cost on platforms whose manufacture and repair chains sit outside the United States-Canada 2-EYES community,” the statement from Airbus and the UK Defence Ministry noted. “Second, both parties concluded that the significant recent revision of industrial technological benefits obligations does not sufficiently value the binding commitments the Typhoon Canada package was willing to make, and which were one of its major points of focus.”

The $19 billion competition has been dogged by allegations it is designed to favour Lockheed Martin’s F-35 stealth fighter.

Take for instance, the response that Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan provided when the Liberal government in November 2016 announced the purchase of 18 interim Boeing Super Hornets. That deal was eventually scuttled after Boeing decided to go after Bombardier in a trade dispute over civilian aircraft.

But at the time when the purchase was announced, Sajjan was asked why Canada was buying the Super Hornet and not one of the other fighter jets on the market.

“When you look at the various aircraft, we have our NORAD commitment’s (which are) extremely important,” the defence minister responded. “There’s certainly interoperability issues as well.”

Procurement Minister Judy Foote was more blunt. “From our perspective, we’re working with the American government, so we have to look at an American plane.”

So how is that different from the aircraft to be selected for the future fighter jet competition?

Sajjan and Foote were stating in November 2016 that Canada needed to buy American because of its NORAD commitments and other interoperability concerns with the U.S.

Nothing appears to have changed in the last three years, at least as far as the federal government and Canadian Forces are concerned.

Source: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... ompetition

But on the other hand, the media had been wrong many, many, many times over...

[magitsu]

so 1000lbs more thrust to and 1000kg more weight

1200 kg more weight (6.8 tn to 8 tn), or 2500 kg more MTOW (14 tn to 16.5 tn).

Fuel growth was indeed 40% (2000 kg, half internal and half external).

Some sources give 14.4 k lbs dry for GE F414-GE-39E instead of 13 k.

Yeah, it's somewhat hard to believe it would be significantly faster when it starts with 1.2 tn more empty weight and then has 1 tn more in the internal tank. When the dry thrust has at best improved from 54 kN to 64 kN.
25% more weight (empty + full internal) vs. 19% more dry thrust. It's also larger, so drag should've increased.

[ricnunes]

Thanks ricnunes

You're welcome.

The RM12 has 12,100lbs dry and 18100 wet
F414G has 13,000 dry and 22,000 wet

so 1000lbs more thrust to and 1000kg more weight. Is 1000lbs a massive increase in thrust or something? Maybe im simplifying things but that doesnt seem like an improvement to me. Thats not to account drag and weight of weapons.

No, you're not simplifying things I believe.
1000lb converted to metric is around 454kg. So what you' have have is 454kg thrust and 1000kg more weight. With this you'll have a very big loss in terms of thrust-to-weight when the extra thrust and weight are taken into account.

Now, if magitsu is right and the F414G has 14,400lb dry (instead of 13,000lb) then you'll have a "break even" when it comes to extra empty weight for extra thrust - around 1000kg more thrust to 1000kg more weight. But then magitsu also correctly mentioned that the Gripen E carries more fuel (40% more) and fuel also weights and a lot, so in this case you'll still have less thrust-to-weight ratio for the Gripen E compared to the Gripen C/D.

So and in either case, this doesn't look good for the Gripen E. It's just a matter of knowing if the Gripen E loses large or instead very large amounts of thrust-to-weight ratio even compared to the Gripen C/D.

[wrightwing]

It is not necessarily (likely) cheaper to fly a half dozen or more aircraft to do what one solo F-35 does on its own. It is not cheaper to fly. That is yet another SAAB lie...
BP

Yeah, but that mindset doesn't fully translate to smaller countries. They don't have EW/SEAD/tankers, so those won't be used and add cost. Extra planes for the same job applies in some cases, but it's also mostly for offensive expeditionary ops. Where the non-performance matters the most is what kind of losses they would take during those missions. That's hard to estimate, and can't be just a monetary one. Loss of overall performance is more palatable than assigning cost to lives.

It doesn't matter which country we're talking about, it'll take fewer aircraft to accomplish task XYZ. Lots of savings can occur in training, too, due to much of it being done with simulators.

[viper12]

Now, if magitsu is right and the F414G has 14,400lb dry (instead of 13,000lb) then you'll have a "break even" when it comes to extra empty weight for extra thrust - around 1000kg more thrust to 1000kg more weight. But then magitsu also correctly mentioned that the Gripen E carries more fuel (40% more) and fuel also weights and a lot, so in this case you'll still have less thrust-to-weight ratio for the Gripen E compared to the Gripen C/D.

Thrust-to-weight isn't the only issue. Even if you increase the thrust enough to keep the same ratio for typical combat scenarios, keeping the same wing with an increased weight means you need more speed and/or AOA to get to the same number of G's in a turn, so less turn rate and/or more induced drag.

Saab's website only shows an increase in wingspan from 8.4 to 8.6m between the C/D and E/F variants :
https://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-sys ... gripen-cd/
https://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-sys ... gripen-ef/

And I bet the increase comes from the fat pods on the wingtips of the E/F, so probably not that much more lift. Though I don't know if the extra length on the E/F creates extra lift too.

[hornetfinn]

It is not necessarily (likely) cheaper to fly a half dozen or more aircraft to do what one solo F-35 does on its own. It is not cheaper to fly. That is yet another SAAB lie...
BP

Yeah, but that mindset doesn't fully translate to smaller countries. They don't have EW/SEAD/tankers, so those won't be used and add cost. Extra planes for the same job applies in some cases, but it's also mostly for offensive expeditionary ops. Where the non-performance matters the most is what kind of losses they would take during those missions. That's hard to estimate, and can't be just a monetary one. Loss of overall performance is more palatable than assigning cost to lives.

It doesn't matter which country we're talking about, it'll take fewer aircraft to accomplish task XYZ. Lots of savings can occur in training, too, due to much of it being done with simulators.

I think much of the training would be done in simulators no matter what aircraft is selected.

However it's true in many ways that a lot fewer F-35s would be needed to accomplish the same missions regardless what kind of support assets are available. F-35 stealth allows it to go much closer to enemy which would significantly improve hit and kill probabilities against both air and ground targets. I don't think 4th gen fighters could get nearly as close even with having full EW, AEW and SEAD assets in support without taking losses. That ability to get closer also improves recon capabilities of the jets significantly. No matter what recon pod is on 4th gen fighter, F-35 will have better look at the situation as it can get so much closer. All these would be very important especially for a smaller country which doesn't numbers or specialized assets for everything.

But Canada is not very small country and I see F-35 having several very important capabiltiies for Canadian needs. Even for home-land protection it has the largest and most capable AESA radar. It also uses that same array for very high performance narrowband ESM system. So it will most likely detect any intruding Tupolev or god forbid cruise missiles before 4th gen fighters could. I also bet that EOTS has the highest performance compared to IRST/TV systems in 4th gen fighters especially when it comes to long range ID. Only latest targeting pods likely have higher performance right now and that will also change when Advanced EOTS becomes operational. Especially when combined with the advanced sensor fusion within a flight of F-35s along with very fast data link, the SA they can provide is much better than with any 4th gen fighter at the moment.

And of course Canada will most likely fight somewhere else than within Canadian borders. Then all the qualities of F-35 will be very handy.

[mixelflick]

This is ridiculous, yet satisfying at the same time.

SAAB will end up folding, and the F-35 will win before any evaluation even begins. Trudeau will end up looking even dumber than he already has, which is quite an accomplishment by the boy wonder. As such, Canada will end up with the F-35 - just a decade later than they should have.

Oh well, at least they're getting it. India will go through the same procurement mess, but will almost assuredly end up with a lesser aircraft..

[pushoksti]

This is ridiculous, yet satisfying at the same time.

SAAB will end up folding, and the F-35 will win before any evaluation even begins. Trudeau will end up looking even dumber than he already has, which is quite an accomplishment by the boy wonder. As such, Canada will end up with the F-35 - just a decade later than they should have.

Oh well, at least they're getting it. India will go through the same procurement mess, but will almost assuredly end up with a lesser aircraft..

Waiting a decade isn’t necessarily a bad thing, this allows us to be in the later production models which should have most of issues ironed out. You know what they say about buying a vehicle model in its first year of production...