LokeMore numbers!
According to the IHS Jane’s, Gripen has the lowest cost per hour of flight of the aircraft studied (JAS Gripen, F-16, F-35, Eurofighter, Rafale). “With an estimated cost of $ 4,700 per hour, Gripen is less costly to operate than the F-16 Block 40/50, which is the closest competitor, with an estimated cost of 7,000 USD per hour of flight”, says the report .
http://www.jurnalul.ro/observator/atac-saab-f16-610464.htm
How can Jane’s operate the F16 at only 7,000 USD per hour? That’s cheaper than the UK Hawks! Jane’s must be sponsored by LM! Kramer, pay attention!
:diablo:
LokeApples & oranges? Operating cost per hour is an even more flexible figure than sales price. If, for example, you count crew costs, then reducing flying hours puts up the cost per hour. It reduces total cost, though.
The NAO in the UK came up with an operating cost per hour of £90000 for Typhoon a few years ago. It now says about £70000. But the difference in cost between an aircraft sitting in a hangar for an hour & flying for an hour has been reported by the MoD to be less than £5000.
You really, really need to know how the figure is calculated before you start making comparisons – and none of us know that.
Indeed.
Other costs for the Hawk:
Hawk TI/TIA Estimated cost per hour (figures rounded) (£)
Hawk (RAF Training on 100 Squadron, 19 (Reserve) and 208 (Reserve) Squadrons) 10,000
Hawk (Royal Navy) 7,000
Hawk (Royal Air Force Aerobatics Team) 6,000
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/03/parliamentary-answers-to-4th-march-2011/
LokeThe American jets had the best radars and their weapons are generally more cost effective (AMRAAM and AIM-9X is way cheaper than Meteor/MICA IR for example).
BUT –
The F-16IN was slower than Pakistani F-16s. The reason is that the conformal fuel tanks add drag and weight (esp. when filled up). The CFTs made the American jet slower – and in fact it did not pass turn rate requirements.
Given that the IAF is so heavily focused on dogfighting, they skipped this design. Besides, it was seen as being one of the last of F-16 series with very little to update the design.
The F/A-18 did not meet thrust:weight ratio and turn rate requirements. It is also considered slow within the American jock fighter community. The EPE engines with 20 percent more thrust were not ready, and that cost this jet heavily.
The reliability of both American jets was poor in the Rajasthan desert areas, and the Super Hornet also had poor engine reliability at Leh in one of the tests.
Notably, from a Brazilian journalist who read documents of a conversation between the Brazilian FAB and a visiting IAF officer:
– The Rafale needed far fewer passes to perform the same amount of mission work as a Super Hornet. It also needed about half the runway space. Both these are applicable for the high-altitude Leh region.
– The Typhoon took off with the required load as did the Rafale. However it failed in some attack missions, while the Rafale passed. There was a claim (unverified) that the Rafale’s AASM was hitting targets at around 50 KM within 2 meters.
As for the others:
– The canopy of the MiG-35 fell off…. The radar used fewer T/R modules as it was an early prototype and so failed the range requirements. It is a sophisticated radar and the missile fired from it hit the target but the radar was an early prototype (and as comparison with the Rafale, the RBE2AA was evolved over several versions with significant growth, including a 20 degree gain in azimuth). The engines were poor performers in Leh.
– The Gripen was considered to be a work in progress. There was just one prototype, and it was nowhere thought to be what the final jet would wind up being. The Swedish AF asked for some significant revisions in the structural design. The Raven radar is also an early prototype.
– The Typhoon was most effective in engine performance in Leh and passed a single engine flyaround. The Rafale was less impressive but still much better than the Super Hornet.
In the end, only the Rafale and Typhoon met the minimum requirements for 590 parameters to be met (both exceed 600 parameters). The American jets flunked this test and were both below the 590 parameter mark as far as passing grades.
You provide a lot of information from an eval that was supposed to be confidential — do you have sources for all this?
LokeOf course Rafale meets most technical criteria and therefore rightfully should be short listed.
However one may wonder why e.g. SH was not shortlisted whereas Typhoon was… The Swiss leaks were not very positive of the Typhoon, in particular in a2g roles. And the Typhoon AESA was far from ready when the Indian eval was done. Why did they find the Typhoon AESA to be credible but not the Gripen AESA?
The SH has some issues of course however Boeing was willing to address those with the stronger engines, etc.
It seems a bit strange to me that they accepted Eurofighter’s plans to address the deficiensies of Typhoon, but did not accept Boeings plans for the SH…
Unless of course there were some requirements that could not be met by Boeing without signing some agreements (CISMOA etc), and if India refused to sign then that would presumably affect what Boeing could deliver…? Either that, or the conspiracy theory is correct and the whole competition was a sham
LokeEagle1
You don’t need “active cancellation” to do that against older SAMs.
LokeIsrael has no other choice but to buy US if they want to keep the aid coming their way. They have no other choice but to buy US if they want their own companies to be selected by the Pentagon for juicy contracts, or for LM, Raython etc. to share technologies and cooperate with them.
Japan is in a similar situation although with significant changes.
US options to the F-35:
F-15
F-15 SE
SH
“Global SH”
F-16V
LokeLoke – That may be true, insofar as the only way to make the F-35 win a contest is to tailor the rules to it, while making up estimates for the cost of other aircraft. Watch for emerging news…
Rafale, Eurofighter, SH, Gripen NG have two things in common: They are all 4.5 gen fighters, and they have all lost competitions the last few years.
F-35 has so far not lost a single competition, in spite of being delayed and in spite of increased cost.
Would Japan and Israel go for F-35 just to please LM shareholders? I think not. Lack of ToT, increased costs and delays are more than compensated for by the increase in capabilities.
LokeWell Canada could try to arrange a competition like we did in Norway…. However I think they would struggle to find a company that would be desperate enough to enter a bid, given the odds…
It seems to me that the Canadian Air Force already has indicated some of the requirements. Just like in Norway, there will be only one (Western) a/c that will meet the requirements and that will be the F-35.
So I agree with the Canadian MoD; why arrange a competition with only one candidate? Does not make sense…. (pun not intended Sens :))
LokeSo much for SAAB’s costs being overestimated by 300%.
They are talking about the F-35 estimates, not the Gripen NG estimates. Two different things.
According to Aftenposten Norway is not yet fully committed to buying all 48+4, may reduce to 42+4.
One may wonder, if the F-35 estimates are so accurate why are they then considering to reduce the number of F-35? Norwegian economy is incredibly strong (due to high oil prices) and we have more money than we can spend.
LokeAnd much draggier if you hang pylons under the wings.
Nic
Why would the SH be more draggy than the Hornet?
LokeSome facts need to be put straight as some wants to self convince themselves with false argument and turn a blind eye at several aspect of the evaluation.
The test pilots who tested the 3 aircrafts in competition in switzerland clearly preferred the rafale and were pretty disappointed that other factors lead toward opting for the least performant aircrafts. As a consequence they leaked part of the evaluation to the press.
The gripen indeed latter met the minimum requirements which led to a controversy and an inquiry but it was still the worst performer on a purely technical standpoint as Mauer stated himself that you “can’t always afford the best”.
Now if the gripen choice does not work chances is that switzerland will end up with nothing. So sure the military have to endorse this choice especially as other parts of the swiss army will have more money.
But trying to dissimulate the fact that the test pilots did not prefer the rafale is simply wrong. Just that other factors like price and the fact that switzerland is not under immediate threat to say the least played in favor of the gripen.
How do you know it was the test pilots that leaked the reports? There is an investigation ongoing and it seems you have some inside information into this, I take it you will share this with the Swiss authorities? I also find it curious that a person that seems to act as a Rafale PR person has such highly sensitive knowledge about the leaks…
At least one test pilot has in public fully endorsed the choice of Gripen NG, as I am sure you know. So either he was lying or one of the other test pilots was the leak?
Pilots always wants “the best” however one thing you fail to mention is that in my posting above the Swiss military did not suggest to go for e.g. 15 Rafale instead of 22 Gripen NG… so perhaps they are not so dissatisfied with the Gripen NG as you try to portray. And perhaps the Swiss military are telling the truth when they say the 2008/2009 reports are outdated. Or perhaps even just 15 Rafale are more expensive than 22 Gripen?
LokeThe most important factor is power output (which is also the primary reason behind striving for a larger array). All the rest is ancillary.
I have read somewhere that one factor that is often ignored is that large AESA arrays offer another advantage over smaller ones — they are (all other thing being equal) more sensitive than smaller ones.
I don’t know if this is true? If it’s true then this should also be a reason for striving for larger arrays.
LokeYou are comparing apples to oranges-the Super Hornet’s advantage in the strike role would have been close to meaningless in the Swiss competition (to replace the Tiger) it’s kinematics are usually considered to be inferior to the vanilla Hornet. About the only advantage it would have had was the AESA radar.
Would the kinematics really be worse? it is bigger and heavier but also has much stronger engine.
LokeSH is the first fighter that was kicked out of the Switzerland F-X fighter competition during 2008…..
How nice of Boeing and Switzerland AF…..they knew that the mighty SH will embarrass the poor Rafale / Typhoon / Gripen too much, so they decided to let the formidable SH leave the competition in order to save the faces of the poor little Dassault, Eurofighter Gmbh, and SAAB, right ??:D
From the link you offered:
Boeing has decided not to enter the competition due to the disparity between the requirements for an F-5 replacement aircraft and the next-generation capabilities of the F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet,” the company says in a statement.
I have also read somewhere that Boieng suggested Switzerland should buy Gripen, which they did in the end. With those statements it seems more to me that Boeing believed the SH to be “overkill” for the Swiss requirements, and also too expensive. Seems they assessed the situation better than Dassault and Eurofighter.
The SH block II is a substantial improvement of the Hornet, that was used as the benchmark in the Swiss evaluation. It has longer range and endurance, improved MMI, improved sensors, etc, etc. Therefore one should expect the SH block II to score significantly higher than the Hornet in each category. Rafale scored better than the old Hornet in some categories but also scored much worse in some.
LokeThere are other comments by Indian officials, I’m sure you can find them yourself. There is a reason why the US is now lobbying the F-35…
And how does this match with the fact that Rafale and Typhoon in their 2015 config did just marginally better than the old 2008 Hornet?
The SH may have missed on some technical parameters but that does not necessarily mean that it’s technology is “outdated”, far from it. For instance turn rates have been mentioned as an issue for the SH, but that has nothing to do with “outdated technologies”.
The links you offered does not really give anything to prove that the SH has “outdated technologies” just some “claims”. Interestingly one of your links suggests that the SH was considered “too heavy”. Yes it is a heavy fighter, but again this is not related to “outdated technologies.”
Of course there is a possibility that the US offered an “Indian SH” that was substantially downgraded from what e.g. Australia got. Iif this was the case (and I am not necessarily claiming it is) then it would be a political not technological issue.
Sign In
