toanAccording to the power point in the picture:
Alternative B:
* Current airframe (Gripen C/D).
* Uprated RM12.
* Future techonology.
Alternative C1:
* New airframe.
* New engine (F414).
* Current techonology.
So SAAB believes that it is more expensive to incorporate future techonology to the current airframe and engine of Gripen than to build a new airframe (plus a new engine) around Gripen’s current techonology ~ Personally, I don’t think this anticipation as surprising…….
toanIAF bought 49 Mirage 2000 in 1980, and another ten fighters during 2004.
And even after the two crash accidents this year, IAF still has at least 49 or 50 Mirage 2000 alive in service right now.
Losing 16%~17% fighters (59 –> 49~50) of the whole fleet after the 30 years+ service life without any major MLU is not a bad safe record for a fighter.
toanPolitically I don’t think it’s likely either, but would the F-15SE or F-35 be able to come anywhere close to the timeline the ROKAF have set?
Who cares? the F-35 couldn’t meet the timeline that JASDF had set a few years ago either. But finally, it was JASDF that changed the timeline “twice” (2014 –> 2016 –> 2017/18) to meet F-35……:diablo:
Are you wishing that ROKAF will have more guts than JASDF when facing the mighty USA ??:D
toanRight….Nothing has been settled yet. Kicking Typhoon out of the competition doesn’t necessarily equal to that Rafale will get the deal with the chance of 100%……
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/232395/mod-raises-objections-over-rafales.html
toan>> Like wise for France/Dassault pre India, remember?
Well, I think the French government and Dassault have already learned an important lesson from the pre-India failures: You can’t just hope and wait that your possible foreign customers will pay the money for developing and integrating the basic requirements (complete A2G capability, AESA radar, carrier-based variant, confirmatory future roadmap etc….) they need into your own fighter product, especially while your competitors already have all those basic requirements that your possible foreign customers need.
And it seems that the governments and manufacturers of Typhoon project still haven’t learned the same lesson up to now.
toanMilitary Chief Aims to Update Air Defenses
(Source: Radio Sweden; posted Feb. 29, 2012)
Sverker Göranson, Sweden’s chief of defense, wants to buy new and improved fighter jets for the future but would ultimately reduce the number of aircraft for the Swedish military.
Göranson presented his future defense analysis to parliament today asking for between 60-80 new fighter jets to be procured from 2020 to 2030. Sweden has about 100 fighter jets today.
“We are in the process of building a flexible defense,” he told Swedish Radio News. “If we want an air force after 2020 that is still relevant we need to rebuild it.”
But Göranson could not say how much this would cost. The analysis he presented states the most efficient way is to modify the current fleet of JAS 39 Gripen to better suit future needs.
However, this would only be profitable if one or more countries would be willing to contribute to the development of a new system of planes and supporting technology.
Armed Forces Want to Upgrade Gripen
(Source: Swedish Defence Force; issued February 29, 2012)
(Issued in Swedish only; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)
JAS Gripen will meet the Armed Forces’ operational needs at least to 2040, and the system should be the core of the Swedish air defense. Sweden needs at least 60-80 aircraft.
This is the conclusion of the Armed Forces analysis submitted to the government today.
As part of the efforts to develop alternatives and different configurations, the Gripen has been tested in extensive simulations and operational wargames against both known and anticipated future threats.
The upgrade of the combat aircraft system should start in 2020 and is expected to take ten years. A requirement to meet the funding is being made with at least one strategic partner country.
“Discussions will soon begin about costs, so it would be wrong to now openly say how much we estimate it will cost,” says Sverker Goranson, Supreme Commander.
The upgraded JAS 39 Gripen will have a larger airframe and a more powerful engine. This is to allow for more and more fuel arms which in turn leads to higher power and durability.
The analysis also suggested a more qualified and better radar warning and countermeasure systems.
toanExcellent point; but how do you explain Rafale’s “poor” ID capabilities in the 2015 config?
According to the report of Air Fan magazine in Jun, 2009, because of the lacking of the money for R&D, the OSF-NG may not be able to enter service until 2018. So in 2015, the Rafale may still have to OSF-IT with visual light camera only, and the IR channel may still have to be from the MICA IR AAM, which should be no surprise to be inferior to the IIR seeker of the ATFLIR……
toanSuch a small difference seems non-significant…
A: This conclusion can be truth, if Swiss AF decided to just take the configuration of three external fuel tanks into consideration and not to buy the 2,000 L external fuel tanks for Rafale…..
toanHowever I believe that figure 2.4 in the leaked documents is from the 2009 eval, which is using the 2015 config. Of course we have that “credibility factor” that they used to adjust the scores, according to a risk assessment that the capability would reach the level described by the vendor. It would be rather dissapointing if none of the European a/c would be able to match or exceed the Swiss 2008 Hornet in this capability….
A: The 2015 config of Swiss AF’s anticipation for the three European fighters during 2008~2009, which is of course not necessarily the truth.
For example: SAAB didn’t decide the IRST for Gripen NG until 2010, so when Swiss AF made its evaluation for Gripen during 2008~2009, it was simply impossible for Swiss AF to make a precise prediction for how good that Gripen NG’s IRST capability will be, and I won’t be surprised even if Swiss AF made the assumption that the 2015 config of Gripen still has no IRST at that time…….
And as what the Swiss government has declared recently: the 2009 eval is not accurate enough. So the Swiss government and military made another new evaluation and then decided to choose Gripen.
toan7th Gen shall be something not become the truth until 2060 to 2070 at least ~ At that time, the most important thing for 7th Gen might be: the successor (methane hydrate? hydrogen fuel? or even the nuclear fusion power?) of fossil fuel energy today……..
toanSome puzzling things in the first leak:
1. in figure 2.4 all three candidates score very low on “Data dissemination”; what is meant by “data dissemination”, and why would all 3 score so low!?
A: None of the three European fighters has been integrated into the Swiss air-defense system and C4ISR, so it should be very nature that the three fighters can’t share and exchange data with Swiss air-defense system as good as Swiss AF’s F/A-18C/D does right now.
2. Same figure: Why do all 3 score so low on “identification” compared to the the F18? How do the Swiss do Identification?
A: I believe that Swiss AF wanted confirmatory image identification ~ And during 2007, Swiss AF bought 20 ATFLIR surveillance and targeting pods (IIR + visual light camera) for its own Hornets.
As for the three European fighters at that time (2008):
* Gripen: pilot’s eyeballs only.
* Typhoon: IRST for IIR image only, whose image resolution for target identification won’t be as good as a visual light camera during the daylight.
* Rafale: the first generation FSO with IIR + visual light camera, but the overall performance for target image identification may be still a little inferior than the ATFLIR according to the Swiss AF’s evaluation.
3. It is said that the Swiss F18 was used as a benchmark. How come then that even the Rafale has “endurance/AAR/loiter time” that is not better than the old F18? I thought endurance and range was one of the strong points of the Rafale?
A: You are wrong ~ Rafale is still a little better than the Swiss F-18 (points of 6.1 to 6.2 v.s points of 6.0) in the performance of endurance/AAR/loiter time according to the Swiss AF’s evaluation.
Rafale shall have an extraordinary performance in endurance/AAR/loiter time if it is allowed to carry five external fuel tanks with 8,500 L fuel. However, if the Swiss AF thought this kind of configuration as useless and just took the configuration of three external fuel tanks into consideration, then…….
4. Why on earth is the Typhoon scoring so low on the QRA? And why is the Rafale scoring so high compared to the Typhoon? Any thoughts?
A: Two possible reasons that I’ve thought:
A. Something wrong may happen to Typhoon during the ground preparation for QRA mission, and then screwing up its overall performance for the QRA mission of Swiss AF’s evaluation.
B. The problems of EWS, IFF, IRST, and data-fusion for Typhoon at that time according to the Swiss AF’s statement might also screw up its performance in QRA mission.
toan>> Mr Cameron says he is absolutely committed to helping with the Eurofighter Typhoon project.
You say too much, but do so little.
Just shut up and pay the bills for:
1. Integrating costs of Meteor BVRAAM, Storm Shadow, Spear, Brimestone, SDB etc. onto the Typhoon ASAP.
2. Confirmatory developing and procuring productional CAPTOR-E AESA radar for Typhoon ASAP.
3. Procuring Tranche IIIB Typhoons.
4. Confirmatory future upgrading roadmap for Typhoon after 2015.
Then you are qualified to tell us that you are absolutely committed to helping with the Eurofighter Typhoon project.
toanEventually, the Swiss eval demonstrates the opposite.
Not that opposite. The Swiss airforce still admitted Typhoon’s significant advantage in A2A flight performance and the relative advantage in MMI and engagement in its evaluation. Unfortunately, its relatively poor performance in EWS, IFF, and target acquistion & identification had screwed all its advantages up ~ another good evidence that the negative attitude of UK / German / Italian governments for slowly developing and upgrading Typhoon has kept screwing its chance and future up.
toanI would say that the attitude of French government for developing and upgrading Rafale project is far superior than the attitude of UK/German/Italian governments for developing and upgrading Typhoon project, and that should be the main decisive factor for the final result of MMRCA competition.
Keep yelling your own fighter’s potential superiority without paying the bill to make it become the truth is simply useless for persuading your potential foreign customers.
toanNH is a big mess however (I don’t know why?) and, well, we all know about the sad state of affairs for the Typhoon…
The common incurable disease for multinational cooperative project~Every country wishs to put its unique requirement into the project, every country wants to get the biggest lion share from the project, but every country refuses to afford the extra-cost for the future of project……
Results: endless quarrelsome, continuous delay, infinite overprice…
Sign In
