hopsalotI think it was its baptism of fire. I mean the first time it was shot live.
Several have taken damage in Afghanistan…
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/maturing-of-the-osprey-first-v-22-pilots-awarded-dfcs/
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/09/190817/reputation-remake-tilt-rotor-osprey.html
hopsalotSounds like it. No Gripen (or F/A-18?) has been lost to F-404 failure as far as I recall.
This is unfortunately not accurate…
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/02/us/virginia-f-18-crash/
Of course the RD-33’s track record is less than perfect as well, the 1989 Paris Air Show crash comes to mind…
hopsalotOsprey under fire in South Sudan
“were fired on by small arms fire by unknown forces, according to U.S. Africa Command. All three aircraft sustained damage during the engagement.”
Sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/
CNN.com
Hopefully the soldiers/airmen will all pull through without lasting harm.
The Osprey continues to prove itself.
hopsalotI guess i see your point here, since F-18 is the lesser fighter to the Gripen, by his argument, the USA must do with “less than a police aircraft.”
Not at all… they are simply different aircraft built for different purposes. The Super Hornet is a far larger aircraft with a much greater ability to carry a significant load over distances. This makes sense when you consider its mission. The Gripen meanwhile was designed for Swedish needs, it is essentially an extremely inexpensive aircraft intended to be operated defensively. (primarily over its own territory and near its borders, not for long range striking power)
Both aircraft do some things well. Which aircraft is preferable depends what the user intends to do with them. Since Brazil is looking primarily for an air policing aircraft to operate within its own borders the Gripen is a natural fit. If on the other hand Brazil wanted to conduct long range strikes one of the larger aircraft would be a better fit. (Either Super Hornet or Rafale, or at the extreme end a Strike Eagle variant.)
hopsalotI 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.
You are correct to be skeptical, particularly of the now widely debunked Jane’s “study.”
Here is just one example of the errors it made:
http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-oper…fighters-janes
The Jane’s study faild, and I am honestly kind of surprised they put it out there given how glaring some of the errors are.
Any time you start grabbing numbers from difference sources, with different agendas, you are getting onto shaky ground.
Within the Jane’s study they show CPFH of $11,000 and $21,000 for the Super Hornet, $21,000 and $31,000 for the F-35, and $8,200 and $18,000 for the Eurofighter, all of these depending on the source and assumptions. (Even within the US government the operating costs of the F-35 are a hot topic with estimates varying widely.)
They state that they believe the $8,200 cost per flight hour of the Eurofighter represents fuel only, yet they list the Gripen at $4,700 per flight hour. The Gripen has 41% of the Eurofighter’s dry thrust. 11,000/(13,500*2) Assuming equal efficiency, the Gripen’s fuel costs would be about $3,400 per flight hour. (8,200*.41) That would leave just $1,300/hour for everything else associated with operating the Gripen. Sorry, that just isn’t plausible.
It would also mean that Jane’s believes that 46% (8,200/18,000) of the Eurofighter’s total cost per flight hour is fuel, but that 72% of the Gripen’s costs (3,400/4,700) are fuel. Or another way of putting it, ignoring fuel costs for both (fuel cost should be the Gripen’s biggest advantage) you can operate ~7.5 Gripens for each Eurofighter. (18,000-8,200)/(4,700-3,400)
These numbers simply aren’t plausible.
From this thread: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?126622-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-%282%29/page15
So in a nutshell here is the issue, there are different ways to calculate cost per flight hour. At one extreme you count only the consumables for an hour of flight, fuel, lubricants, perhaps tires, etc. This is the basis of Saab’s claims for the Gripen because with its single small engine this is where the Gripen compares the best. (in this measure an F-15 is about twice the cost to operate as an F-16)
At the opposite extreme you include all necessary maintenance, overhaul, personnel, and various associated equipment. This second measure is a more fair measure, but also more subject to interpretation. (by this measure the F-15 is still more expensive than the F-16, but to a lesser extent)
This is an important distinction because of course you can’t directly compare numbers derived using different methods and you certainly can not conclude (based on Saab’s marketing claims) that you could actually operate 2 Gripens for every 1 Rafale or Super Hornet in the real world.
All of that said, I think the Gripen is a cool aircraft and that it is a logical choice for Brazil. They don’t have much in the way of threats and primarily need an air policing aircraft, a mission the Gripen is the ideal aircraft for.
hopsalotPratt & Whitney confirms that a testbed version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 propulsion system has run sustainably at possibly the highest temperatures ever recorded by a turbofan engine.
The test results are important because they illuminate a long-term growth path for the F135 engine and a potential solution to concerns about the F-35’s acceleration and fuel efficiency, and durability at higher thrust levels.
“We had a challenging problem. This is really hard stuff,” P&W general manager of next generation fighter engines Jimmy Kenyon says. “And we said we could get there, and we went out, and did the work and we nailed it.”
As the US military considers suppliers for a new bomber and, eventually, a sixth-generation fighter, the results on the F135 demonstrator also provide P&W’s unspoken rebuttal to claims by GE Aviation of achieving the hottest core temperature in tests earlier this year…
…
The goal is to make a “meaningful improvement in the high-[pressure] compressor at a meaningful cost – something that would be compelling”, Kenyon says.
By combining the technologies funded by VAATE and the navy’s energy task force, P&W hopes to have a suite of upgrades available for the F135 roughly by the time the programme is ready for a mid-life update around 2020.
http://www.flightglobal.com/fg-club/in-focus/prattandwhitney-f135/
More good news…
hopsalotWell @hopsalot, it’s been slightly over a year, and what you brought can be summed up in a single word: smiley’s
bye kiddo
Thank you for another valuable contribution. Though as usual it would have been nice if you had a credible source…
😎
hopsalotYes, thats what I said. You can quote and then completely fail to grasp a point. I won’t further reply to you, I think I get dumber each time.
Glad you asked imbecile. Apart from my own experience. Family member is a pretty good source, ex F-3 25 Sqn many years frontline, soon typhoon current. You probs won’t count this though, he doesn’t work for LM. Its surprising what really goes on compared to what you read off the net.
What a genuine idiot.
Oh, so you just want us to take your word for it… 😉 :rolleyes:
I have a family member too. He said that the last time he flew against Typhoons they did terribly. An A-10 actually got two of them. (Same A-10, imagine the night he must have had at the bar!)
hopsalotExactly, it will appear up to the task modelled. why do people always have to explain everything to you, have you no intuition? No, You are wrong AGAIN with the point I was making.
They would, of course, try to make a realistic model, the point being how realistic can they make it. so dumb.
My my, you don’t take well to being corrected do you?
Here is what you said:
Why would a simulation be allowed to predict failure for the F-35 etc..? It won’t. It is only as good as the parameter inputs and it seems very illogical for defence staff to present a case that depicts losses to western AC against a threat.
:applause:
I have excellent experience to how Red Flag works you fool. The F-15’s were actually acting as USAF jets, escorting strike packages. In fact a little more to the exercise, after most of the F-15’s were taken care of the F-3’s chased down a few F-111’s and took them out too. The F-3’s were not directly simulating a Soviet threat, it was different. Interestingly there are some strange positions of caravan dump sites in the Nevada range, certainly wouldn’t have enjoyed a stay there with F-3’s going mach 100ft above….
No, you clearly don’t… but to make this easy let me just say “sources please.” :highly_amused:
That is an interesting point. Cannot really comment.
There are lots of interesting things in this thread assuming you took the time to read any of the sources people provided.
“Air Vice Marshal Osley: I will take the detailed questions there on the sensors on notice. What I would like to say is that the simulation that has been done was actually done using highly trained fighter pilots, acting as Red Air, using to the best of their knowledge, the best capability they could to defeat the F35. “
hopsalotMercurius I agree with your sim intro, however you must recognise bias is possibly present in a product being advertised and sold and that a lot of random error is not modelled.
Why would a simulation be allowed to predict failure for the F-35 etc..? It won’t. It is only as good as the parameter inputs and it seems very illogical for defence staff to present a case that depicts losses to western AC against a threat.
Why on earth would the RAAF -want- to buy aircraft they believed weren’t up to the task? Your whole argument boils down to conspiracy theories and assumes that the RAAF wasn’t trying to create as realistic a model as possible.
Red Flag exercises involving large strike packages defended by F-15 escorts against defending RAF Tornado F3’s (Early 2000’s). A simulation would generally show the F-15s turning the F-3’s inside out most of the time. However, for the first few days (before RAF tactics were understood) the F-3’s consistently handed F-15 pilots their own arses by a variety of means. Here a sim result would be caught pants down, tactics employed by the RAF were not predicted, therefore not modelled and F-15 crews were very surprised. And that was in a relatively controlled environment.
Maybe you don’t know how Red Flag works… all participants operate against aggressors modeling enemy tactics and capabilities. This means that while Red Flag participants fly against F-15s in some cases, they are flying against F-15s simulating some other threat. (An AA-10 armed Su-27 for instance.) The F-15s are not flying and fighting as USAF F-15s would.
Additionally, as the RAAF made clear their simulations employed highly trained pilots in the loop employing their simulated aircraft to its maximum potential, meaning these simulations were not a case of computer controlled badguys wandering around the sky and getting whacked.
No simulation will ever be perfect, but short of obtaining a not yet operational enemy fighter and flying it as an adversary this is really the best option available.
hopsalotThat depends on specific requirements. Both ASH and SE are paper projects with no specific plans for procurement set. I am afraid that neither of them will see the light of the day.
They may or may not ever be produced… that is sort of the name of the game with company funded efforts. The Super Hornet in particular still has some good prospects out there.
As the Indian MRCA has shown, the F-16 was no match for the ECs, not even in the Block 70 version.
:stupid:
As the Indian MRCA has shown, the Indians did not assess that the F-16 met their requirements, even in the Block 70 version. This really isn’t that complicated a concept.
The Viper airframe has very little growth potential left. Can’t see how Aussies would use SHs as interim solution for future F-16s, a step back in time like this just doesn’t make any sense.
Nor would it make much sense for them to go with any of the Eurocanards frankly. They are already operating some of the more advanced 4.5 generation fighters in the world as interim aircraft…
hopsalotThis is only partially true. If we account for pure exports, the Rafale is the more successful aircraft thanks to that huge Indian deal.
(partner nations of the Tyffie not accounted as exports).. Of course, I assume the Indian MRCA deal will be inked.Anyway, this Tyffie vs Raffie bickering is slowly getting pretty tiresome. If Europeans concentrated on the fact that there is no serious successor of either one, they would be much better off.
If we count exports Rafale is still sitting at zero.
Sure they have been declared the low bidder in India, but two years later there is still no actual contract. (let alone any planes exported)
hopsalotThis starts to remind me of some kind of dark religion. Asking makes one a naysayer, noone is entitled to access any estimates, even to get answers to simplest questions, all that one is entitled is to STFU and pay for the damn aircraft from his taxpayer money without having slightest idea whether it is really as good as advertised or just a bunch of generals got their pockets filled by LM..
This is not some kind of your own private venture, this is a PUBLIC procurement.. I as a taxpayer demand objective and conclusive data to oversee such spending.
Is that ENTITLED enough for you?
:highly_amused:
Indeed.. So if the F-35 came out badly, what would be the next candidate?
Wait, there is none…. so what now?
Super Hornet Advanced and Silent Eagle would be the most likely alternatives, though neither offers what the F-35 does. The Eurocanards would likely be next in line along with the F-16.
hopsalotThere is no data available on the perceived high-end enemy threats in Australia. Whatever data they have used, it was all pure guesstimation. That means, unlike your original statement says, the simulation is only as good as the bias of people creating it.
Imagine you and Scooter doing a simulated F-35 evaluation for RAAF against J-20 and J-31. There is no way, I repeat, no way in hell the F-35 would come out as anything else as a winner. The outcome of the simulation results would be clear before the sim has even started
Now imagine palembang doing the same thing…
Of course, both of you would swear you have only used verifyable data and were perfectly objective.. In other words, it’s rubbish..
Read Mercurious’s post above. When constructing such simulations one does not simply feed in whatever numbers sound appealing… :stupid:
Besides, one of the nice things about simulations is that they can be tweaked. You can make certain assumptions about the performance of a Russian or Chinese jet engine in the year 2020, but you aren’t limited to one specific value. You can re-run things with different assumptions to see how that influences results, etc.
Besides, weren’t you the same guy who just a day or so ago was trying to kick off yet another fanboy discussion about whether 5th generation jets would really fight BVR? :rolleyes: If the RAAF, with the benefit of a tremendous amount of data you will never have, can’t even be counted on to perform a proper simulation with the aid of actual fighter pilots…. what makes you think you are going to do any better reading from Wikipedia and typing on a messageboard? :applause:
You obviously think that you’re pretty smart, dontcha? You think that you have somehow cornered me out and tricked me into saying more than I wanted, right? You never thought for a second that I might have foreseen that and deliberately guided you in the direction I wanted to.
Yes, I am Norwegian 🙂 That makes me have you exactly there where I wanted you to be 🙂 Spread it further.. 😉
Congrats on your chess champion.
hopsalotHopsalot, this has no real influence on the fighter market. Russia did made bigger fighter than the west to protect its border since the age of the VVS. A bigger fighter can house more fuel and offer more rooms for the avionics and its cooling requirements. At the age of the vacuum tube and anemic powerplants (the Flagon), this made a difference. Nowadays I am not sure those concerns are shared.
Europeans are more pressured on this issue. And this is why, generally speaking, emerging countries with large fighters are the ones advancing at a faster pace in this business than others unless a painful breakthrough (Teja).
So 90nm. 120… Who cares. This is peanuts. Make it bigger and there you go. I am more concerned with the thermal/cooling barer that requires more volumetric spaces per kW. So you see, at the end, what is governing your cap is the available volumetric space*.
*hence stretch it or lost it/part one
It has everything to do with the fighter market. The military world always lags the civilian world substantially in electronics, but even so electronics are a critical enabler for military capabilities. Datalinks, EW, radars, all variety of avionics, are increasingly software driven and thus dependent on computers.
Additionally, unlike back in the Cold War days where the military market often drove the civilian market, today the reverse is more often true. Production runs for military aircraft are simply too small to drive investment in fundamental enabling technologies. Those investments are now increasingly being made by the civilian world.
Take for example General Electric’s next generation military engine:
EVENDALE, OHIO – GE Aviation’s adaptive cycle engine core test exceeded target temperatures by more than 130 degrees Fahrenheit, demonstrating the highest combination of compressor and turbine temperatures ever recorded in aviation history.
Based on the successful core test’s proof of the durability of the hardware, the first full adaptive cycle engine test is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2013 in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).
GE’s adaptive cycle engine integrates proven commercial engine technologies: the next-generation LEAP* high-pressure compressor; heat-resistant ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) in the combustor and high-pressure turbine; and additive manufactured components that result in a 25 percent improvement in fuel efficiency, a 30 percent increase in aircraft operating range and a five-to-10 percent improvement in thrust compared to today’s most advanced military combat engines.
“After analyzing the test data and the physical condition of the engine hardware with the Air Force, it’s clear that our combination of technologies is the right choice to meet the aggressive fuel and performance targets required for missions in the next decade and beyond,” said Dan McCormick, GE Aviation general manager for adaptive cycle programs. “We’re honored to work with the Air Force in proving these technologies and we’re excited to test our full turbofan engine later this year.”
During the post-test hardware reviews at the GE Aviation plant in Evendale, Ohio, Matt Meininger, AFRL ADVENT Program Manager noted, “The engine hardware is in excellent condition, even with operation above the target temperatures. We are pleased with the core test results and look forward to continuing the success with the full-engine adaptive cycle demonstration.”
Following completion of full engine testing in the Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) program, GE will continue to mature its adaptive cycle technology through the Air Force’s Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) program, which is scheduled to conclude in 2016 following fan rig testing and a core engine test.
GE Aviation completed the AETD Initial Design Review with the Air Force on February 8, 2013, and continues to progress through preliminary design of the engine in anticipation of to the Preliminary Design Review milestone scheduled for November 2014.
Unlike fixed cycle engines powering today’s aircraft, variable cycle engines are designed to operate efficiently in conditions across the entire flight envelope, including subsonic and supersonic speeds. GE’s adaptive cycle design includes a third stream of air that can be utilized for maximum fuel efficiency and provides thermal management advantages to a conventional engine.
http://www.geaviation.com/press/military/military_20130729.html
A production run of a few hundred fighters can’t justify the type of investment necessary for new emerging technologies. The civilian market on the other hand is vast and is making those investments…. the problem in Russia’s case is that it is completely uncompetitive in the civilian market with no real prospect of changing that.
This is not a problem Russia faces alone. An analogy can be seen in US military shipbuilding… since the disappearance of civilian shipyards from the US it has become extremely difficult and expensive to maintain a first-rate military shipbuilding industry.
Sign In
