hopsalot1. Sigh. the Ignore function works fine until somebody is quoting the persong being Ignored. Oh well.
2. The project did not get the “green light”; it got a “yellow light”; then it got the “red light” when the Swiss voted no. When it finally got the green light the schedule called for first delivery in 2019. Since then first flight has been delayed by six months. Normally you seem to be a sensible person, so I find it a bit difficult to understand why this is so hard to comprehend?
If your engineers are in the process of assembling a fighter jet and announce its impending first flight, etc, that is most certainly a green light.
You are correct that there is nothing all that complicated about what is going on here. They got as far as beginning assembly… that means the design was essentially complete and longer lead items had been procured well in advance. It also means the software, etc, would also have been in development.
Now I know that the Swiss deal later fell apart, but so far as I know the Swedish order that followed was never put on ice.
Defence and security company Saab has, within the framework of a previously signed agreement with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) for Gripen E, received a serial production order amounting to SEK16, 4 billion for operations during 2013-2026. The order includes modification of 60 Gripen C to Gripen E for Sweden with initial deliveries in 2018.
“The order from FMV is further proof of the Swedish Parliament’s confidence in Gripen, its development potential and defence capacity. Furthermore, it is confirmation that the programme is proceeding according to plan,” says Saab’s president and CEO Håkan Buskhe.
FMV has today placed an order for modification of 60 Gripen C to Gripen E with initial deliveries in 2018. This is the third order under the agreement with FMV for Gripen E that was made public on 15 February 2013. Other orders within the agreement are as follows:
Development of Gripen E to Sweden during 2013-2023 – orders received on 15 February and on 22 March 2013.
Mission-specific equipment and support and maintenance for Gripen E to Sweden, and;
Delivery of 22 new Gripen E, and related equipment to Switzerland, if Switzerland decides to acquire Gripen E. During August and September 2013 both chambers of the Swiss Parliament voted yes to the procurement of Gripen E and a referendum on the procurement is expected in 2014.
Basically I don’t believe the Swedish order was ever cancelled nor that work ever stopped on the Gripen E. I think they are quite simply just running late, as the original Gripen did and as most other fighter programs do.
hopsalotThe OP thread was about the F-35A and Su-27SK.
A few years set those two^^ apart. What happens when you get a slightly newer Su-27SM3 with 13.500kgf wet thrust and pretty much the same empty weight as Su-27SK?
I think the point of this is less about the real world utility of subsonic acceleration and more poking yet another hole in the “F-35 is a slow bomber” theory fanboys advanced for years and years.
Whether the F-35 is a little bit quicker or a little bit slower than an Su-27 of one variant or another under one set of conditions or another the bottom line remains the same… it is quick enough under the conditions dogfighting occurs.
hopsalotI thank all of you for your understanding and empathy. In truth, some of you have had to put up with far more than me (to what end?).
I will stay on because I was here before most of the angry monkeys and perhaps still have something to say.
There is a lot of shouting in the world at the moment but I’m sure we can still make room for civilised discussion eh??
Are you calling people “angry monkeys” in the same post you are hoping to “make room for civilised[sic] discussion?”
hopsalotNo it did not as Defense-aerospace.com got it wrong. This is the “main” contract that every LRIP has and is not the final, agreed upon price.
LRIP 9 had the same “main” contract in November of 2015 so it makes sense that LRIP10 has it in Nov of 2016.
Here is the “main” contract for LRIP from November of 2015. for 5.3 billon while the final “agreed upon” proice was $6.1 billion.
They really need to find some smarter editors. They have had a whole serious of embarrassingly stupid editorial comments.
hopsalotHas Gripen Demo( supposedly Gripen NG) been flying since 2009 without any software’s?
I don’t think so, then it is possible to download the software from Gripen Demo to new prototype Gripen NG, indeed this could be very easy once both it has been equipped with datalink ( wire less), since it should not be necessary to stretch some cable to connect both fighters.
Gripen Demo is not a Gripen E. You can’t just take the software from one and drop it into the other.
hopsalotThey have been offered the F-35 twice..
Look, I know reading comprehension isn’t your thing, but that doesn’t constitute an “offer.”
“Should India indicate interest in the JSF, US would be prepared to provide information on the fighter and its requirements (infrastructure, security etc) to support India’s future planning.”
All that says is that the US was willing to discuss the F-35 with India, including what strings/conditions etc would be attached. (note the part about “requirements”)
That isn’t an “offer” in any traditional sense and given what India was asking for in terms of tech transfer, local production, etc, the F-35 was never really on the table.
hopsalotOr … really… positive?
I´ll get me hat… :angel:
I have ruffled some fanboy feathers along the way… but if you are looking for someone to entertain your daydreams as serious possibilities I am not the guy you are looking for.
hopsalotI don’t always dismiss evidence, but when I do…
..its at the same rate that it is produced
current cost flyaway for the Super Hornet is 78 million according to the lying liars at the US Navy by the way. I’m not going to post the official documents just to see you ignore them. if want source look
Why on earth would anyone believe that? Do they think they will encounter more or fewer problems when test begin? come now. Super Hornet was same. Even growth from legacy plane will enoucnter test problems. I promise. its already started.
which “original schedule” are you referring to? please be specific. I think the current Original schedule is version 5.2. This program keeps getting “optimized”
This is all the stuff I was said saab wouldn’t encounter unlike da boobs at LM. We all know when Saab start Gripen NG idea, the plan was first flight 2017, IOC 2023, FOC 2025ish. Back in 2007 this was always the plan. the original schedule has it right there. Please don’t make me point to the “original schedule” again.
bad joke, the first flight will be this year!
They say that every year.
That was back in 2010. no idea which original schedule this was
source:
Guys big picture, and for many reasons some of them “credible”, some not the Gripen E is going to have simliar timelines to the much maligned F-35. its going to take 20 years from from “concept ready to combat ready” and the costs may well be simliar.
but here we are.
The original schedule I referred to was the one from when the project actually got the green light and assembly began.
…and hopseydaisy? Really? Have we had some negative interaction I have forgotten?
hopsalotThe flightglobal article you linked to was written when the plan was still to go with Switzerland as the first customer; when S pulled out due to the referendum results, things were put on a halt until Brazil and Sweden agreed to move forward. New timelines were then drawn up with Brazil, stating that the first a/c will be delivered in 2019, with first flight end of 2016.
On the basis of this, how do you conclude that they are “already 18 months behind their schedule”?
They are 18 months behind schedule because that is how far they are behind the original schedule.
Are you saying they literally put their tools down (and turned their computers off) and stopped working when the Swiss backed out? I am not saying the Swiss mess didn’t cause delays, but you can’t just turn a program on and off like a switch. Engineers, software developers, facilities, etc… all of these cost money and can’t just be turned off. (or directed to another purpose)
Now they are announcing still further delays. It isn’t clear yet how serious the impact on the overall program will be but there is no point pretending that this is anything other than a delay.
hopsalotIf we forget the ATA mission against another fighter aircrafts, a scenario wich for Canada is a very, very, very small part of the sylabus, yes, you are probably right.
In the end, this discussion is on the Academic side of things, the Canadians are not going to buy neither of those two.
Clearly for political/interoperability purposes Canada will buy American so there really is no point in speculating as to how well a Typhoon might fit.
My point is simply that if Canada wants to buy the best all-around performer taking into account both domestic and potential foreign/coalition missions then the F-35 is basically unbeatable. It is the direct replacement for the F-18s the Canadians are already operating and has by far the best long-term roadmap, industrial participation, etc.
If Canada were to go for a non-F-35 aircraft that emphasized capability as a long-ranged interceptor/cruise missile defense platform the F-15E is essentially impossible to beat. There is no other Western fighter that has a similarly sized radar, range/endurance, or carrying capacity. The latest versions also have modern IRSTS and brand new EW systems. (Either the brand new system developed for the Saudi and Qatari F-15s or Canada could hypothetically buy the new GaN EW system the US is developing for its own F-15s.)
Clearly the F-15 isn’t on the table because of cost so the whole discussion is something of a waste of time. My point was simply that there is no point kicking around hypothetical custom Gripen or whatever variants given that for the cost it would take to develop and field them Canada could just buy an F-15E.
At this point the only question is whether Canadian voters tolerate their government reneging on their campaign promise to have an open competition and saddling their air force with a too small to be economical split fighter force.
hopsalotAnd it was a massively upgraded Phoon that was proposed… Things like an AESA, new fuel tanks, upgraded EW, etc. And your point is that a twin seater Phoon is more expensive than an F-15E?
Those are all things the F-15E already has so… the Typhoon would need at least those upgrades just to keep pace.
…and no. The point is not merely that a twin seater Typhoon is more expensive than an F-15E, but that a single seat Typhoon is essentially the same price as a Silent Eagle variant F-15E but doesn’t offer anywhere near the range, carrying capacity, or sensor performance.
There just isn’t a scenario where the Typhoon will come out ahead.
hopsalotThe LRIP 8/9 to LRIP 10 production bump was never in doubt for LMA had already begun executing the contract as the ceiling was being negotiated. If they went in and looked to reduce the order count they would have had to pay a penalty, and absorb a lot of cost increase on account having to store long lead material already produced to support the contract. Additionally, LRIP-10 engine contracts were firmed up earlier in 2016 and money for LRIP-10 was already accounted for in the budgets.
The protracted negotiations were always about profit margins, cost sharing (concurrency) and other service charges associated with estimating the cost of production for the 9th and 10th batches. The size of the orders were never really in doubt.
I know, but sometimes no news is still good news.
This indicates things are proceeding according to plan, which as we are all too well aware has not always been the case.
hopsalotIt costs?
Yes, as in its price tag.
It was close in Korea, but only by reducing the number of 2-seat Typhoons below the minimum required number:
In June, Korea’s Defence Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) told Yonhap that all the bids had exceeded the Won 8.3 trillion ($7.3 billion) budget. In a media briefing last Friday, a DAPA official said that it had since received lower bids for the Silent Eagle and Typhoon, implying that the F-35 had been eliminated. Two days later, according to Yonhap, DAPA announced that the Typhoon bid had been dropped “because it did not meet the program’s key demands.” The Yonhap report implied that DAPA was seeking 15 two-seat Typhoons, whereas only six could be offered within the budget ceiling.
…and note this was against the Silent Eagle variant of the F-15E, which would have entailed significant development costs for the weapons bays, etc. An off the shelf purchase of the F-15SA or F-15QA would be significantly cheaper.
hopsalotWe already know the Typhoon was the only logical choice, both in terms of the mission and interoperability alongside the F22.
“Know”
Of all the options, why pick an aircraft that costs more than an F-15E (while being far shorter ranged), while offering less range than an F-35? (to say nothing of lacking stealth, etc)
hopsalotThey say the delay is all about the software. That’s credible.
I have no problem believing it is the software… but modern fighters can’t fly without software and a delay is a delay.
I just don’t like them pretending that this isn’t a delay and that somehow they just decided to shift their entire flight test schedule to the right by another 6 months as a result of “optimization.”
Don’t forget, the original schedule called for first flight back in 2015, indicating that they are now roughly 18 months behind schedule.
Saab has meanwhile started assembling fuselage parts for test aircraft 39-8 and static test article 39-83 at its Linköping site, and also is producing the first components for flight test asset 39-9.
First flight of the lead test aircraft is scheduled for the second half of 2015, with the single-seat asset to be used primarily for airframe and flight control system testing. The next example will be flown in the first half of 2016, and will support tactical systems work. Any required adaptations will be embodied with flight test instrumentation-equipped aircraft 39-10, which will join the test campaign in early 2017 to prove the final E-model configuration.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-reveals-full-gripen-e-design-cost-savings-396977/
They can spin things however they want, but they are already 18 months behind their schedule.
Sign In
