Forum: General F-35 Forum

In simpler form, there are two approaches to lowering the costs of fighter operation: (1) You can use the fighter design with the greatest emphasis on reliability and maintainability. (2) You can go for economy of scale by buying the most common thing out there, giving yourself access to a wider range of maintenance/upgrade options.

Gripen represents the first approach, F-35 the second. Since the Canadians appear so intent on avoiding the taint of American military hardware, I'd say the Gripen suits them better and could possibly provide them with greater operational independence. If Canadian politicians continue to b!tch and moan about the F-35, I wonder if it's possible to boot them from the program and send their money back. It's only gonna get worse after the first planes are delivered, I can hardly wait to see the media $hitstorm that happens as soon as an engine so much as burps on an operational CF-35.

F-16.net Sponsor

1st503rdsgt wrote:

In simpler form, there are two approaches to lowering the costs of fighter operation: (1) You can use the fighter design with the greatest emphasis on reliability and maintainability. (2) You can go for economy of scale by buying the most common thing out there, giving yourself access to a wider range of maintenance/upgrade options.

Gripen represents the first approach, F-35 the second. Since the Canadians appear so intent on avoiding the taint of American military hardware, I'd say the Gripen suits them better and could possibly provide them with greater operational independence. If Canadian politicians continue to b!tch and moan about the F-35, I wonder if it's possible to boot them from the program and send their money back. It's only gonna get worse after the first planes are delivered, I can hardly wait to see the media $hitstorm that happens as soon as an engine so much as burps on an operational CF-35.

The operational factor either is quite important, at least for small airforces as Norway, Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium.
When operational, especially maintenance, spare parts as well as a same kind of weapon load are important.

A same configuration as well, during a mission, can be highly important.
Spazsnaz knows probably more about this, but I remember a report about Australian F18’s with a different configuration than US F18’s during Iraq.
Some US weapons did not fit on Aussie F18’s as far as I remember.

The same F16 MLU configuration is -/and has been used by these four countries (as well as later on Portugal, but they never have been on a mission) appeared to be successful during missions.

This resulted for instance in all kind of (special) maintenance equipment not every country needed to have on such a mission. This was -/ or will be common used by these countries.
Ground crew was able to maintain F16 MLU’s from also other F16 MLU countries.
Other common used items, for instance (jet) shelters, ground equipment, fire trucks etc.

This worked well, during Kosovo (Amendola). The Dutch operated with the Belgiums, joined in one squadron, with 32 F16’s (20 Dutch F16’s and 12 Belgium F16’s).
As squadron leader, a Dutchman or a Belgium.(Norway operated with Denmark)

In 2002, this was done, same wise, above Afghanistan with Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands; 18 F16 MLU (6+6+6). Plus they had there own fuel tanker(s)
For some time Belgium joined with F16’s as well.

Later on Dutch F16’s operated from Kabul.
From 2006-2008 the Dutch operated without their partners in Afghanistan, but in cooperation and with assistance from the US when needed.
From 2008-2011 Belgium joined the Dutch at Kandahar.
In 2011 Dutch F16’s moved to Kunduz, but suppose there still will be cooperation with the Belgiums at Kandahar (same F16 MLU).

I am pretty sure, the operational effect from such a cooperation will be, more jets having operational on a mission and more cost effective as well.
As well as training together, plus when joined on a mission will result in an advantage.

This will be quite difficult, when one flies, as one of the few, or as the only one, with a Gripen.

Seems Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark are thinking about a same kind of cooperation as during EPAF F16.

May be with Belgium as well (?). There are talks at the moment between Belgium and the Netherlands, cooperation ordering a new jet.
Premature, seems to me, because there are no plans jet at the moment in Belgium.
(Although their prime minister seems to favor the F35).

A personal (black) thought … some kind of lobbying by the Dutch min. of Defense, Belgium will order the F35 as well?

EPAF resulted for instance in much lower update costs of the F16.
As mentioned in a Dutch report, update costs of a Gripen could become quite high.
There would not be that many operators with a Gripen, as welll as the US did pay a lot of the opdate costs of the F16.

At that time Sweden did had no plans to order the NG. They would order only ten Gripen NG's, in case the Netherlands would order them. Not that strange high update costs were expected.

At the moment there still are some problems with the “Swedish” Gripens. Crypto is a problem and has not been solved yet. This was quite some problem for Swedish pilots during Libya.”
Communication was only possible with unsecured radio transmitting

Quote: - Gripen air defence data-links. When the Gripen system were upgraded to international capability with Have Quick and Link 16 someone forgot to upgrade the national air defence system.
This resulted in the infamous "capability gap" (in Swedish "förmågeglappet").
The Gripen C/D aircraft is a very good aircraft, but without support from the ground based radar network the situational awareness degrades. Fortunately the public debate has forced the Swedish Government to set aside money to implement HQII and L16 in the two, soon to be one, air defence centrals. International communication capability is good for international missions, international training and also to receive international help in case of an emergency.
The Swedish supreme commander want a focus on the nordic military cooperation. But Denmark and Norway are part of NATO and Finland still want a strong national defence due to their close neighbor Russia.
However, one thing that has not been solved is the cryptos that are to be used with HQII and L16. Sweden is not a member of NATO. Who will deliver these cryptos?
If Sweden can develop crypto keys of our own, will NATO and USA be able to listen to swedish national secret transmissions?

There are positive signs with upgrades to the equipment being used. But it is still a question of to what use the upgrades has been ordered:
http://notoriusunpublicus.blogspot.com/ ... fence.html

The Gripen C/D as well does not fly on military fuel, but uses civil fuel. The engine is not certified to fly on military fuel.
When Swedish Gripen C/D’s arrived in Italy there was no fuel for the Gripens, They bought fuel on the civil market, but the trucks got stuck for some time in the traffic.

A F16 and a F18 can fly on military fuel, but only for a few hours. In a Dutch report was mentioned, max. 5 hours-F16 engine.
Don’t know that much of this subject, but the Engine Guy can explain more about this.

Operational, seems to me, this will be quite a problem in missions as Kosovo or during Iraq.
Sweden did use a tanker from their own above Libya. Loaded with civil fuel, they either were not able to tank allies. Or allied tankers, filled with military fuel, to tank Swedish Gripens.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

The 5G Argument