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

[optimist]

And FMS fees don't contribute to the R&D. They pay what US pays and about 2% FMS fee.
https://www.dsca.mil/news-media/news-ar ... es-reduced

Now because the F-35 is a partnership. Although it is a foreign sale to non-partners. It doesn't come under FMS fee system and I think JPO sets the sale price.

[marsavian]

We know LM is offering 64 fighters to Finland; Saab is offering 64 supposedly more expensive fighters and two AEW&C aircraft for the same total cost.

Well we all thought that due to earlier press reports however Saab contradicted that in their HX presentation saying that there was a (classified) Gripen fighter reduction in their combined with two GlobalEye offer.

viewtopic.php?p=435239#p435239

[steve2267]

IF all the JAS-39 were networked together with some sort of super duper, LPI network comparable or better than MADL, with SA in each cockpit fused, and as good or better than the F-35... then maybe you could entice me with some suitably large number of Gripi and a few GlobalEye AEW&C aircraft. But either one, not as good, and a purchase price that is not as low... uuuuuhhhh... I think that would have to be a hard pass.

[ricnunes]

except Gripen E is not cheaper.

I have my doubts about that. The F-35 has a lower flyaway cost but that's the cost USAF would pay; foreign customers have to pay FMS fees.

Partner nations, such as Canada, do not pay FMS fees.

Ditto!
BTW and if my memory isn't failing me, this was already explained to lukfi.

[kimjongnumbaun]

Empty weight increased by 2650lb, Thrust increased by 4000lb. Internal fuel increased by 2000lb to match the internal fuel of an F-16 with a less thirsty engine. Seems a wash to me.

How about you do the math on the 3 planes full of fuel and share with us your findings.

[marsavian]

C-17 Brings Home F-18

https://canadianaviator.com/c-17-brings-home-f-18/

The RCAF made the most of its show of support for the Australian firefighting effort last month. The C-17 transport that carried supplies to the southern hemisphere came back with reinforcements for the RCAF. Tucked in the cavernous cargo hold for the return trip was one of the 25 retired Royal Australian Air Force F-18s the RCAF has purchased to shore up its fighter forces while it waits for new equipment. The RCAF posted images of a crew unloading the fighter on Friday.

The RCAF paid $90 million for the 25 Hornets but only 18 will be flown. The others will be used for parts. The RAAF has phased out its F-18s as it converts fighter squadrons to the F-35. Canada is years away from flying a new fighter. The F-35, F/A-18 Super Hornet and Saab Gripen are competing to become Canada’s next frontline fighter.

[lbk000]

The wording sounds like 90m for all 25, but 90m per frame is what I've been told? If so, un-friggin-believable.

[XanderCrews]

They didn't make it a whole lot better but they certainly didn't make it worse.

Is this the new sales tagline?

It's a small improvement but it's not worse like you're trying to spin it.

Who was spinning what again?

[lukfi]

Partner nations, such as Canada, do not pay FMS fees.

Ah okay, maybe this was already mentioned but thanks for reminding me.

Well we all thought that due to earlier press reports however Saab contradicted that in their HX presentation saying that there was a (classified) Gripen fighter reduction in their combined with two GlobalEye offer.
viewtopic.php?p=435239#p435239

I see, I didn't know that.

The wording sounds like 90m for all 25, but 90m per frame is what I've been told? If so, un-friggin-believable.

That sounds like a mistake in the article. The price was supposed to be around $1B for the 25 aircraft, other sources claim $900M - I suppose these are Canadian dollars. That comes out to US$30M per plane, which is not so cheap for a plane that is 30 years old but there are probably some overhaul costs included and not just what Australia receives.

Who was spinning what again?

What's your point, exactly? Is it that the T/W improvement stated on this old slide is no longer true because the increased empty weight "ate" it? Let's do a back of the envelope calculation:

Empty weight + "fueled as 39C" + 1000 kg payload
39C 6800 + 2400 + 1000 = 10200 kg
39E 8000 + 2400 + 1000 = 11400 kg = 11,7% higher, but thrust is ~20% higher (+18,5% dry, +22% AB)
On dry thrust only (54 vs 64 kN) that's +6% T/W. Not 20%, but not worse.

Of course the number will vary based on payload and how much fuel you take, but when comparing the same payload, 39E is always better than 39C because it has more internal fuel and its dry thrust went up a little bit more than its empty weight. It's not a sales tagline but debunking your false claim.

[marsavian]

Gripen E has bigger GaN AESA ESM/EW gear and an IRST compared to original NG concept accounting for some if not all the weight increase. The wing root looks thicker too. It's a better product than originally envisaged.



Gripen E


Gripen C


Gripen E


Notice the Gripen E can carry 9 AAMs with slightly more internal fuel than a F-16 with a less thirsty engine. It will chew up high RCS Su-27/Su-30 at 50-100nm range with up to 7 Meteors.

[Corsair1963]

Canada is not going to buy the Gripen.........

[ricnunes]

What's your point, exactly? Is it that the T/W improvement stated on this old slide is no longer true because the increased empty weight "ate" it? Let's do a back of the envelope calculation:

Empty weight + "fueled as 39C" + 1000 kg payload
39C 6800 + 2400 + 1000 = 10200 kg
39E 8000 + 2400 + 1000 = 11400 kg = 11,7% higher, but thrust is ~20% higher (+18,5% dry, +22% AB)
On dry thrust only (54 vs 64 kN) that's +6% T/W. Not 20%, but not worse.

It's unlikely that the F414 engine dry thrust is 64 kN (or around 14387 lb) since the F414 engine is the afterburning version of the General Electric F412-GE-D5F2 engine (initially planned for the A-12) which has a reported thrust (dry only) of 13000 lb (and not 14300+ lb).

Of course the number will vary based on payload and how much fuel you take, but when comparing the same payload, 39E is always better than 39C because it has more internal fuel and its dry thrust went up a little bit more than its empty weight. It's not a sales tagline but debunking your false claim.

Even if your calculations above are to be close to correct, the problem with your exercise above is that the Gripen E has basically a similar performance and range compared with the Gripen C given the same weapons loadout and fuel. A bigger and full fuel load on the Gripen E will give it a much worse performance compared to the Gripen C which by its turn means that the gains in range will likely be smaller (and much so) then initially planned and as such compared to the Gripen C which again brings me to the point that the Gripen E will likely be (IMO) a failed concept!

[ricnunes]

Gripen E has bigger GaN AESA ESM/EW gear and an IRST compared to original NG concept accounting for some if not all the weight increase. The wing root looks thicker too. It's a better product than originally envisaged.

Sorry, but a final product which ends up being heavier than initially planned is NEVER a "better product than originally envisaged", even if it gets somehow better equipment (than initially planned)!
Previously on other threads/posts you gave an example that the F-16 got heavier namely from the F-16A Block 15 to the F-16C but what will happen when the Gripen E gets similar and heavier updates?
All of this probably means that "at best" the now heavier Gripen E will be severely limited/hampered when it comes to future and heavier updates.

For example and in contrast with the Gripen E program, when the F-35 started to gain weight during its development (heavier than planned) then it was quickly implemented a program to reduce the aircraft's weight in order to meet planned weight values (a program which was successful, by the way).

Notice the Gripen E can carry 9 AAMs with slightly more internal fuel than a F-16 with a less thirsty engine.

Define "less thirsty engine"?
From what I get the F-16 is a much, much more powerful engine compared to the Gripen E engine which means that the F-16 engine can work at a lower thrust for a higher weight which means that it will definitely be "less thirsty" for the same/similar weapons loadout while being likely "less thirsty" even for somehow higher loadouts.

It will chew up high RCS Su-27/Su-30 at 50-100nm range with up to 7 Meteors.

Perhaps, but Su-35s (not to mention Su-57s) will be a different game.

[XanderCrews]

What's your point, exactly?

that its more than +3%

Gripen E has bigger GaN AESA ESM/EW gear and an IRST compared to original NG concept accounting for some if not all the weight increase. The wing root looks thicker too. It's a better product than originally envisaged.

its always a "better product" no matter how it turns out. That's why its fans are obnoxious, beyond their general ignorance of the subject. Saab is still recycling their old numbers despite the weight gain of course. People are happily parroting them.

People talk about the GRipen NG/E/F as if it was already in operation and proven. they've been doing that for well over 10 years. And I'm not kidding you.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The fans are insufferable. They make it impossible to talk about this stuff with any kind of civility or intelligence. the fans the fans the f**king fans.

"theres no such thing as fighter generations guys!"




"why would selling less than 100 have downstream effects on costs and upgrades guys?"

"its just a small understated simple fighter built on cost, but its also a world beating super fighter that will defeat anything"

they've been wasting bandwidth on whats turned out to be hype for year and years, which really begs the question why so much is wasted on speculation.

but I'll tell you what. as an "early adopter" of the JSF program, thats now past its troubles and doing victory laps, I'm going to enjoy every minute now. I was told many times the F-35 would still being development hell while the Gripen NG did laps over it.

Canada is not going to buy the Gripen.........

NO!! NO!! Just because the F-35 is in service with hundreds flying and the Gripen E is only around 150 hours into test and has zero chance in Canada and we are still waiting for it to get into service after over a decade of threads all over the web



If you don't like it,

MAYBE GRIPEN.NET ISN'T FOR YOU

[XanderCrews]

Sorry, but a final product which ends up being heavier than initially planned is NEVER a "better product than originally envisaged", even if it gets somehow better equipment (than initially planned)!
Previously on other threads/posts you gave an example that the F-16 got heavier namely from the F-16A Block 15 to the F-16C but what will happen when the Gripen E gets similar and heavier updates?
All of this probably means that "at best" the now heavier Gripen E will be severely limited/hampered when it comes to future and heavier updates.

For example and in contrast with the Gripen E program, when the F-35 started to gain weight during its development (heavier than planned) then it was quickly implemented a program to reduce the aircraft's weight in order to meet planned weight values (a program which was successful, by the way).

no no, the F-35 is a pig. Saab does everything better. The gripen is just so refined and elegant and Saab is just such an amazing manufacturer. from the American engine to british sub system, its sweden all the way. Blowing their own goals like that. its ok though because only diamond can cut diamond.

if Gripen was going to magnificent when they said it would 7000 kilos, then it shall be even more magnificent at 8000 kilos, swine.