Tempest414So the next question is dose Brazil have the tec or not and if not will they in 10-15 years
Tempest414Taurus has been exported to Spain and has been ordered by South Korea plus offered to India however Gripen can carry 2 as seen
Tempest414A Gripen with 2 AIM-9 2 AIM-120 2 Taurus and a drop tank
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224017[/ATTACH]
Tempest414when we talk about Gripens attack capabilities we know that Gripen C/D is cleared to carry Taurus KEPD-350 that has a 500 km range and I think Brazil would be wise to look at something like Brimstone
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224016[/ATTACH]
Tempest414The last few months of 2013 has seen this market start to move with Argentina set to get 16 Mirage F-1M’s from Spain in 2014 and Brazil ordering 36 Gripen E’s plus Colombia looking to procure a new fighter type in the next 3-4 years so what next
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223993[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223994[/ATTACH]
Tempest414So when we take the 2004 figures from USAF for F-16C they have a different cost to each command so as said these figures are for DEPOT/FH- DLR – FUEL- GSD- SSD only
ACC- $1900
ANG – $ 1795
PACAF- $ 2130
USAFE -$ 1947
ACC – F-16B $2135
But we have seen figures of $5000 – $7000 – $ 17000 for F-16C when different factors are taken into account
We also know that Gripen C/D/E will offer a big step forward for Brazil and with a 100+ air-frames will make them the most powerful air-force in the region so why send more than they need to . Also if they go for Sea Gripen it will make the their carrier a real force when at sea
Tempest414Now when looking around I found this which out lines US types logistics cost per flying hour years 1997-2004 and per command so the all highlighted is all commands and the CPFH differs between commands
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/hourcons.htm
WEAPON SYSTEM: A-10A
DLR 738 683 752 691 692 701 694 693 ALL
FUEL 476 476 476 476 476 476 476 477 ALL
GSD 256 257 252 209 207 209 205 208 ALL
SSD 83 90 90 90 90 90 90 89 ALL
* Subsubtotal *
1553 1506 1570 1466 1465 1476 1465 1467
WEAPON SYSTEM: B-1B
DEPOT/FH 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 ALL
DLR 5236 5845 6819 6793 6649 6582 6288 6361 ALL
FUEL 2845 2853 2849 2841 2838 2838 2838 2838 ALL
GSD 791 732 694 673 669 668 660 660 ALL
SSD 645 662 641 642 636 635 606 606 ALL
* Subsubtotal *
9687 10262 11173 11119 10962 10893 10562 10563
* WEAPON SYSTEM: F-15C
DEPOT/FH 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 167 ALL
DLR 2819 2687 2975 2977 2921 2836 2820 2868 ALL
FUEL 1246 1246 1245 1245 1245 1245 1245 1246 ALL
GSD 385 381 375 373 373 373 373 372 ALL
SSD 142 144 143 143 143 143 143 143 ALL
* Subsubtotal *
4759 4625 4905 4905 4849 4764 4748 4796
WEAPON SYSTEM: F-15E
DEPOT/FH 251 251 251 251 251 251 251 251 ALL
DLR 1804 2072 2525 2407 2354 2307 2207 2180 ALL
FUEL 1488 1489 1489 1489 1489 1489 1489 1489 ALL
GSD 351 355 355 355 355 355 355 355 ALL
SSD 304 310 284 176 176 176 176 176 ALL
* Subsubtotal *
4198 4477 4904 4678 4625 4578 4478 4451
WEAPON SYSTEM: F-16C
DEPOT/FH 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 ALL
DLR 859 1004 1143 1022 993 970 969 842 ALL
FUEL 700 700 700 700 699 699 699 699 ALL
GSD 211 205 205 204 204 204 204 202 ALL
SSD 99 101 100 99 98 97 97 96 ALL
* Subsubtotal *
1963 2104 2242 2119 2088 2064 2063 1933
Tempest414There is also one thing that we hve forgot to discuss that this deal tells us: Br has turn its back to the possibility of being a strategic mil partner in the region. There is a lot of missions that they hve discarded with this choice.
I think it is noteworthy to say without insulting Saab and the (laser) Saaber’s. So please, don’t rebound with that argument :love-struck:
Partner to who?
Tempest414Some of these numbers cite what is included : fuel, mean annual logistics cost per hour, etc.
The issue is : Saab is saying in Brazilian Air Force site (!!!) that Gripen NG costs less than US$4,000/hour to fly. IMHO, this is just marketing without any reality. As comparison, in my country, Brazil, a F-5EM/FM costs US$12,872/hour, Mirage 2000C/B US$18,872/hour, AMX US$11,753/hour (official 2011 data from Brazilian Air Force). So how Gripen NG, which is a little above Mirage 2000C/B in power performance, can cost < US$4,000/hour ? So Saab takes the CPHR or Rafale and Super Hornet, with many items included, and compare with its magical value.
I used this in the T-50IQ thread but I will put up here as well this is how the UK sees cost per hour
There are two tables – Full and Marginal costs. Full cost is the annual cost of everything to do with that airframe including all the support staff, buildings, etc divided by the total number of hours flown in a year. i.e. all direct and indirect costs.
The marginal cost is the cost of one more hour in the air ignoring all the indirect (fixed) costs, i.e. fuel and maintenance. Full cost per hour will vary with the number of hours flown, marginal will not.
For example, the following figures were indicated in the 2009-2010 period for a number of platforms:
Typhoon – Full £68716 Marginal £3780
Harrier GR9 – Full £35762 Marginal £3945
C-130 J – Full £11587 Marginal £1888
C-130K – Full £9924 Marginal £2132
C-17 – Full £42068 Marginal £4870
For the Merlin HM1, the Treasury came up with an admortised figure, which has become sadly quite famous, of £41,588 in answer to a question in Parliament.
However, according to the Defence Aircraft Capitation Rates the operating cost for just the machine is £3,162 per funded flying hour. A Sea King, for comparison, is reported at £3,183 per flying hour.
The same document, however, then adds on the ancillary costs to each aircraft, eg aircrew, Unit admin, admortization, Westland storage costs for spare parts for a minimum of six months after servicing requests, the cost of RAF Benson and the cost of the still recent restructuring of the Depth Mainteinance process and facility, the cast of thousands in the MoD and the 1000 men at Westland, and with amazing accuracy comes up with £41,588 for the Merlin HM1, around 34.000 for Merlin HC3 and £16,723 for the Sea King 4 and 7.
Tempest414I went here because I’m Brazilian and Brazil announced in 18/12/2013 Gripen NG as winner of FX-2 competition. So as a citizen who cares about public spendings, contracts, etc, I want to know real and offical data from the operators of Gripen C/D, not only marketing info from Saab.
In Brazil, Saab has given misleading info : “Gripen NG is the most advanced fighter of the world”, costs < US$4,000/hour, range equal or greater than Super Hornet and Rafale, has more weapons (load or diversity ?) than Super Hornet and Rafale, Brazil will have 100% of intelectual property of Gripen NG, etc.
So, I simply don’t trust Saab anymore after the above sentences.
But I was hoping to find some honest, official and real info here about Gripen C/D operational costs.
We can not say for sure what the cost per hour is as this will differ from force to force as needs differ however what we can say is if we take the lease deal for the Cezch Air-Force of 780 million Euros when we split this down for 14 air-frames over 10 years at 400 hours a year it work out 13928 Euros or 19000 dollars per hour so when we take the cost of air-frame depression – training – logistics weapons and infrastructure off the cost of operating Gripen it would be around 3500-4000 dollars
Tempest414this could lead to up to 20 sea Gripen’s being built at the end of the 36 E/F order which would give SAAB 8 years to finish working it out build and start tests SAAB has said it has finished the design work on Sea Gripen and this might have something to do with the order for E/F’s
Tempest414having looked around I still can not find anything that points to Em-2032 being any better than the APG-67 in any way so Iraqi T-50’s would have the same capabilities no matter what radar is fitted and as their fighters will carry AIM-7 and maybe AIM-120 latter APG-67 may be a better bet
Tempest414AN/APG-67
The system broadcasts an average power of 396 watts, allowing it to detect fighter-sized targets at up to 40 nm (75 km) in tracking modes, and up to 80 nm (150 km) in velocity search. In the air-to-air mode it offers long-range velocity search, track-while-scan with up to ten tracked targets, and a variety of single-target-track and auto-lockon “dogfight” modes. It has a variety of pulse repetition frequencies that are automatically selected depending on whether or not the antenna is looking up or down.
And this was as fitted to F-20 in the 80’s
Tempest414Can someone tell why the EL/M-2032 is better than the AN/APG-67 both have a max range of 150km/80mn both are A2A-A2G and A2S capable both have SAR both can handle AIM-9 – AIM-7 – AIM-120 and guided A2G weapons so why do we think Iraq would be getting a bad deal with AN/APG-67 is it not just a choice or price thing as on paper there is nothing between them
Tempest414I think once we see the break down of costs you might well breath easier. As pointed out adding a proper multi function radar capable of guiding BVR missiles. Whilst M-SCAN radars like the AN/APG-67(V)4 are not the fashion here these days it is a rather good set going on the paper specifications. Even in comparison to the AN/APG-68(V)9. Looking through some books and a bit Google-fu I think the AN/APG-67 had a SAR mode before the AN/APG-68, even the vanilla T-50 is pretty much more capable then any other equivalent trainer in the region when it comes to combat.
I struggle to believe the South Koreans would diddle you, they appear to be a fairly honourable and reliable supplier. Heck even the UK is buying ships off them now.
I feel the T-50 with the AN/APG-67 fitted with AIM-7 sparrow and AIM-9 would give the Mig-21’s /F-5’s and Mirage 111’s a run for there money and I think SAR was an option on AN/APG-67
Sign In
