hopsalotThe rafale could potentially be armed with a large centerline tank, 12 AASMs and 4-6 AAMs. And it weights around 30% less than the F-35A. The F-35 apparently is scheduled to have external SDBs ( 1 rack per pylon ) which puts the total at 24. But the SDBs are not powered so are not as good when launched from low altitude, and are slower.
You could substitute SPEAR capability III if you really wanted a powered weapon. It all depends what you are trying to do.
I am pretty sure that the Armee de l’Air could have had an SDB type weapon instead of the AASM if they had wanted, but I don’t think it is well adapted to the plane. The SDB is optimized for internal carriage by stealth planes and for altitude release.
Yes, and the US could certainly have developed something like AASM if they wanted it. Each solution makes sense for its operator. If you need to operate at low level to get close to a defended target then something like AASM makes sense. If you can operate at medium or high altitude then SDB-II (or JSOW for bigger stuff) gives you a ~45 mile standoff without the added size, cost, and complexity of AASM. (It also allows the fighter to use its organic sensors for targeting, which would not be possible in a low altitude scenario.)
hopsalotI’ve become much more positive after read this post and others.
As far I could remember the Gripen E has been equipped with modified version of the engine from F/A 18 E/F Hornet, so if this is the Gripen E its so cheap because the engine, as it should be applied to the F / The 18E / F Hornet, then the F/A 18 E/F should be almost so cheaper as the Gripen E, because twice cheaper engines would not change a lot the cost.
So the explanation could be that modifications has made by Sweden in the US engines has become these much more advanced than the original US engines, despite the US has been leading the engines world market, the US engines has not been at the high level of Sweden, as well as Sweden perhaps should not allow the F/A 18 E/F could be equipped with these remarkable engines.
Perhaps the better explanation about the Gripen E would be so cheaper that could came from its new composite materials in this airframe, despite that the Gripen E although has been using 60% of its legacy parts from Gripen C/D.
Again despite the US has been leading the advances in the materials composed technology field, certainly the US has not able to get this remarkable technology from Gripen E, maybe the Sweden not allow the US to get the same technology because that could applied to the F/A 18 E/F .
The AESA radar from Gripen E should be so advanced as cheap , indeed this AESA radar should be cheaper than others AESA radars around the World, especially when compared with the AESA radar from the F/A 18 E / F, even though the US has been leading the AESA technology field just the beginning of this. So the US could not use this such advanced and light radar in the F/A 18 E/F , despite this AESA radar from Gripen E are from the UK.
But the best should be that the Gripen E could accomplish the F / A 18 E / F Hornet in almost parameters as: payload weapons, range, weapons capabilities and others.
But the Gripen E will do all this with almost half the weight and only a single engine from F/A 18 E/F. With at least with two strongest advantage in reason of this small size of the Gripen E , once that will provide a less radar signature than the F/A 18E/F, as well much better maneuverability than F/A 18 E/F.
That is all remarkable technological advances that has been supposedly reduced the cost of the Gripen E has been only applied at the same, whereas the other competitors such as the F / A 18E / F did not have access for those wonderful technologies.
The third generation of the Gripen has been reached a high level in advances that excels at all that has been obtained by third generation of the F/A 18.
It were a pity that the two previous generations of the Gripen had not achieved the same, after all the Gripen A/B/C/D were only a small fraction of the production of F/A 18 A/B/C/D at the world market.
I hope that my comments have pleased all those who only accept positive comments about Gripen E.
I chuckled. :eagerness:
I think the Gripen NG is a cool plane and will no doubt serve its operators well. I do find some of the claims made about its performance and cost amusing though.
hopsalot@hopsalot
It’s new sure, but the tech has become more mainsteam…being cheaper. Many of the big expensive things that were super expensive 15 years ago are now alot cheaper,like composite plastics and carbon fiber materials that major parts of the plane are built of.
Many of the things where “handmade in sweden” on the old gripen. The cost of Gripen a/b/c are 70m$ with surrounding systems. The new gripen E normal price is 50-65m$ including systems for a first time buyer.(look at my earlier post a page back or so).The whole thing with Gripen NG (E) consept was that the price should fall. Thats the whole innovation of the project, still being capable to fullfill the tasks given in an new and changing world.
Why would operating cost be higher ? It’s still a logistical dream (nimble and easy to change engine etc ) ONE engine, still having the lowest drag and air resistance of all the newer fighters.
Sure there might be a few new costs but a few disappeared also, due to matureness of stuff.So i beg to differ.
One need only look at the history of fighters worldwide. The Gripen NG is hardly the first 4th generation fighter to be revamped into a newer version. The Super Hornet, Strike Eagle, F-16E, Su-35 and Mig-35 are all examples of aircraft that received similar or more extensive updates from an earlier design. They all rose in price.
Certainly newer manufacturing technologies, improved materials, more modern engines, modern microchips, etc, can all act to drive prices down but this is opposed by the greater thrust/fuel consumption of the newer engines (+20% fuel consumption in the Gripen NG’s case), greater empty weight, far more comprehensive avionics with much greater power consumption, and much greater complexity in general.
If the US chose to build a new fighter with modern technology that was intended to no more than match the original F-16’s capabilities from the 1970s then it could no doubt do so at a similar or smaller price (adjusting for inflation). The problem is that nobody wants such an aircraft. If you want to add a whole host of new technologies, all of which require extensive testing and integration, then prices rise. The Gripen NG will be no exception.
hopsalotWhat about the Gripen E AESA? Is it more expensive to buy than the conventionial radar it will supercede? IIRC AESA’s are cheaper to maintain, being fault tolerant (loss of T/R modules does not stop it working) so overall does AESA reduce Gripen lifetime cost as well as increasing capability?
By the way, I read in a link somewhere here that at the time of the article being written in 2013, the first Gripen E was scheduled to fly in 2015. Anyone know if that is still scheduled, please?
It isn’t just the new radar. The Gripen NG will have a more or less entirely new set of avionics. A new IRST, new EW system, new MAWs, new datalink, new radar, etc. That is what is going to drive purchase and operating costs higher relative to the original Gripen. (As has been the case in updated versions of other 4th generation fighters.)
hopsalot‘crying about ressources’? The rafale has received a funding that was far less than the F-35, maybe around 1/5 to 1/4. Don’t you think, maybe, that the introduction of guided a/g weapons would have happened faster with more ressources? Or said differently, don’t you think, maybe, that if you cut the ressources of the F-35 by half or more you’d get the same capabilities at a later time?
That is exactly what you are doing, crying about money and making excuses. The fact is that the Rafale’s pace of capability growth/weapons integration was well behind what the F-35 will achieve. (and again, the Typhoon is even farther behind)
Sure maybe in another universe where France spent more money things might have been different. Maybe if they hadn’t abandoned the Eurofighter program the Rafale wouldn’t have spent all these years starved for money and in production at a rate of less than one a month… decisions have consequences. The F-35 has certainly suffered for some of the decisions made early in the program, but so has the Rafale.
This tactic of comparing apples and oranges to make the F-35 look not as bad is pathetic. The rafale has had little TECHNICAL development problems. It has been delayed because funding has decreased at some times, that’s it. The F-35 has been a nightmare to develop.
You are right about one thing, it isn’t fair to compare a relatively conservative 4th generation fighter development program to a hugely ambitious 5th generation fighter. Of course in this comparison it is the 5th generation fighter that is receiving its capabilities faster.
I say again, the air to air capabilities of the rafale was extremely important for the first variant because it was replacing the crusader, which was a pure fighter with no a/g capabilities. The F-35 on another hand will replace aircraft that carry PGMs, so it is no wonder that you have to equal that capability.
Btw, it’s not that I hate the plane, I see some value to it, but I can’t believe all the problems that it’s had, and how slowly it is maturing. They are still at what 60% of the flight test, after all those years, I mean, WTF?
The Rafale was supposed to be “omnirole.” It was marketed as “omnirole.” It waited years and years to receive even the most basic of strike capabilities.
As for the flight test points, that is a project of the massive scale of the program. There are three different airframes, including carrier and STOVL versions that need to be tested.
====edit
And “serious money” what kind of nitwit term is that? The first true Rafale prototype flew in 1991. The first F-35 prototype flew in 2006… 15 years difference.
The Rafale went IOC 13 years after its first flight and could finally self designate a LGB 18 years after its first flight.
The F-35 will go IOC in 2015, 9 years after its first flight, and will be able to self designate LGBs from day one.
Of course around here people complain that the F-35 program is moving slowly. :rolleyes:
hopsalotI have replied in another forum about this and Gripen E prices, but it seems it is truly necessary to post here and several other places to, since there clearly is a huge confusion how to look at prices.
After SVD’s (newspaper) post it didn’t become clearer. So here you have a support for looking at price.
This is what Saab said to SVD…
In the order for Brazil only 25-30% of the total cost is directly related to the cost of the plane, the rest is linked to ground systems, simulators, support and so on.
It’s kinda hard to swallow if you dont have all figures and background for it. That 25-30% airplane cost is for Countrys like Sweden,Hungary,Thailand,Czech Republic or Southafrica that already has the system in place…it can’t possibly be a new systems buyer price. That would mean 37.5 – 45m$ a piece
Here is some insight how to look on gripen E prices…..
1. 33m$ = “Minimum price” have to be the 33m$ to the Swedish Airforce just buying more planes having everything (all the systems,facilities) already.
2. 63m$ = “Normal price” Dutch price: Nation without any systems in place, buying gripen for the first time. Also 55m$ was the price given to Canada.
3. 125m$ = “Maximum price” Brazil prize: building a gripen industry and educating it and buying a full gripen system for the first time.
You can’t get exact prices out of this and you never will because its against Swedish law, but this gives a clearer picture. Prices are also oldish like the dutch one from i think 2008 and also the currency changes are somewhat big like swedish crown is down 20% to the USD since then. But anyway i think you can see the scale here.
Seems like a source would be nice to have.
Here, I will start:
10 Dec 2012
Switzerland is to buy the JAS-39 Gripen combat jets for 100 million Swiss francs ($107 million) each, SF reported late Sunday, citing unnamed sources in both Switzerland and Sweden.
That price is between 15 to 30 percent below the level Sweden itself has agreed to pay for the planes, according to the broadcaster’s sources.
hopsalotAll fighter aircraft come in to service with a limited capability, so what is the fuss? The main issue would be the big gap between initial in service date and integration of such cool weapons, but Typhoon operators have learned to live with that (in fact they have dictated the pace of integration) and the same approach is evidently true of the F35.
What is the fuss? In a word “fanboys,” specifically those of other planes who feel some strange compulsion to ignorantly sling mud at the F-35.
hopsalotThe rafale became operational in 2004, F-35 fanboy doesn’t seem to be able to grasp that. F-35 fanboy doesn’t seem to grasp the difference of invesment between the 2 programs, and also the fact that the air to air capabilities of the rafale was deemed of paramount important for the first version.
I love it, first post where you have to confront facts and you start crying about resources. Face the facts kid, the F-35 will be operational earlier in its life than the Rafale with almost every major capability.
From day-1 the F-35 will have an all weather (JDAM) and moving target (GBU-12) capability. It will have a working targeting pod/laser designator. These are capabilities the Rafale didn’t achieve until 2009, necessitating embarrassing deployments of Rafales in which they had to relying on earlier jets to accomplish the most basic of strike missions.
Whereas the F-35 was meant to have strike capabilities from the start. And also to complement the F-22 in the air to air role because its number had been significantly reduced.
Tell me, you still don’t get it, do you?
The F-35 was always intended to be a multi-role fighter, call it “omnirole” if you like buzzwords.
You are right about one thing at least, the F-35 will be operational from day one with capabilities it took the Rafale years and years to receive.
hopsalotWow, you so much as turn you back on this thread for a minute and people will dump an entire page worth of posts into it consisting almost entirely of idiocy.
The “Omnirole” Rafale went operational in 2001. At the time it was armed with… Mica and Magic missiles, no strike capability.
It wasn’t until 2006 (+5 years) that the Rafale F2 entered service with a very limited strike capability. (LGB employment, but no targeting pod/self designation capability)
In 2008 (+7 years) AASM is declared operational on the Rafale, though in GPS guidance mode only and still no targeting pod.
In 2009 (+8 years) The Rafale finally received the ability to self designate a LGB.
In 2014 (+13 years) The Rafale became operational with the laser guided AASM.
As of today (+14 years) the Rafale has AASM, LGBs, Mica, SCALP, Exocet, and ASMP-A.
In comparison the F-35 will reach IOC this year with internal AMRAAM, JDAM, and GBU-12. (and a working targeting pod/self designation capability)
In ~2019 (+4 years) with Block IIIF the F-35 will gain AIM-9x, JSOW, SDB-I, ASRAAM, 4 x internal AMRAAM and more LGB and JDAM variants/external carriage.
In ~2022 (+7 years) with Block 4 software the F-35 will gain the NSM, SDB-II, and an as yet unnamed list of other weapons.
We don’t even need to bother with Eurofighter in this comparison.
Starting to get it yet? :stupid:
At any equivalent point the F-35 is significantly ahead of the Rafale. The F-35 will receive its block 4 software earlier than the Rafale received a self designation capability. :rolleyes:
hopsalotThey’re focusing too much on the software and not enough on the weapons. Block 2B sould have had 4 AIM-120Cs, and block 3F 4 AIM-120Ds and SDB2s together with the SDB1. The other planes will be able to use the 120D and the SDB2 effectively without that kind of software whizzbang.
They kind of go hand in hand you know. All modern aircraft enter service with a limited selection of weapons. If anything the F-35’s weapon integration schedule is particularly aggressive. The USMC will go a few years with a very basic capability, but most operators will have a pretty darn good selection of weapons when they start going operational in the 2019+ time frame.
hopsalotFrench Snecma/SAFRAN’s M88 for a twin seat version of the Chinese/Pakistani JF17/FC1?
Also:
Yeah, because that would really help that Rafale deal out.
hopsalotThey’re planning a plane. 😀
..and it goes operational this summer. :rolleyes:
hopsalotF-35 Can’t Carry Its Most Versatile Weapon Until At Least 2022
A perfect example of why car bloggers shouldn’t be covering military aviation…
Headline should be “F-35B won’t be able to carry 8 internal SDB-II until 2022.” This issue affects only the F-35B and only its ability to carry its intended full load of SDB-II internally. (the bigger issue is the software integration and testing, not the bay modification which will start rolling out in 2019-2020. As our car blogger notes “hopefully.” :stupid: )
The JPO is targeting to have the F-35B weapons bay changes incorporated into the post-systems development and demonstration airplanes delivered in the 2019, 2020 time frame and beyond, DellaVedova said in a Feb. 25 phone interview with ITAF. “There are considerations for small bay changes to support the rest of the Block 4 weapons suite. Rather than make multiple small changes, we’re planning to do one modification that will address all Block 4 requirements,” he said.
hopsalotBeat me to it. I was about to post the above.
This bit interests me: “Development and delivery of the Gripen NG avionics will last four years…” Does that mean no Gripen E deliveries for at least another 4 years? If it does, what are SAAB’s chances of landing a contract with any country needing aircraft before 2020?
The first production aircraft is supposed to be delivered sometime in 2018, with full multi-role capability to be operational in 2022? 2023? I don’t know the exact date but it is a long way out.
hopsalotAs per an HAL official presenting at an Aero India seminar, the CPH for the Su-30MKI is ~$12000. Mirage-2000 CPFH was in the $4000 range.
Now how is the Su-30MKI figure in a “completely different class” from the Rafale, whose CPFH (Cost per flight hour) figures are supposedly in the $16,500 range?
The numbers you linked to have been completely debunked, and never represented an apples to apples comparison.
Sign In
