dark light

Vnomad

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 661 through 675 (of 2,429 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4 #2181364
    Vnomad
    Participant

    The best way to compare costs is to compare within the same competition.

    We don’t know what the SH would have costed Brazil, if the deal hadn’t collapsed in the wake of the NSA scandal. And we still don’t know how much it will actually pay for the Gripen E. So there’s no way of ascertaining the price gap between the two.

    However, fact remains, the option of transferring capital assets (that would otherwise be condemned) overseas, gives Boeing a major advantage in markets where fostering the domestic industry is an overriding priority for the govt (as may be the case with India). Had Boeing not been preparing to shut down its production line, the Gripen would most certainly have been the better choice.

    The operating costs for Gripen NG will also be significantly lower than for the SH. Operating costs is often forgotten in discussions like this.

    Trouble is operating cost is spread out over decades. It doesn’t really strain budgets the way acquisition costs can over the short term. The annual cost of operating 36 fighters ($25K x 180hrs x 36 ~ $160 mil) is far outweighed by the cost of paying for 6 new aircraft delivered every year ($150 mil x 6 ~ $900 mil).

    in reply to: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4 #2181395
    Vnomad
    Participant

    What you seem to ignore is that Sweden needed a partner to cover the Gripen E development cost; Switzerland decided before Brazil and was therefore going to be that partner; now it’s Brazil instead. Being a “partner” has some advantages, however also one disadvantage, which is that one is expected to cover some R&D costs. Somewhat similar to what the F-35 partners are doing.

    In addition: I don’t think Saab uses the concept “LRIP” however it it seems clear that, just like for F-35 the first 100 or so Gripen E will be more expensive than the next 100. Thus one should expect future customers to pay a lower price than what Switzerland would have paid for those very-early productions units (just like those countries who bought into early F-35 LRIP units paid a much higher price than those that ordered later).

    Basically what you’re saying is that further orders for the Gripen E will have a lower unit cost. Maybe so. Then again, this doesn’t help prove that the Gripen is significantly cheaper than the F-16V/SH. Not unless you know what proportion of its bids were earmarked for reimbursing R&D expenses.

    In fact, its quite possible that the R&D costs were not passed on to the customer, to help maintain cost competitiveness; better to make a modest profit by winning a contract, rather losing the contract after shooting for a higher margin. The Swedish govt too might have preferred to retain jobs and improve economies of scale, over recouping part of its investment.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2181688
    Vnomad
    Participant

    :eagerness:

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXV #2181692
    Vnomad
    Participant

    Can someone tell me what the intakes on the base of the leading edge of the tailfins are for?

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXV #2181694
    Vnomad
    Participant

    I believe I saw a diagram where it appears to have a ring of injectors near the base of the nozzle. But since I can’t read Russian I didn’t get to read about how it’s exactly supposed to work. Does someone want to translate? Do they pump refrigerated air through those injectors for cooling, or something else? I’d imagine that there’d be a bit of a drag penalty since it increases boundary layer back there.

    No point refrigerating it when ambient air at cruise altitude is already -50 deg C.

    in reply to: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4 #2181696
    Vnomad
    Participant

    I think you are wrong; there is no special “appeal” with an assembly line of a product that is going out of business. Although it may be more attractive than not having an assembly line at all.

    Not just the assembly line, the airframe production will likely be shifted too, with just the mission systems continuing to be imported. TASL (Tata) right now produces aerostructures for the C-130J, full airframes for the RUAG Dornier, fuselages for the Sikorsky S-92 and now full fuselages for the Apache and fuselage components for the Chinook. And Airbus has partnered with them to produce the C-295 (as and when the contract comes through).

    Building the airframe for the F-16/SH (in addition to assembling them) would be right up their alley. No HAL-type issues to worry about for the OEM.

    Perhaps you believe that moving the SH assembly line and assemble X SH will be cheaper than building a new Gripen assembly line and assembling X Gripen? Look again at what Brazil is paying for their assembly line, including training and 36 Gripen. Compare that to the price of SH without the assembly line.

    We know what the Brazilian state is paying Saab for the Gripens; we don’t know what its paying Embraer.

    The only off-the-shelf purchase with a publicly disclosed cost for the Gripen E was the Swiss deal where it was priced just under $150 mil/unit. The difference with the Super Hornet (judging from the RAAF’s purchases) isn’t that large.

    In addition; although I doubt it, we should not discount the possibility that Saab may suggest to move the existing Gripen assembly line from Sweden to India…. From a cost-effectiveness point of view, that may make more sense, rather than having three assembly lines for such a small product.

    That would be an interesting idea, but I don’t think that would be politically palatable within Sweden. Especially if other parts of the production chain are also outsourced with that.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2181876
    Vnomad
    Participant

    True but you buy those for the pleasure and interest of having 2 somewhat different cars to drive. Air forces don’t buy 2 similar types because the pilots find that more interesting. It’s a bit too expensive…

    ,,,but as you say, perhaps not for the very richest states. And if the rulers need to, they can come up with reasons why having 2 different types (although representing desperately bad value for money rather than having one) is advantageous – currying political favour with the supplier country, each type being more capable than the other in some ways, if one type is grounded temporarily, the other is still operational etc etc.

    Sorry. That post was meant to be (weak) joke implying they were buying fighter jets for pleasure, cost no bar. Anyway, forget about it.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon discussion and news 2015 #2181886
    Vnomad
    Participant

    Why would Qatar possibly be interested in operating 2 different eurocanards?

    You may already have a Ferrari in the garage, but you can still put a Lamborghini next to it, no? Of course my garage contains neither but then I’m not a sheikh in the world’s richest country. :very_drunk:

    in reply to: Indian Air Force Thread 20 #2181888
    Vnomad
    Participant

    You never know till the trials are held what surprises it can spring up 🙂

    Please give me any example of an issue that might be faced in India and not elsewhere in the world.

    FGFA is a JV unlike other project even the MMRCA was just a lic built and not a JV yet had to undergo trials. Still FGFA/PAK-FA will go through trials

    Everyone knows its a joint venture only in name. If the contract is signed, all HAL will do is license-build/assemble the “second-stage” PAK FA (customized with the usual kit). And like I said, its not being put through any trials in India (or Russia AFAIK) prior to purchase.

    in reply to: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4 #2181891
    Vnomad
    Participant

    F-16 AFAIK is very unpopular in India due to the fact that it’s being used by Pakistan.

    It was very unpopular only in military/strategic circles, and that too when the Rafale seem to be the way to go. The important thing is what the govt thinks. They could probably spin a story for the press if they had to; F-16V >> F-16C/D or something similar. And then drape it all in ‘Make-in-India’ dressing.

    I’m not saying that the Pakistan thing is not a factor, just that its not quite as big as it used to be. Especially since the MMRCA was cancelled. Good article on the issue (cross-posting from the IAF thread).

    When it comes to costs I think they will have to look at the total cost, not just a part of the cost.

    Don’t forget the SH was competing against Gripen in Brazil — as you would expect Gripen was found to be significantly cheaper. Brazil is probably a good reference point since it includes both an assembly line and TOT. Also operating costs will be much cheaper. SH is a great platform but it remains a big, twin-engine plane, and is not particularly cheap. There is a reason why it has not scored many exports. If they want to go cheap then Gripen is the way to go. … Perhaps IAF would not be very happy, but they are in any case not going to be happy with the final solution, that has been pretty clear for a long time, hasn’t it.

    You’re missing the crucial difference between the F-16/SH and Gripen E in the current context. In Brazil, they would have set a new greenfield project to build it locally. Its main appeal in India, on the other hand, is the unique opportunity of snapping up on the cheap, an already existing production line that’s going-out-of-business.

    They’re doing something similar with the BAE M777 howitzer acquisition:

    In 2010 an FMS notification for the sale of 145 guns was priced at upto $650 mil, which was subsequently revised to $900 mil in 2013. As the Indian govt/MoD continued to dither, the production line in Cumbria ran out of orders and started to shut down in late 2013. The new Modi/Parrikar govt revived the acquisition as part of their ‘Make’ initiative; under the new deal BAE is transferring its production line to Mahindra, a pvt company (though the barrels will continue to be made at a US facility). The cost? $700 million.

    in reply to: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4 #2181938
    Vnomad
    Participant

    Agreed, makes financial sense for India to buy the F-16 production equipment rather than build new for Gripen. However, there appears to be some resistance voiced to F-16 on the grounds that Pakistan is/has been supplied with F-16. Personally, I don’t understand why.

    Well there is the PR issue, which would probably be a matter of concern for a govt that has to manage public opinion. The resistance seems to be ebbing though, going by press reports. And then there’s also the option of the Super Hornet.

    I’ll retract what I said about India doing very little design work for MCA. What I should have said was that India should only design those parts of MCA where local design resources have the skills and knowledge required to do so effectively (including TOT as available from SAAB, where practical).

    They could directly contract Saab for design consultancy services. No need to sign on to the Gripen for that. Boeing & BAE could do the job as well. The really intriguing possibility IMO, is a true joint-venture with Israel on the project. Perhaps with the aircraft scaled up a bit to be an adequate F-15 replacement. The work-shares would be (somewhat) complementary. Elta’s competence wrt to radar/EW components and Rafael’s with EO systems would suit it perfectly. And the IsAF would finally be able to get some non-US fighters to complement its F-35Is. Certainly makes more sense than the idea of reviving the Lavi project as a JV. Anyway… I’m just spitballing here. Its a far-fetched notion I know.

    in reply to: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4 #2181961
    Vnomad
    Participant

    Indian news sources are very unreliable, in particular quoting “anonymous sources”. In any case, we all know what the IAF want; at least 126 Rafale. This they will not get, so they have to come up with a plan B.

    True the source isn’t reliable, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the report, for once, is completely authentic. For better or worse, the IAF (even in previous years) doesn’t seem too enthused by the aircraft and I doubt there’d be strong advocacy from a Gripen buy from that quarter. And if its left to the MoD, the F-16 (or even SH) would have a far better chance. Doesn’t have the Gripen E’s new EW system (would rely on podded solutions) but it would be much cheaper to build locally. And where significant numbers are involved, that would take priority for the govt.

    LCA mk2 would perhaps be in Gripen NG class; but mk1a seems not.

    It would impinge upon the domestic program. Unlikely to acceptable to a govt on a major indigenization drive.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2181987
    Vnomad
    Participant

    The Golden Eagles are on their Way to Israel

    The preparations for the arrival of the first F-35 aircraft are under way. An exclusive review of the cutting-edge fighter aircraft expected to revolutionize the Israeli Air Force and the aerial warfare doctrine employed in the Middle East

    Dan Arkin | 24/03/2016

    http://www.israeldefense.co.il/sites/default/files/styles/full_article_image/public/_Uploads/dbsArticles/AU%201%20FF%20Aerial%201.jpg

    It will take place on Monday, December 12, 2016. In the presence of Israel’s national leaders, two F-35 fighters, IAF designation ‘Adir’, will land at Nevatim IAF base. According to international law, once the aircraft wheels have touched the ground, the aircraft is officially transferred to the possession of the Israeli Government. A technical flight team will approach the aircraft and attach the emblem of the newly-established IAF squadron – the Golden Eagle Squadron.

    At this time, four aircraft intended for IAF are already on the assembly line and the Israeli flag flies over the assembly station. On June 22, the roll-out ceremony will be held, where the first complete aircraft will roll out of the hangar. Next summer, the F-35 will make its debut flight appearance to the aviation world at the Farnborough International Airshow near London, England. The complete designation of this aircraft is F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). On December 12, the first pair of ‘Adir’ fighters will depart for Nevatim IAF base, Israel.

    In fact, the Golden Eagle Squadron already exists. It has a commander and functionaries, and the set-up team, made up of both air crew and ground crew personnel, is already hard at work. A demonstration simulator has already been installed at Nevatim in order to provide an initial introduction to the new aircraft. The real simulator, capable of simulating the entire range of the Adir’s performance, will be delivered in early 2017. In the summer of 2016, the first IAF pilots selected for the first Adir squadron will arrive at Lockheed Martin’s training facilities in the USA. Ahead of them, the men and women of the technical flight will arrive at the same facilities in order to study the maintenance secrets of the F-35. So, 2016 will become the Adir training year.

    All of the preparations at the Golden Eagle Squadron are progressing under unprecedented confidentiality restrictions imposed by IAF, whose history has included the assimilation of quite a few new fighter aircraft types. IAF sources explained that the strict confidentiality requirements were presented by the Americans, who are apprehensive about industrial espionage. Apparently, the Chinese and the Russians would love to learn the secrets of the F-35. Accordingly, the squadron buildings and the deep underground pens at Nevatim IAF base are all being erected by teams from the US Corps of Engineering. The secrecy of the aircraft systems and everything associated with it are kept strictly under wraps.

    The Lockheed Martin Corporation announced officially that “In the context of FMS (Foreign Military Sales – the agreements concerning military sales to foreign countries), the Director General of the Israel Ministry of Defense had signed, on October 7, 2010, a document for the procurement of F-35 aircraft (conventional landing and take-off). The agreement includes cooperation between the two countries with regard to technologies and know-how and an opportunity for manufacturing by the Israeli defense industries. While the Israeli Air Force plans a reduction of its old F-15 and F-16 squadrons, the F-35 will continue to guarantee Israel’s global advantage. The Israeli Air Force designated the cutting-edge aircraft ‘Adir’.”

    The aircraft is currently operated out of 10 airbases. So far, 145 aircraft were commissioned, logging 45,000 hours. More than 240 pilots and 2,400 maintenance personnel have been trained. In July 2015, the US Navy announced that they had declared the aircraft operational. USAF is in the process of establishing one operational squadron this year. 12 aircraft will be delivered to the UK, Australia, Italy, Holland and Norway and in the future – to Japan, South Korea and Israel. So far, more than 160 aircraft were manufactured and 105 were delivered. The procurement plan calls for 600 aircraft to be delivered to allies of the USA and 2,443 aircraft to be delivered to the three armed services of the US military.

    “We must revise our Doctrine”

    Some lucky IAF officers were already introduced to F-35 aircraft that are in use in the USA. Brig. Gen. Amiram Norkin visited the USAF training base, “checked the goods thoroughly” and had this to say: “We are used to flying low with our F-16s and F-15s. Now we must revise our doctrine. The F-35 has a small signature and this will enable us to fly higher. It is a fifth-generation aircraft that requires fifth-generation tactics. It will change the Middle East.” Even before the final decision was made and the procurement contracts were signed, the commander of IAF in those days, Maj. Gen. Ido Nechushtan, had said “This aircraft has a unique operational added value. If the State of Israel possessed something as unique as the F-35, especially if we were the only ones possessing it – it would have a strategic significance.” Nechushtan flew the simulator and his impression was that “A major part of it is in getting to know and understand the operation of the sensors that provide the pilot with extensive information.” Later on, Col. Dror, who in those days was Head of the IAF Weapon Systems Department, also flew the F-35 simulator and said “It was definitely impressive. The advanced ergonomics in the cockpit enable personal adaptation to the requirements of every (individual) pilot. I was airborne for 40 minutes and executed a vertical take-off and landing.” Col. U., who was the Head of the IAF Budget & Auditing Department, said that “In this deal of a multi-mission aircraft, IAF knew what it wanted operationally. The plan is an IAF plan. We have extensive experience, but this deal is more challenging owing to the innovative nature of a fifth-generation aircraft. The strategic situation in the Middle East and our current operational need had led us to want to be the first.”

    Like any other new aircraft, the F-35 had its share of ‘childhood diseases’. This was further inflated by reports, rumors and slander by competitors regarding delays in the project timetable and malfunctions identified in the various systems. Shiki Shani, CEO of Lockheed Martin Israel, assured us that “The project has safely negotiated the labor pain stage. The delivery timetable vis-à-vis all of the various air forces is being adhered to very strictly. The manufacturer won a difficult and prolonged competition over others, and it is normal for competitors to try and subvert the winner. The bottom line is this: there is no other aircraft like the F-35 anywhere in the western world today.

    “Why does IAF need the F-35? The fourth-generation aircraft, F-16 and F-15, are becoming obsolete. IAF decommissions some of its aircraft and needs to fill the ranks. The first F-16 aircraft are already being decommissioned and the first F-15 aircraft have reached the end of their service life. In the theater of operations surrounding us there are, and there will be, the latest surface-to-air anti-aircraft batteries like the S-300 and S-400. IAF must have the ability to shoot down without being shot down, hence the importance of stealth. Another characteristic that is important to the theater: the ability to take off and land using short, 100-200 meter long runways. Short take-off and vertical landing. All of these capabilities are offered by the ‘Adir’.”

    Paul Poitras, a senior executive at Lockheed Martin, had this to say about the importance of the aircraft’s stealth capabilities: “The integration of stealth and the other systems of the aircraft and its performance characteristics yield a result that is greater than the sum of its parts. Stealth does not make the F-35 completely invisible, but it disrupts the enemy’s ability to spot and destroy you. The aircraft is built so as to push away Radar energy. The energy will slide off the surface of the aircraft frame just as water slides off a smooth pebble.”

    Airborne Surveillance Station

    The stealth characteristic determined the external shape and geometrics of the F-35. Admittedly, its Radar signature is not nil, but it is very small, which makes it difficult to lock onto it in order to launch munitions against it. The aircraft frame is made from special materials painted with layers of coating and Radar-absorbing paints. This special airframe structure calls for maintenance methods that are different from those used on previous-generation fighter aircraft: drilling or riveting through the aircraft frame are impossible, so as not to damage the paintwork layers and composite materials that provide the aircraft with its stealth characteristics. This was the reason for the Americans’ aspiration to have the maintenance of all F-35 aircraft performed centrally at maintenance centers deployed around the world, manned by Lockheed Martin specialists and containing their own stores.

    IAF does not like this method – and that is an understatement. It has always preferred to service and maintain its aircraft on its own. Lockheed Martin assured us that agreements were already reached with the Pentagon, and that this controversy will be resolved. IAF will become a part of the global maintenance system, but some maintenance procedures will be performed at home.

    Shiki Shani, CEO of Lockheed Martin Israel, a former senior IAF officer and pilot, praises in particular the pilot helmet and the intelligence data processing options available to the Adir pilots. These capabilities involve computer systems and sensors that translate data into targets: “This aircraft is particularly suitable for the present generation of youngsters who were born into the era of personal computers, smartphones and iPads. Pilots tell me that flying this aircraft is similar to a computer game. It is important because it leaves the pilot of this single-seater fighter sufficient time to absorb the information, process it and, naturally – to fight. For example, how do you launch a missile from an aircraft whose entire armament is carried internally? We use the Lock-before-Launch method – the pilot locks the missile onto the target, then opens the armament bay, the missile engine ignites, the missile starts to move and departs toward the target. The pilot performs almost all of these procedures using his helmet. The helmet and sight system by Rockwell Collins and Elbit are a breakthrough: Look and Shoot – the pilot moves his head, spots a target/threat at a range of 100 miles and launches. The missile may be launched from the pilot’s own aircraft or from a neighboring aircraft. The helmet alone, for all of the aircraft, is a 2.5 billion dollar project.”

    An American test pilot said about the helmet that “It has a dual screen, a noise filter, it is adaptable for night flying, offers 360-degree vision including the ability to look down, below you. The F-16 informs you that a problem exists and what the problem is. The F-35 not only alerts you of a problem – but can also fix it.”

    The cockpit of the F-35 has been defined as an airborne surveillance station. The information available to the pilot regarding targets for attack in real time is more extensive than in any other fighter aircraft. The pilot can determine which blips on his Radar screen represent ‘good guys’ and which ones represent ‘bad guys’, as the various software packages on board the aircraft synthesize the information and prioritize it for the pilot, telling him which targets are ‘friend’ and which are ‘foe’.

    Such an extensive range of software might one day prove tempting to computer hackers and destructive aviation hackers. The designers had taken this into consideration, and the F-35 is fitted, as part of its super computer, with a highly rigid cyber security system to prevent cyber warfare attacks against the aircraft while it is in the air, on the ground or even at sea (on board an aircraft carrier). Mike Panchenko, cyber warfare engineering chief at Lockheed Martin, adds that “To ensure the safety of the F-35, we employ the Cyber Kill Chain – a special kit for suppressing threats, including cyber warfare threats.”

    in reply to: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4 #2182045
    Vnomad
    Participant

    Isn’t it too late for SAAB to get a Gripen deal with India, given that there is a commitment to Tejas Mk1A and steps are being taken to ramp production up to 16 per annum?

    That and the fact the IAF doesn’t seem interested in a Gripen buy – Making Gripen fighters in India not favoured by IAF. No political pluses from the deal either.

    Perhaps SAAB are thinking that it might take another 10 years or more for HAL to deliver 100 Mk1A’s (that might/might not meet specifications) and that India would like some certainty in aircraft being delivered that do what they are supposed to do when they are supposed to be delivered. I think Gripen E could be rolling off an Indian assembly line at most 5 years after India signed a deal with SAAB.

    They’d have to build a new assembly line first, with all the requisite tooling. In fact, the main appeal of the F-16 & F-18 is that the equipment at Ft. Worth/St. Louis can be shifted to India significantly reducing the capital costs involved.

    Possibly an angle on MCA as well? Given LCA’s track record, India does not appear to be capable of developing and manufacturing a fast jet with any reasonable adherence to time schedule. If India embarked on MCA without the TOT and guidance of a proficient design and production company, what level of certainty would there be that the project did not overshoot deadline by 10 years or more? A Gripen E deal coupled with an MCA design and production partnership (a la FGFA in which India basically would do very little design work) has its attractions.

    So.. basically India would be underwriting a Swedish development program. Duplicating the idiocy of the FGFA project. I doubt that plan would get much traction in New Delhi. If it came down to it, it would make much more sense to scrap the MCA entirely and stick to license-building the PAK FA.

    in reply to: Indian Air Force Thread 20 #2182057
    Vnomad
    Participant

    Unless you think P-8I and Fighter Aircraft are the same thing and they operate in same environment.

    The DPP does not make a distinction between the two; both are covered within the same set of regulations. And ops at Leh aside, what exactly is unique about the environment in which the IAF’s fighter jets operate?

    PAK-FA will come to India and indeed there was an interview with HAL to F magazine where he mentioned 2 prototypes will be tested in India ……..without flight testing how will IAF figure out the shortcoming of the type operating in various Indian climatic conditions

    First please appreciate what “No-Cost-[U]No-Commitment[/U]” trials imply.

    Will the PAK FA be sent to India for trials before a contract is inked and payments have begun? The answer is a firm no.

    At some point Indian test pilots may be allowed to fly the aircraft but that will happen only after the agreement on the aircraft is signed.

    The longstanding demand of Indian Air Force to allow its Test pilots to flight-test one of Russia’s 5th generation T-50 fighter jet will be met soon after a formal Joint development agreement for the development of FGFA based on T-50/PAk-Fa is signed between India and Russia, said UAC President Yuri Slyusar.Link

Viewing 15 posts - 661 through 675 (of 2,429 total)