Finnish DefMin Interest in F-35s NOT Gripens

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post16 May 2020, 16:19

lukfi wrote:Yes, because the assembly is cheaper but not necessarily the parts, or the operation and maintenance.


ah yes, because why would their be a correlation between such costs?

lukfi wrote:Sort of, yes. This was back in what, 2008? The Gripen NG was very much only on paper, so Norway calculated with some risk of Saab not being able to deliver. I don't mean sales numbers because Norway doesn't have to care about that, but rather technical parameters of a plane that was not done yet.
That is why they overstated the number.


But you don't know if they overstated the number because 12 years later we still don't have the number. its the year 2020, and the Gripen NG/E is still the most risky option. Isn't that amazing? What is the Overall Gripen NG sales number going to be in the end? cost of operation?

As you say we have been over this but allow to review so we can finally alleviate some of this decade plus butt hurt. Norway is under no obligation to believe pie in the sky numbers, of course they considered the possibility of a very small fleet size because that has a direct correlation to costs.

Saab promises and guarantees mean absolutely nothing, especially if they are not binding. Beyond the fine print of such "guarantees" we've seen them lie to Canada about "thats a real number" and other stuff. I have no doubt the "guarantee" was for public consumption and no not actually real in the sense that it would ever do what it claimed. In the same way they told Brazil that buying a Gripen NG meant that they "owned it" many times Saab has made it sound like they give away everything. And suddenly the Argies start looking into and "oops!" the Brits say no. So I guess they don't give all the rights away do they? its one of many examples of saabs shifting goal posts.

Norway has every right to tell Saab to take a hike with some concept airplane that even today we don't know a whole helluva lot about in service operation.

They overestimated costs! No I don't know what it costs now or even what they estimated, but they went over!!

Saab Guaranteed!!! No I don't know the fine print included in such a garuantee, but they offered!

So Lufki you and your ilk can cry all you want, and you do is show you really don't know about what you are talking about. Maybe Gripen fans should table this until about 2028 and we can revisit it then? Theyve turned themselves into knots over this but I ask and they have no answers. Why do they have no answers because we don't know. no one does. No Gripen E in widespread operational service.

I'll say it really nicely. Maybe you and your ilk need to shut up until you have the data to compare. Do you even have the Numbers Norway estimated in 2008??


as there a point to the original question?


Dunning Krueger

The Gripen E is very new at the moment so it starts high and will get lower over time. Did you mean to say the "always" part applies only to aircraft that you like?


Do I really have to mention your special snowflake by name every time now?

I never said the costs wouldn't decline (they better or else) they have no where to go but down. the question is how low they go. India just went with Tejas too.

I've been looking for some local sources to give me more context on the story and interestingly enough, none of them talks about "budget constraints", all of them say that the aircraft were "redundant". I'm not saying money isn't a factor, but… let me give you some context.
In 1993 it was estimated that the newly-formed Czech Republic would need 54 supersonic aircraft and 54 subsonic ones. Despite this, in 1997 the government ordered 72 L-159s, to support domestic industry. So it was already pretty questionable whether we would need that many.
From 2001, CzAF was looking for a replacement for the MiG-21 fleet, and the desired number of fighters was 24-36. But in 2002 the country was hit by a catastrophic flood and there was no money for a large one-time expense like that. Instead of buying, the government set their sights on leasing, and ended up leasing the 12+2 Gripens the CzAF operates to this day.
The role of the L-159 is two-fold: it's a light combat aircraft but it doubles as a trainer, and it's a stepping stone for pilots who continue onto the Gripen. And if you only have 14 Gripens instead of 54, it doesn't make much sense to operate 72 L-159s. As far as costs are concerned, the L-159 was rushed to service before completing all tests, so the air force had to endure some teething problems; but this was done so that Su-22 and Su-25 could be retired earlier, because the L-159 is so much cheaper to operate.
Despite its short production run, it was cheap to buy (CzAF ordered the 72 for less than $10M a piece in 1997 dollars) and according to all sources it's also cheap to operate.


CSB


They send two Gripens to Linköping every 10 weeks, not every Gripen every 10 weeks. To give you an idea, the distance between Kecskemét and Linköping is less than from Boston to Chicago. Most of the maintenance is done in Hungary, only for major servicing the aircraft fly to Sweden, which considering the number Hungary (or Czech Rep.) operates is more economical than doing it at home.


It just goes to underscore a lot of the points already made. This airplane doesn't escape major maintenance magic. After all the hype about service by roadside conscripts and what not, haha just kidding you have to fly it back. So the way to save money is to fly it back? shocker. Its not really as self contained and cheap as we had been told? shocker. if it was the F-35 and this came up Team Gripen would still be REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEing. but since its a gripen, its more of the "well who doesn't fly 2 aircraft of 12 aircraft force back to the factory for months at a time! thats how you save money!" Who doesn't have to do that!!

Big shout out to the Saab PR guy
Last edited by XanderCrews on 16 May 2020, 16:54, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post16 May 2020, 16:20

ricnunes wrote:
lukfi wrote:
XanderCrews (emphasis mine) wrote:the curves always start high and then lower over time

The Gripen E is very new at the moment so it starts high and will get lower over time. Did you mean to say the "always" part applies only to aircraft that you like?


It MAY get lower IF and ONLY IF the Gripen E GETS MORE AND LOTS OR ORDERS! So far it only got 96 orders and that's not enough or far from enough to get low. And there's no real expectations that it will get any more orders or at least the chances of getting lots of more orders is extremely low/slim at best! It may end up getting 20-50 more orders past those 96 but this simply won't cut it (it wouldn't enough to "get low").
But then again this has been explained to you, time after time, after time, after time, after time, after time...
Jezz, this is getting tiresome! :bang:


even if we went by Loke's numbers its still not in parameters. its a 1/3 short of even what Loke says they need to bring the cost curve down
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post16 May 2020, 16:38

XanderCrews wrote:even if we went by Loke's numbers its still not in parameters. its a 1/3 short of even what Loke says they need to bring the cost curve down


Exactly!

But then again this and other arguments have been repeated time, after time, after time to lukfi with absolutely no effect (only to have him repeat the same rant, time after time...)
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

lukfi

Banned

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

Unread post16 May 2020, 19:51

XanderCrews wrote:
lukfi wrote:Yes, because the assembly is cheaper but not necessarily the parts, or the operation and maintenance.

ah yes, because why would their be a correlation between such costs?

Let me illustrate my point with a what if scenario.
What if Finland selects the F-35A, but they want to assemble it domestically. So they get all the parts to build 65 Lightning IIs, set up an assembly line but do not equip it with the same level of tooling that LM has in Fort Worth, because it doesn't make economic sense for the number of units built. They build it mostly by hand, the aircraft ends up being more expensive because of the manual work and the fixed costs of setting up the assembly line. But when finished, their aircraft are exactly the same as any other F-35A, and they need the same amount of maintenance and consumables.

I'm going to make an assumption here that for a Gripen, since its built by hand on two lines with a short run, assembly makes up a larger percentage of the cost than for an F-35. So even though a Gripen is slightly more expensive, the components alone may cost less. Sure, the components are also made in lesser numbers, which drives their cost up, but a Gripen is less complex and the materials more conservative (more aluminum than composites).

This applies to the existing Gripen C/D to a large extent, and we have a general idea how it stands in costs of operation. The E has a more difficult position but a higher unit cost doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be more expensive to operate than an F-35. And that has been my point all along.
Do you even have the Numbers Norway estimated in 2008??

12 years later we still don't have the number.

…I'm going to assume you answered yourself. But I wasn't the one who brought this up.
Dunning Krueger

So you're not going to tell me where I am wrong, just insult me. Classy.
I never said the costs wouldn't decline (they better or else) they have no where to go but down. the question is how low they go. India just went with Tejas too.

OK, that's fair. Was Saab considered a front-runner in the cancelled Indian competition?
CSB

Glad you liked it.
It just goes to underscore a lot of the points already made. This airplane doesn't escape major maintenance magic. After all the hype about service by roadside conscripts and what not, haha just kidding you have to fly it back. So the way to save money is to fly it back? shocker. Its not really as self contained and cheap as we had been told? shocker. if it was the F-35 and this came up Team Gripen would still be REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEing. but since its a gripen, its more of the "well who doesn't fly 2 aircraft of 12 aircraft force back to the factory for months at a time! thats how you save money!" Who doesn't have to do that!!

Saab never said that the Gripen can be serviced by conscripts. The PR videos they have always show only refueling and re-arming, possibly they could do some very basic maintenance and change the engine but that's about it.

I can't comment on Hungary, but Czech Gripens fly to Sweden for major maintenance after 800 flight hours, all other maintenance is done on site in Čáslav (source). CzAF flies them for 150 hours a year which means they have to go to Sweden once in more than 5 years. Not nearly as shocking as 10 weeks, is it?

Now, let's look at the F-35. LM brought more gear for the flight tests in Finland than anybody else, and when Norway deploys them to Iceland, they bring a team of 150 people vs. 60 when they go with their F-16s. Please tell me how it's easy to maintain while the Gripen is stuck in the 1980s. Does it not need major inspections and maintenance after flying for 5 years?
In the same way they told Brazil that buying a Gripen NG meant that they "owned it" many times Saab has made it sound like they give away everything. And suddenly the Argies start looking into and "oops!" the Brits say no.

Do you have a source for this?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post16 May 2020, 20:39

lukfi wrote:…I'm going to assume you answered yourself. But I wasn't the one who brought this up.



I brought up the Norway overestimation arguement?

This is getting absurd. Half your arguments are now who brought up and said what, when; and the other half is you making wild guesses and assumptions.


So you're not going to tell me where I am wrong, just insult me. Classy.



Thats not an insult.

The fact you think that someone who does this for a living pointed out you have no real world experience and thus don't know what you don't know, or the very limitations of your perspective is not an insult.

if someone telling you you're wrong because this isn't your field and there's things that take schools and years to learn, just breaks that little heart and fills your tum tum with unhappy feelings maybe you need to go somewhere else.

oh and BTW You're not a apprentice, or a newb I have a duty or obligation to get up to speed here. Its not my job to fix you. and I'm under no obligation to lie in order to make you feel better.


How long do you think its going to take for me to explain the things you don't know? Am i supposed to derail the whole thread? How am I supposed to explain years of knowledge in an internet post and even if I did, how do I know you could understand it?

Image


OK, that's fair. Was Saab considered a front-runner in the cancelled Indian competition?


when are they ever a front runner?


Saab never said that the Gripen can be serviced by conscripts. The PR videos they have always show only refueling and re-arming, possibly they could do some very basic maintenance and change the engine but that's about it.


Again this isn't the way its "sold." as I have said Saab PR's creates illusions. Thats been my whole issue with them. If they ever came out and just said the truth from the get-go I wouldn't have nearly the problem, they wouldn't have nearly as many followers who have been taken by a false mystique as well which would further alleviate problems

I can't comment on Hungary, but Czech Gripens fly to Sweden for major maintenance after 800 flight hours, all other maintenance is done on site in Čáslav (source). CzAF flies them for 150 hours a year which means they have to go to Sweden once in more than 5 years. Not nearly as shocking as 10 weeks, is it?


I'm not surprised at all Lukfi. remember when silly old me kept mentioning major maintenance and overhauls etc? how that price adds up? Gripen is down for 3 months every 800 hours? thats not good but its not a surprise.

150 hours a year too is less than half of what the USAF typically flies. Meaning again that the Gripen Operators are "saving" by flying lower hours and "punting" major maintenance that most air forces don't have the luxury to do, showing further that Gripen Maintaince numbers are not only "massaged" by that their maintenance cost is also lowered by the fact they don't fly them nearly as much as many contemporaries. This was already alluded to:

weasel1962 wrote:Gripen probably has lowest CPH if one does the calculations in a certain. If one flies the fighter at 30 hours instead of 300 a year, think about the fuel savings alone...then one can amortize overhead costs over 250 years because the airframe life of 8000 hours. Then of course if one has to only hire 1 pilot for every 3 aircraft due to serviceability rates, then the CPH becomes incredibly low. Doesn't then take long to realize that any math can be massaged esp for marketing purposes and really find it funny how anyone can bother with the discussion. All planes are magic planes. They fly further (or cost less) as long as the numbers are read in a certain way.



Now, let's look at the F-35. LM brought more gear for the flight tests in Finland than anybody else, and when Norway deploys them to Iceland, they bring a team of 150 people vs. 60 when they go with their F-16s. Please tell me how it's easy to maintain while the Gripen is stuck in the 1980s. Does it not need major inspections and maintenance after flying for 5 years?


Already explained it. You should try reading and learning before posting. And when you say "now lets look at the f-35" you aren't going to cherry pick and apply a narrow band that suits your narrative are you?


The US has done actual = combat deployments under 150. You're taking 2 examples and applying it to the whole in the same way you took the costliest F-35 numbers and tried to sneak those by too with again no understanding of what you are talking about and no inclination to learn despite the information being out there if you bothered to look. The F-35B is the most complicated F-35 there is and its going to operate from roadsides on remote islands and serviced by small groups of Jarheads inside enemy territory. BTFO

Image

Stopping posting trash and expecting us to sort through your garbage, please.


Do you have a source for this?


You can use the keywords "Technology transfer" and "Source Code". Saab made it sound like they were giving them the keys to the kingdom. Reality is different as there are so many subcontractors (not least of which is that GE engine) from all over that they don't have rights to all the technology their pressers made it sound like they were giving away. You can see it with the India sales pitch as well

Stop me if you've heard this one before, but what saab says is not usually the whole truth. Which isn't necessarily anything new in the aviation or defense world, but they have very little publicly available oversight, tend to lie a little more and are rarely challenged or asked tough questions. I've explained their strategy behind this before.
Choose Crews
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 383
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post17 May 2020, 07:08

Funny how Saab offers a "complete" tech transfer but the only tech they have proprietary ownership of is basically the airframe which was built in the 1980s off of 1970s tech. Note, the Gripen E's radar is made in Italy.

main-qimg-9f2267b2e8dc8120097adb1ff999bb72-c.jpg
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 604
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post17 May 2020, 13:56

Yeah, many important components have since that old A/B or C/D picture lost the Swedish flag. Probably has 1-2 Brazilian/Swedish ones now.
Engine doesn't have anything Swedish, neither does radar. But Gripen for India is probably riding on that Saab GaN Aesa party trick.
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 604
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post17 May 2020, 14:48

Instead of just talking about Gripens, we could try to guess what kind of tech transfer / R&D projects Lockheed Martin could include to cover their 2-3 billion industry partnership requirement. Since unlike the rest, they can't offer assembly / part manufacture unless they want to anger the program partners. New weapons/avionics to F-35 doesn't make complete sense either, because of the partners' expectations and the already congested integration pipeline (and why would Finland want to develop a weapon where it started as its only user).

For example the much covered Loyal Wingman project between Boeing and Australia has received only 40 million of funding from the latter government. Now imagine 2000-3000 million...

These are the government's pick of critical technologies for Finland's defense (so putting HX IP money could go to these areas):
1. Technologies for management and networking, as well as intelligence, surveillance and targeting support
2. Material and structural technologies
3. Technologies of multi-technological systems and system management
4. Biotechnologies and chemical technologies

These are listed in the Business Finland HX-related search for industry partners:

Software
Cyber skills
Artificial intelligence
Autonomous systems
Structures, materials, logistics
Directed energy
Research
Critical dual-use items
Sensors
C4: Command, Control, Communications, Computers
Systems for reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition
Management of multi-technology systems
Energetic materials

Where would you put 2-3 billion, keeping in mind that Finland/local industry would have to be willing and able to absorb the tech transfer - not just that LM could offer it?

Boeing for example would probably put money into the development of NGJ's latter two pods (RAAF has already paid 250M for the NGJ R&D). But unlike LM they can take the easy way out by putting the majority into directly SH/G related assembly/part manufacture.
Offline
User avatar

lukfi

Banned

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

Unread post17 May 2020, 21:19

XanderCrews wrote:I brought up the Norway overestimation arguement?

You brought up some estimate the Norwegians made.
The fact you think that someone who does this for a living pointed out you have no real world experience and thus don't know what you don't know, or the very limitations of your perspective is not an insult.

Let me rephrase my question, then. Why did you ask the question about the aircraft needing 30 minutes of maintenance every 10 flight hours vs. 6 hours every 50 hours?
when are they ever a front runner?

So let me get this straight. The competition was cancelled, Saab wouldn't have won anyway if it wasn't, but somehow this is bad news for Saab and another nail in the coffin for their botched airplane. Xander logic :doh:
Again this isn't the way its "sold."

they don't have rights to all the technology their pressers made it sound like they were giving away. You can see it with the India sales pitch as well

I think this discussion would benefit from less boasting about your experience and knowledge and more actual sources.
Where has Saab said that: 1) Gripen can be fully maintained by conscripts and doesn't require any downtime in the shop, 2) technology transfer offered to Brazil includes British, American and Italian systems in the plane? (because the term "access to source code" does not imply that in any way, nor does "full technology transfer" when it's clear that not all components are Swedish)
Please provide links to sales brochures, Saab press releases, quotes of Saab representatives in the media, or quotes from Brazilian or Indian officials. Until you do, I'm calling bullshit and I'm going to say the "false mystique" is only in your head because Saab has never said those things. When you do, I'm going to politely apologize and humbly acknowledge I was wrong.
I'm not surprised at all Lukfi. remember when silly old me kept mentioning major maintenance and overhauls etc? how that price adds up? Gripen is down for 3 months every 800 hours? thats not good but its not a surprise.

I wouldn't know if that's good or not, because silly old me knows nothing about aircraft maintenance, remember? I don't even know if the number is correct: I've later found out that I was looking at an outdated source, and that CzAF is now also doing the 800-hour inspections on site, and only fly to Sweden for the 1600-hour ones. If the Hungarians are doing the same (which I really don't know), then it would be 10-12 weeks (that's what the original article says, so slightly less than 3 months) every 1600 hours.

I was looking for some information on the F-16, to have some comparison; according to what I found, it undergoes a "phase inspection" every 400 flight hours, and can reportedly be done in 5 days but according to this article it takes 18 work days. Maybe one is working around the clock and the other when you have a single shift that only does workdays; I'm assuming that the Gripen inspections are similarly optimized for cost and not speed. So, for the F-16 in peacetime it's possibly 3-4 weeks every 400 hours?
150 hours a year too is less than half of what the USAF typically flies. Meaning again that the Gripen Operators are "saving" by flying lower hours and "punting" major maintenance that most air forces don't have the luxury to do, showing further that Gripen Maintaince numbers are not only "massaged" by that their maintenance cost is also lowered by the fact they don't fly them nearly as much as many contemporaries. This was already alluded to:
weasel1962 wrote:Gripen probably has lowest CPH if one does the calculations in a certain. If one flies the fighter at 30 hours instead of 300 a year, think about the fuel savings alone...then one can amortize overhead costs over 250 years because the airframe life of 8000 hours. Then of course if one has to only hire 1 pilot for every 3 aircraft due to serviceability rates, then the CPH becomes incredibly low. Doesn't then take long to realize that any math can be massaged esp for marketing purposes and really find it funny how anyone can bother with the discussion. All planes are magic planes. They fly further (or cost less) as long as the numbers are read in a certain way.

The USAF seems to be an outlier in flight hours per year. Two examples:
RNoAF: 56 F-16s, 7000 hours total per year = 125 hours per plane https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/01 ... -16-fleet/
UK RAF: 160 Typhoons, 19650 hours in FY2015/16 = 122.8 hours per plane
It doesn't look like any European country flies its fighter aircraft for more than 200 hours a year. 150 hours doesn't seem out of line in this comparison. Is it possible that USAF does longer sorties? Or some long ferry flights? Consider that you can't really fly too far without crossing the border when you're in Czech Republic, and the aircraft are not deploying anywhere overseas.
I was looking for some historical numbers, too. It seems MiG-21s were usually flown for about 90 hours a year. But here I've found information about one specific aircraft, a MiG-21U two-seater, that flew 2126 hours during its service with Czechoslovak Air Force but 4176 sorties! http://www.vhu.cz/exhibit/mikojan-gurjevic-mig-21-u/
Back to your point, flying less, you may save some money on personnel but then there are periodic checks that have to be performed regardless of the flight hours, and various fixed costs that can be included in the CPFH. I don't think flying a Gripen for 150 hours a year is significantly cheaper than if it was flown for 300 hours.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post18 May 2020, 03:47

Let me rephrase my question, then. Why did you ask the question about the aircraft needing 30 minutes of maintenance every 10 flight hours vs. 6 hours every 50 hours?


Image

things are more complex whether you realize it or not.

You wouldn't even know about the USAF costing disparities If I didn't tell you. guess why?


So let me get this straight. The competition was cancelled, Saab wouldn't have won anyway if it wasn't, but somehow this is bad news for Saab and another nail in the coffin for their botched airplane. Xander logic :doh:


You know youve gone full Gripen logic :doh: when not winning competitions is somehow not "bad news". So Is this secretly great news? no news? I mean youre argument now is well we all knew it wouldn't win because it never does?

its one more closed door on the Gripen NG program. its one more firm NO, where there was once at least some hope. Why else would Saab bother? it sure is funny watching the company who design the worlds "smart fighter" playing in competitions they know they can't win? Was it all just to samlpe the food and print moere pamphlets? keep the CGI guy in business? Saab are such great sports. Going to all that effort with no intention of winning. That's just "Smart Fightering" right there. How thrift savvy.

Is your argument really "well they weren't going to win anyway, so officially not securing sales is not a big deal"? :mrgreen: You got me there, I'll admit. Gripen NG not securing another countract is not really news anymore.

Gripen continually loses the chances to build any kind of sales momentum that can help it win further sales elsewhere.

Of all the options, Finland, Canada and India. India was probably their best shot its the biggest wildcard because indian procurement is gonzo and often illogical. and Saab was offering an awful lot in terms of "Made in India" and now its gone.

did everyone enjoy the curry?


I think this discussion would benefit from less boasting about your experience and knowledge and more actual sources.
Where has Saab said that: 1) Gripen can be fully maintained by conscripts and doesn't require any downtime in the shop, 2) technology transfer offered to Brazil includes British, American and Italian systems in the plane? (because the term "access to source code" does not imply that in any way, nor does "full technology transfer" when it's clear that not all components are Swedish)
Please provide links to sales brochures, Saab press releases, quotes of Saab representatives in the media, or quotes from Brazilian or Indian officials. Until you do, I'm calling bullshit and I'm going to say the "false mystique" is only in your head because Saab has never said those things. When you do, I'm going to politely apologize and humbly acknowledge I was wrong.


Theres plenty of them out there I'm not going to repost them. And before you call foul that its some kind of "untruth" or deception on my part these sources exist. and I'm trying to waste less time on you since youre getting increasingly hostile and have no desire to learn anything.

my point is as always that Saab marketing makes sure key information is "conspicuously absent" so they can't paint the picture that their fighter runs magically against what every other fighter has to deal with in the course of operation. And you can see this reflected in their fanbase very well.


I was looking for some information on the F-16, to have some comparison; according to what I found, it undergoes a "phase inspection" every 400 flight hours, and can reportedly be done in 5 days but according to this article it takes 18 work days. Maybe one is working around the clock and the other when you have a single shift that only does workdays; I'm assuming that the Gripen inspections are similarly optimized for cost and not speed. So, for the F-16 in peacetime it's possibly 3-4 weeks every 400 hours?


it depends, you can ask an F-16 bubba for more details but its going to vary. What exactly is included in the inspection in Sweden so we can apples to apples?


150 hours a year too is less than half of what the USAF typically flies. Meaning again that the Gripen Operators are "saving" by flying lower hours and "punting" major maintenance that most air forces don't have the luxury to do, showing further that Gripen Maintaince numbers are not only "massaged" by that their maintenance cost is also lowered by the fact they don't fly them nearly as much as many contemporaries. This was already alluded to:
weasel1962 wrote:Gripen probably has lowest CPH if one does the calculations in a certain. If one flies the fighter at 30 hours instead of 300 a year, think about the fuel savings alone...then one can amortize overhead costs over 250 years because the airframe life of 8000 hours. Then of course if one has to only hire 1 pilot for every 3 aircraft due to serviceability rates, then the CPH becomes incredibly low. Doesn't then take long to realize that any math can be massaged esp for marketing purposes and really find it funny how anyone can bother with the discussion. All planes are magic planes. They fly further (or cost less) as long as the numbers are read in a certain way.

The USAF seems to be an outlier in flight hours per year. Two examples:
RNoAF: 56 F-16s, 7000 hours total per year = 125 hours per plane https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/01 ... -16-fleet/
UK RAF: 160 Typhoons, 19650 hours in FY2015/16 = 122.8 hours per plane
It doesn't look like any European country flies its fighter aircraft for more than 200 hours a year. 150 hours doesn't seem out of line in this comparison. Is it possible that USAF does longer sorties? Or some long ferry flights? Consider that you can't really fly too far without crossing the border when you're in Czech Republic, and the aircraft are not deploying anywhere overseas.
I was looking for some historical numbers, too. It seems MiG-21s were usually flown for about 90 hours a year. But here I've found information about one specific aircraft, a MiG-21U two-seater, that flew 2126 hours during its service with Czechoslovak Air Force but 4176 sorties! http://www.vhu.cz/exhibit/mikojan-gurjevic-mig-21-u/
Back to your point, flying less, you may save some money on personnel but then there are periodic checks that have to be performed regardless of the flight hours, and various fixed costs that can be included in the CPFH.[/quote]

neat must be nice having completely even and perfectly distributed hours on the airframes as well...

anywho again in an effort to keep things short we know there will be further reduction on comparable flighthours with the F-35. (20 percent is 20 percent) I'll think about it more and might add more in other posts but again. trying not to waste so much time on you.


I don't think flying a Gripen for 150 hours a year is significantly cheaper than if it was flown for 300 hours.



Again you're just showing your ignorance here.

Image
Last edited by XanderCrews on 18 May 2020, 07:39, edited 2 times in total.
Choose Crews
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 383
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post18 May 2020, 05:11

lukfi wrote:I think this discussion would benefit from less boasting about your experience and knowledge and more actual sources.
Where has Saab said that: 1) Gripen can be fully maintained by conscripts and doesn't require any downtime in the shop,


Right here. 2 second google search. First hit. You might want to try it.

From the very beginning, cost has been a pivotal design parameter for Gripen. Throughout design and construction Saab has ensured that the aircraft is easy to service and repair – even outdoors, by conscript soldiers with minimum resources.


https://saab.com/air/support-solutions- ... n-support/

lukfi wrote:I don't think flying a Gripen for 150 hours a year is significantly cheaper than if it was flown for 300 hours.


You're literally burning twice the amount of fuel. This doesn't even take into man hours, maintenance, spares, etc, or the obvious fact that you're running through the plane at twice the pace. The above quote shows you're the poster boy for Dunning Krueger. I'd go even a step further because this is basic logic and common sense, and you failed that part.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post18 May 2020, 06:41

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=saab+gripen+conscripts




a team composed of a technician and five conscripts would be able to re-arm, refuel, and perform basic inspections and servicing



... rearmed and checked in under 10 minutes by a team of five conscript ...



The latest of this series of aircraft, the SAAB "JAS 39 Gripen (Griffin)", ... one highly trained specialist and five minimally trained conscripts.



another innovative Saab creation, the JAS-39 Gripen. With the ... resulted in an aircraft that could be maintained by newly trained conscripts.


Maintenance and reconfiguration was also vital, as it would need to be performed by Swedish conscripts with only 10 weeks' training


Saab JAS 39 Gripen ... the Gripen's design (along with maintenance simplicity to suit a conscript level ...



Incidentally, did you know that three military conscripts and a supervising technician can change a Gripen engine in less than an hour, regardless of weather conditions?



Swedes use a scale of one specialist and five minimally trained conscripts per aircraft.



harsh climate and easy maintenance by conscript mechanics.



bases with mobile support units and conscript personnel for turnarounds.



As per Saab, it takes only ten (10) weeks of training to allow a Conscript to work on the Gripen.



High availability is vital for small air forces. These organisations rely on aircraft that offer a long Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) and short Mean Time To Repair (MTTR). For example, the entire engine can be exchanged and tested in the field in less than one hour, including testing.
These properties, together with low maintenance requirements per flight hour, give the aircraft higher availability than its competitors.
Gripen’s high operational availability, rapid turnaround and minimal support requirements lead to sustained high sortie rates giving commanders the ability to meet the most demanding operations with minimum resources. --Saab


Gripen almost never needing much maintenance as its serviced outdoors on the side of the road by a bunch of barely trained yokels has been a massive part of its entire mystique, and plays deeply into the subsequent cost claims. However, in the same way we knew that $4700 an hour is too good to be true, the Gripen is not immune to the same serious inspections, heavy maintenance and other big ticket, specialized, long duration maintenance that just about everyone else needs. Of course saab never mentions this. and of course Saab and the Gripen are not immune to whats been standard practice for operation and safety for decades. It would be nothing short of malpractice for Saab to ignore such things, but thats not at all how it is spun.

Please provide links to sales brochures, Saab press releases, quotes of Saab representatives in the media, or quotes from Brazilian or Indian officials. Until you do, I'm calling bullshit and I'm going to say the "false mystique" is only in your head because Saab has never said those things. When you do, I'm going to politely apologize and humbly acknowledge I was wrong.



"Gripen is designed to meet the demands of all future threat scenarios, and to remain in active operational service for 8,000 flight hours, which, at an annual flying rate of 170 hours a year, is about 40 years of service...

...Now I'd like to briefly outline our pricing and key cost data for you. These figures are approximate and are based on in-year Canadian dollars. The acquisition price of one Gripen, the fly-away price, is about $55 million. That depends on configuration, but that's a real number.
The other critical financial issue for any nation operating this aircraft is the cost per flight hour over the aircraft's full life cycle of about 40 years, the in-service support cost. The figure we use is not produced by Saab but comes from a wholly independent source, the Swedish air force, which monitors very precisely all of the criteria to come up with the in-service cost figure. The in-service cost per flight hour for Gripen is between $4,000 and $4,500 in Canadian dollars. So for a full fleet of 65 Gripen NG, the cost per year would be between $44 million and $50 million Canadian for a full fleet of 65 aircraft.
If you take round figures, in terms of acquisition and in-service costs, a fleet of 65 Gripen NG will cost you just under $6 billion Canadian. That's about $3.75 billion Canadian to acquire the aircraft, and $2 billion to operate them over 40 years, or just under $6 billion for the whole package for life."


https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewe ... 8/evidence


Now I happen to know that Canada's CF-18 fleet before the arrival of the Aussie Birds was under about $1 billion for the entire fleet per year --full deal. And here is a SAAB LIAR telling Canadian representatives they can maintain 65 Gripens for 40 years for 2 billion, which is not only false but he is only including the false CPFH in the cost 50,000,000 divide by 65, divide by 4500= 170 hours. Theres ZERO mention of heavy inspections or maintenance its completely left out of the 2 billion claim. every sentence up there is a lie. every single one. "thats a real number" he says before trying to tell you they can run 65 Gripens at 1/20 the cost of the CF-18s... 95 percent cheaper than a CF-18?

Image


When Saab is not under a binding clause they LIE. Its been proven time and time again. The testimony was non binding so they completely and utterly lied and spun the truth. They know that's not real, its not even close. the only time they ever tell the truth is behind closed doors when information is legally binding, which by pure total coincidence is when they get utterly demolished against their competitors and peers. beyond being a marketing strategy they are now "committed to the lie" Saab can't come out tomorrow after 20 years of lies and suddenly tell you the actual CPFH is $15,000 or whatever. Extra credit for dragging the Swedish air force into the lie in attempt to get credibility, and only adding about 2 million extra per Gripen in their procurement claim (they literally took the flyaway cost and multiplied by 65 to arrive at 3.75 billion which is of course no where near procurement cost.)

Saab is basically the 47 year old pervert picking up naive 16 year olds in his red convertible. anyone who knows better is not only not fooled, they're absolutely disgusted.

I await your apology.
Last edited by XanderCrews on 18 May 2020, 08:18, edited 6 times in total.
Choose Crews
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 383
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post18 May 2020, 07:26

It's amazing how the US requires highly trained personnel to work on the F-18 with the same engine the Gripen uses, yet the Gripen can use conscripts with barely any training. I guess working on the Gripen increases your IQ by 100 points. I guess that's why it's called the smart fighter.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6412
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post18 May 2020, 07:53

kimjongnumbaun wrote:It's amazing how the US requires highly trained personnel to work on the F-18 with the same engine the Gripen uses, yet the Gripen can use conscripts with barely any training. I guess working on the Gripen increases your IQ by 100 points. I guess that's why it's called the smart fighter.



well I mean even just studying it seems to endow the novice reader with a superior understanding of military aviation, procurement, combat, engineering, design, etc to such a degree that even those in the field of aviation are left humbled, and in despair of their own ignorance...

and I'll address this:

(because the term "access to source code" does not imply that in any way, nor does "full technology transfer" when it's clear that not all components are Swedish)


I don't think you understand how those terms are being weaponized. Nor how little grasp Gripen fans have for how much of the Swedish 6th gen uber fighter is outsourced :wink: Do you think when one of those mouth breathers hears "full Technology transfer" from good old honest saab they don't realize Full doesn't really mean full?

remember when you were talking guarantee in Norway and i said a guarantee isn't really a full guarantee??

Image
Choose Crews
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3112
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post18 May 2020, 09:08

kimjongnumbaun wrote:It's amazing how the US requires highly trained personnel to work on the F-18 with the same engine the Gripen uses, yet the Gripen can use conscripts with barely any training. I guess working on the Gripen increases your IQ by 100 points. I guess that's why it's called the smart fighter.


Finland uses conscripts to maintain our F-18s and their engines and there has never been a problem with that. I bet the Swedes use the same kind of system as we do. Basically there is always professionals (officers and mechanics for example) around and conscripts (and reservists) are used as assistant mechanics, for refueling and rearming (not sure about actual live ammo though in peacetime), general support and security duties. So actual professionals do the more demanding stuff but there is a lot of things conscripts can do with 1-2 month training and then learning on the job. It must be remembered that these conscripts have to apply themselves for this and have to prove their abilities and willingness before they get there.

I agree that Saab making big thing about conscipts being able to maintain the jet is just marketing gimmick. I doubt there will be much problem even with F-35 and their systems. Or any other candidate aircraft.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tiger05 and 11 guests