KramerIAF An-32 serial K2724 in Kiev, Ukraine prior to its modernisation upgrade
An-32 serial K2677 after its upgrade
KramerMy prediction:
Brazil FX2: (Super Hornet, Rafale, Gripen, Su-35?)
Indian Helo: (Ch-47, Mi-26)
Indian Transport: C-27, C-295, Il-112
Indian SARS: Shin meiwa US-2, Beriev Be 200, Bomberman 415
Malaysian MMRCA: (Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Super Hornet, maybe some Russian type)
Swiss AF: Gripen
Korean FX: Eurofighter, F-15, F-35, others?
The first Su-35 export customer will be?-Venezuela
KramerFrom Livefist blog- the 8 contenders for the IN’s MRMR requirement. No analysis, just pics.
KramerN-LCA’s first flight cleared by the Flight Readiness Review Board (FRRB)
Bangalore: The naval variant (NP-1) of India’s Light Combat Aircraft is ready. Having missed many deadlines like its air force avatar – Tejas, sources now confirm to Express that the Flight Readiness Review Board (FRRB) has cleared NP-1 for first flight. Rolled out on July 6, 2010 amidst cinematic settings and blessed by defence minister A K Antony, the NP-1 ran into a spate of technological challenges. As this piece goes live, the total systems onboard NP-1 have completed fault-free tests on Iron Bird – ahead of the possible maiden flight.
Sources say that the platform has so far completed four low-speed taxi trials (LSTT) and one high-speed taxi trial (HSTT). “On Thursday, the NP-1 did an HSTT at 220 kmph, lifting the nose-wheel. We are now hoping to have the first flight next week,” sources at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) said. While some crucial parts of NP-1 gave nightmares to both designers and engineers, including the bulky undercarriage, sources now confirm that the defects have been rectified.
The NP-1 will be put through another HSTT next week before the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and HAL combine take a final call on the first flight. “Everything is in place and our engineers and technicians are leaving no stone unturned ahead of the first flight. We had some software snags which have been rectified at the right time,” HAL sources said.
Kramerupgraded MiG-29UB of the IAF in Russia
Kramercross-posting from BRF, courtesy Nick_S
A-330 MRTT at Leh airport during trials
KramerSo a direct quote from both Jane’s & SAAB is a lie ? :rolleyes:
In my guess, yes its marketing speak from Saab, which Janes have quoted since non-Swedish Air Forces may not have given a $ figure for them to use. Nothing else can explain a nearly double operating cost per hour figure from an Air Force that operates the Gripen C/D.
Since fighter manufacturers are not held to such quoted figures by operators, Saab can even get away with it saying that hey when we mentioned spares, maintenance, fuel, crew as being part of it, you didn’t see the asterisk marks, the fine print on what we actually included in our operating cost estimates. In commercial aviation, such details are expected from the OEMs and engine manufacturers are very very specific on what they include in their estimates since they give guarantees to the airlines.
KramerA few hundred? How many hours do you think a fighter flies in a year? How much do you think aircrew are paid? How many aircrew do you think there are, in relation to the number of aircraft? And is ground crew pay included? Remember, they’re employed & paid even if the aircraft doesn’t fly.
yeah, a few hundred $ at the most on a per hour basis (of course not considering all the overheads). Fighter pilots aren’t paid as highly as commercial pilots (one of the reasons why so many leave Air Forces) and even they don’t make more than that. the SAAF will have just about 2 dozen qualified Gripen pilots anyway. an SAAF officer even mentions in that article about how they reduce crew costs by using the twin seater since both pilots get hours.
The NAO’s “operating” costs include a hell of a lot, including capital charges (notional interest on the money paid for the aircraft & supporting infrastructure). I think they’re pretty much the total cost of ownership, divided by hours flown. i.e. they’re not operating costs. But they’re still widely quoted as if they are, & compared unfavourably with marginal operating costs (the difference between the aircraft being in the air & sitting in a hangar) quoted for other aircraft.
In this context, remember that it doesn’t do you any good knowing what SAAB includes in its figure unless you also know what the SAAF includes. Unless you know both, any comparison is meaningless.[/QUOTE]
Exactly – they included costs that most operators (and certainly not OEMs) will not include in their per hour operating cost. The cost of ownership is always higher and if the SAAF was talking about the ownership costs then the Gripen’s $10,000 per hour are ridiculously low. But we know that $10k/hour quote wasn’t ownership costs they were talking about- rather the things (spares, maintenance, crew and fuel) that Saab’s Eddy de la Motte claimed would cost <$5000 for an export customer. Now I wonder what he was thinking when he included crew costs in the <$5000 per hour operating cost claim?
KramerMore numbers!
http://www.jurnalul.ro/observator/atac-saab-f16-610464.htm
How can Jane’s operate the F16 at only 7,000 USD per hour? That’s cheaper than the UK Hawks! Jane’s must be sponsored by LM! Kramer, pay attention!
:diablo:
So a direct quote from the SAAF is a lie ? :rolleyes:
Who knows what source Janes used for their data and how old that was..
KramerLivefist has an article that states that as per Dr V.G.Sekaran Director of ASL, DRDO, the first test firing of the Nirbhay long range cruise missile is slated for July-August timeframe.
India’s Tomahawk-like long range cruise missile Nirbhay is expected to be test-fired for the first time in July-August this year, according to the Dr V.G. Sekaran, director of the Advanced Systems Lab (ASL) at DRDO.
This will be, without a doubt, the most significant weapon test since, perhaps, the Agni-III. The Nirbhay, shrouded in secrecy for long, is understood to be a two-stage high subsonic cruise missile with loitering capabilities. Sources suggest that apart from the engine (apparently supplied by NPO Saturn), the rest of the system is fully indigenous.
Indian private sector giant Tata revealed recently that it was building the vehicle [PDF] that will be the carrier/launcher for the Nirbhay system. The Nirbhay will be based on the “indigenous high mobility, all-terrain and all-wheel drive Tata LPTA 5252-12 X12 vehicle”, developed in partnership with DRDO.
KramerApples & oranges? Operating cost per hour is an even more flexible figure than sales price. If, for example, you count crew costs, then reducing flying hours puts up the cost per hour. It reduces total cost, though.
The NAO in the UK came up with an operating cost per hour of £90000 for Typhoon a few years ago. It now says about £70000. But the difference in cost between an aircraft sitting in a hangar for an hour & flying for an hour has been reported by the MoD to be less than £5000.
You really, really need to know how the figure is calculated before you start making comparisons – and none of us know that.
How is it an apples to oranges comparison? The Saab exec specifically mentioned maintenance, spares, fuel and manpower costs in the <$5000 per hour operating cost. If we assume that didn’t include air crew costs, that would at the most add a few hundred $ to the cost, not another $5000. Whether the number of flying hours were reduced and that increased the crew costs per hour or not, the difference cannot be $5000 per hour.
As things stand, the SAAF’s figure of operating costs seems to back what TooCool stated- that marketing speak and reality on the ground differ.
Did the NAO’s operating costs actually include ownership costs as well as depreciation?
KramerSlowly now…. $3000 was 10-15 years ago, since then it has gone up as fuel cost goes up, a couple of years ago it was quoted as <$5000, and half a year ago as $7000.
I agree with @eagle that the apples to apples comparison with Hawk is interesting, since it can be assumed it is in fact an apples to apples,
same AF operating both a/c, no doubt including same factors when comparing both.
Thus, any country operating Hawk will now know what extra cost to expect when operating Gripen
As far as the (less than !) $3000/hour operating costs figure goes, Saab was touting this figure as recently as in the MMRCA competition in India ! Maybe you need to go inform Saab’s Eddy de la Motte that the < $3000/hour figure was probably true back in the early 2000s to late 1990s. Because as late as 2010, this is what he was stating
“The main advantage of Gripen is low operating cost in comparison with larger aircraft equipped with two engines,” says de la Motte. “Now for the Flygvapnet [Swedish air force] the cost per flight hour is less than $3,000 and for the export customers it will be less than $5,000, including maintenance, spare parts, fuel and manpower.”
Farnborough- Saab plots bright future for Gripen programme-July 2010
So at least now we can dispense with the Saab propagated myth that the Gripen costs anywhere near $3000 or $5000 to operate per hour. The real figure is closer to the $10,000 figure coming from a neutral source that actually operates the Gripen. You see, they don’t have a motive in selling Gripens to export nations, so they’re likelier to state actual figures. If indeed the Gripen met the promises of the Saab exec, the SAAF may have been able to afford more flying hours for their pilots. Although to be fair to them, the Gripen is still the cheapest fighter they could’ve afforded to fly and offers the best bang for their buck.
AFAIR, the article even mentioned that the SAAF pilots are restricted from using their after-burner to conserve fuel and avoid increasing operating costs. In such circumstances, the operating costs figure that we’ve got from the SAAF might even be on the less conservative side and may explain why there is only a difference of $4000 between the per hour operating costs of the non-afterburning Hawk and the Gripen.
KramerWas reading Air International and came across this article on South Africa and their Gripens. This particular paragraph really caught my eye, since the operating cost per hour figure seems so much higher, at $10,000 per hour, its more than 200% higher than the figure that was being quoted by Saab and SwAF. Apparently, as per the SAAF, the Gripen is not that cheap to operate, which is why they’re having to make their pilots fly in mixed packages with a single Gripen leading 2-3 Hawks to keep operating costs low. Also their pilots fly around 125 hrs per year with another 35 in a simulator with them specialising in a particular role as opposed to being qualified for multi-role ops.
KramerAre you saying that India do not need a road mobile TEL?
even Russia have almost closed the chapter with rail based TEL and India’s “inspiration” and idea for such a thing most likely came from the Russian experience. But it is not the best way. Road mobile TEL is the way to move forward as it can go much more places than what a rail carriage can go.
But in the current situation (with no canisters like Topol-M), the rail carriage would be a better idea as the carriage will give protection to the missile from environment and other factors that could affect its operational life and performance.
But TEL has to be the way forward as it gives good maneuvering space compared to the railway lines.
Agni-V is meant to be a road-mobile missile. Eventually, when it is operationalised, a road mobile TEL will be developed for it.
But anyway, how is it easy to track down a rail-mobile missile that could be anywhere on India’s vast railway network? It would be far easier to spoof a satellite into thinking that it isn’t where it is believed to be, after all a specialised carriage need not always be carrying an operational Agni-V.
KramerAgain wrong, the CAG has done this before, it has commented adversely on the performance of the Derby missiles for example ;).
So what happened after that? :rolleyes:the IAF has gone ahead and ordered Derby missiles for the Tejas. And the IN will almost surely order them for their N-LCAs as well.
I am sure they will find that some impropriety has occurred especially since none of the competitors met all the 643 requirements as you say. Why not a cheaper plane then will be the question that will be asked. Also I think they will re-analyze the life-cycle costs of the preferred choice as well.
Because the cheaper plane didn’t meet as many of the 643 parameters as the costlier ones did. Simple as that. The ranking was based on who met the most requirements and that left no scope for a less capable but cheaper airplane to be bought.
Sign In
