Sintra, Tu22m you should visit F-16.net, there they all agree that F-35 is as cheap as Gripen E 😉

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=25426&sid=d62593586dbb54479ba85d3b11b254a9

My dearest chap, the F-35A its not on the same bracket cost of the Gripen E or a F-16V. It almost certainly will never be. Quite simply, a 13+ ton stealth strike fighter equiped with the biggest fighter engine (and, by far, the most expensive) will be more expensive than an 7 to 8+ tons conventional design equiped with a F-414/F-110, simple has that. Thats a Stealth strike fighter the size/weight of a Phantom or a Tornado…

Even if we forget the good old common sense (reminds me the Norwegian MOD around 2008…), by now we have the USAF Budget stating exact numbers to 2019 (did i forget to mention that they have been proven bloody optimistic every two years?), severall FMS letters to the Congress, the South Korean competition, an exact number for the Dutch MOD and an history of six years of production (and the exact numbers for, airframe, avionics, engine, non recurring costs and ancilary equipment for the last seven years). So we can make an educated deduction, and just the simple fact that those Budget documents (the ones who have been a bit optimistic) clearly state that the F-35A will be always quite a bit more expensive (roughly 1/3) than an entirely outfitted Growler speaks volumes (the “Fly Away Unit Cost” in “then year dollars” never gets down from the 90 million US $ barrier for the F-35A).

The F-35A its not an F-16, its a much bigger/heavier and (almost certainly) a much more capable airframe, so it will cost quite a bit, always.
Even if Mr Bogdan gets it right with an 2019 “80/85 million US$” Non-recurring Fly Away Unit Cost (and its predecessors have got their predictions wrong), it stucks the cheapest Dave into Evolved Strike Eagle/Typhoon land, and IMO the JPO boss is a very, very optimistic chap.

But i might be wrong (it wouldnt be the first time). Has Bring said the other day “time will tell”.

Cheers

Short answer: Weapon Integration (WpI) is part of the Software Block process. It has ALWAYS been this way.

Long Answer: The reason that WpI is part of the Block process is that multiple components in the aircraft communicate with the weapon and/or are involved in its use. They both have to go hand in hand. Yes, it is an asinine way of doing things (speaking as a software developer).

However, all is not lost. The entire purpose behind the UAI initiative is to break the “bond” between Software Blocks and Weapon Integration. What UAI does is that instead of including all of the software needed to integrate a certain weapon, it contains the software to support weapon features. Any weapon that limits it’s interaction to the plane to only the supported features can be integrated using just UAI.

Let’s put it in terms most of us can understand, Windows and Printers.

Back in the days of DOS, each program that ran on your computer had to have its own support of any printer you had attached (think weapon). For example, your Wordperfect might have support for your Laserjet 1, but Lotus 1-2-3 did not. Then you go buy a shiny new Laserjet 2 but cannot use it till WordPerfect and Lotus release new versions of their programs to support it (think Software Block).

When Windows introduced “Print Manager” (think UAI) it severed the dependency of programs to create their own interaction. Now, each program (weapon) only had to talk to the “Print Manager” (UAI interface) using a standard set of protocols. The “Print Manager” would then convert the information from the program into a format that the Printer (weapon) would understand. On the Printer’s side of things, they only needed to create a driver that the “Print Manager” would understand. There was not need to create drivers for each program.

It works the same for UAI. The avionics talk to UAI, which converts the data and passes it to the weapon and vice versa.

The only integration work that needs to be done with the weapon that applies to each plane is safety of flight and separation tests. Once that is done, the weapon’s UAI “drivers” are uploaded to ANY F-35 that has the right Software Block (and UAI Version – see graphic below) along with the mission planning updates before a mission. No need for a new software block.

The first version of UAI covers most A2G functions. The second, more A2G. Third up is UAV and 4th brings A2A weapons. Future plans are to incorporate pods like FLIR, recon, EW, etc.

Now I know you are asking, “Why are we waiting for Bloick4 to put it into the F-35”?. There are two main reasons for it not being part of the IOC (Block3) F-35s:
1. The UAI initiate did not start till after the F-35 program began.
2. They had to make sure that delays in UAI would not delay the F-35’s IOC. (see one of the original timeline charts below.

The UAI program is also International. Several international programs have already expressed a desire to add UAI functionality to their weapons. To that end, the UAI program actually has language in it to foster international cooperation.

This is what the FY2015 budget has to say about UAI.

Well, thats a very nice/informative text, thanks Spud, nice job.

Just an update from our friends at secret project, Darpa’s T3 program did indeed fund and launch the 2 brand new designs (one from boeing and one from Raytheon). While the boeing design was a conventional missile the Raytheon design was a ramjet based on their contract work with aerojet.

As mentioned earlier, Darpa’s own website showed that both the missiles will be test fired in the fall of 2013.

Thats news!
Raytheon and Boeing, eh? The incumbent and the challenger… I might be wrong but that throws any LM BVRAAM proposal into the “Highly unlikely to get picked” bucket.

Congrats to Darpa (sneaky bas…ds 🙂 )

CHF 4 billion (for aquisition of 22 Eurofighter or Rafale) is 29% more expensive than CHF 3.1 billion for 22 Gripen E. So 22 Gripen would cost 77.5% of the cost of 22 Eurofighter/Rafale, which is 22.5% less, not 33% less.

About terminology of “cheaper” x “a lot cheaper”, well, you can chose at will. But the numbers are clear.

The 1/3 number was yours, just picked it up.;)

These aquisition cost differences should take in account the capabilities of the 3 air fighters. Eurofighter with 7.5 tonnes of external load capacity has approx. 50% more than the 5 tonnes of Gripen E. While Rafale with 9.5 tonnes has 90% more external load capacity.

External load capacity? We are talking about Switzerland here! The idea that somehow the Schweizer Luftwaffe was going to pay/put a premium on external load capability is a bit off, dont you agree? Maybe you are thinking in some other country?

Fiat Punto here in Brazil is expensive, starting with R$ 45k (US$ 20k) but going up to R$ 60k.

Dear Christ! Last year i´ve been in Rio (and Goiânia) for severall weeks (work), and i always had the idea that taxes this side of the “pond” are quite high, but that voyage opened my eyes, its even worse there!

Good luck to get a Jaguar F.

Thanks, but the Fiat is going to serve for severall more years.

But this huge sea area, incluindo Madeira e Açores which have airports, is responsibility of Portugal. There are/were many deploiments of F-16 to Madeira and Açores airports.

True, we have a huge sea area, and we do take a good care of it, but not with Vipers; while they sometimes fly to the Açores and Madeira, its normaly to use the airspace for exercises, not QRA, on the other hand, the P3C, the C-295 MPA and the EH-101 fleets are quite over worked.

Brazilian Air Force officially confirmed in Parlament (Senado Federal) this 5.2 ton. external load capacity of Gripen NG, see previous post from 05/03/2014.

Gripen NG (39-8, etc) has heavier motor, new airframe to have more fuel capacity and different position of landing gear, heavier (AESA) radar, etc.

Misconception by me, Loke was right, we were talking about diferent things.

By the way, I am a Brazilian citizen. And Saab was selected as winner of FX-2 in 18/12/2013. That is the reason I want to know every true facts (costs, performance, etc) of Gripen NG, because it will be Brazilian money spent (US$ 4.5 billion + maintenance + weapons), our air defence will depend on this air fighter, etc. It is the right of every Brazilian citizen to follow the Gripen NG-Br development, its costs, if and how it will fulfill the requirements of Brazilian Air Force, etc.

I am aware that you are Brazilian, i think that we have crossed paths in a few Brazilian Forúns a few years ago (when i still had enough time to write in diferent Forúns), and i seem to remember that the Swedish litle aircraft was not exactly your favourite? :angel:

Cheers

The complete operational cost of Eurofighter and Rafale which I’ve seen, from official sources, gives around US$ 35-40 thousand/hour.

RC

For the RAF Typhoon i have Stuart Atha claiming a 5600 pounds CPFH and i have the House of Commons Hansard claiming a 70000 pounds CPFH (and almost anything in the midle), both of them official, both of them written in official documents, may i ask wich of the two is correct?

Russia will increase cruise missile inventory by 30 times.

Yes, and the Russian Air Force will be the mightiest this side of Klingon, the Red Army Choir will destroy the non existent EU Tanks while Leonid Kharitinov sings “The Volga Boatmen” and the Russian Gas and oil is sold to Romulans by Jonh Cleese…
Russia STRONQ

JSR, go and write in the Russian topics, thanks in advance.

Well ,what is wrong ? Gripen NG-MS21 won the Armasuisse technical evaluation ?

Actualyy it did won the Armasuisse evaluation. After being evaluated it was declared third in the technical part, then the Swiss Air force declared that it was capable of meeting the mission and it was far cheaper than the competion, and declared it the winner. So yes it won fair and square.
But i really loved how the “NO” flyer while reminded the technical evaluations forgot to remind its reader�s how much the Swiss Air Force would have to pay to acquire and operate something like a Typhoon or a Dassault Rafale…

with 22 new Gripen Ng or E/F , Switzerland will be able to perform missions that were impossible with 32 F/A 18 and/or 50 F5 ?

Wrong question, the correct one is “with only 32 airframes, will the Swiss Air Force will be able to perform the missions asked of their MOD/Government”?
If bought the Gripen will suplement the 32 classical hornets, they wont certainly replace 50 F5 AND 32 F/A 18�s…
And would droping more than half of the Swiss Air Force FJ fleet without replacement be a good idea? Well, the Swiss Air Force surely thinks not, and taking in account that in my own country, Portugal, we need to use 28 airframes to do QRA, training (and a bit of external deployement now and them), doing the same on an identical airspace but with three times the air trafic would surely call for more than 28 or 32 aircrafts.

Gripen E/F is not a paper plane but a combat proven and reliable aircraft ?

Gripen E/F is certainly not a paper aircraft, unless the Demo is made of paper and those two airframes that are being built now are also made of paper. And the Gripen C/D is certainly a reliable aircraft and combat proven, so the chances of the Swiss Air Force receiving an unreliable aircraft are quite slim.

Switzerland will not have to pay a deposit of 40% to finance the development of the Gripen ?

And? Last time i�ve checked ths Swiss MOD in the RFP asked for development work to be carried out in Switzerland, right?

Almost all the “facts” in that flyer are simply alf truths and easily countered, but what really grilled my nerves was the “OH we must not spend millions in aircrafts, but in education”, wich is all very well and nice, but its supid considering that if the no wins the money will go back to the MOD coffers, it wont be used in Education/Social Security/Transports/Whatever.

Normally I hate using Wikipedia but since to some documentaries are an acceptable proof (I have seen some documentaries that were an outright insult to audience’s intelligence), here it goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning#European_theater

In short, it did continue to serve in Europe until the V-E day… but only in a reconnaissance role, whereas I was talking about combat (fighter) role.

No Picard, your quote only applies to the 8th Air Force. The P-38J served in Europe in a combat role till VE day, not with the eight air force, but with the ninth.

But Kovy is correct, off topic…

Cheers