Loke[url]In addition to these advantages, the AESA has smaller sidelobes, is harder to detect, is more reliable, and harder to jam. Aside from that, there’s not much difference.
AESA rocks, now doubt. However, unless you have a “swashplate design” or something similar (which both Gripen and Typhoon will be getting, it seems) will there not be a punishment range-wise when looking at things that are “off-bore sight” so to speak? Does anybody know how rapidly this drops off?
LokeNew article on the Romanian deal:
So they have not signed this transparancy code document? I wonder why not?
Offering “free F-16” and then F-35 in 2020 is a clever move. “Free” sounds good to the politicians, and “F-35” sounds probably good to the air force — if they can afford it, that is.
On the other hand 100% offset is not bad either.
When is the decision due?
LokeThe U.S. Navy’s chief of naval operations Adm. Gary Roughead says service officials did not alter tactical aviation investment plans after reviewing a Navy study that predicted higher-than-anticipated F-35 operating costs.
Weeks after the Naval Air Systems Command-crafted analysis sent shockwaves across the global defense sector, Roughead said Jan. 26 that it was “done at a working level.”
“It will have no bearing on anything we’re doing with our budget,” Roughead told Defense News following a forum in Washington.
The study, which bears the name of David E. Burgess, director of the cost department for the Naval Air Systems Command, found the costs of flying and maintaining the short takeoff-and-landing (F-35B) and carrier (F-35C) variants of the fifth-generation fighter would be 40 percent higher than F/A-18 fighters naval pilots operate today. The study also determined the costs of operating the Navy Department’s two F-35 variants would far exceed initial Pentagon projections.
…………
In a brief conversation Jan. 20 at a conference in Washington, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told Defense News he has determined the operating cost figures in the NavAir study “are suspect.”Asked whether he is concerned about the Navy scaling back its total F-35 buy and his service essentially being stuck with a more-expensive A model, Schwartz said simply: “Yes.”
“But the Navy doesn’t get to make that decision on its own,” he said.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4471885&c=AME&s=AIR
Looks like a bit of turf battle going on here?
It’s never boring with this program, that’s for sure!
LokeNot only this, but he dedicated poems to eurocanards, especially to gripen. In his view, anything US is pure thrash compared to the mighty swedish little thing…
Poems about Gripen? Do you have a link? 🙂
Lokehow much extra money do they say LM needs to meet its goal
and what plan do they propose, or are they just pis*ing in the wind
As said before: such huge and complicated programs tend to run late and over budget. It would be miracle, a statistical outlier, if this one didn’t.
It’s more about accepting that the work is either bigger and more complicated than originally anticipated, and/or requirements changed during the process, and/or one had too optimistic plans in the first place. The last one is more common than many people want to acknowledge.
If company A tells the customer that “it will take 15 years and cost 100 billion to make this” whereas company B says “it will take 10 years and cost 75 billion to make this”, now; do you think company A or B would get the contract? :diablo: Company B just needs to “keep going” until point of no return where the customer cannot pull out.
I don’t know what the explanation for delays are/will be on this project. I simply note that there have been delays already, up to and including last year, and that all the external committees (JET and some others as well) have concluded that even the latest revised plans are too ambigous and not very realistic.
Anyway, it’s pointless to discuss this further. Let’s wait and see. If we are still both on this forum in one year, one of us can say “see, what did I tell you” and the other can say “yes, but just wait and see what will happen in 2011”.
LokeLM is confidant the extra 3bn will put them back on track for 35A ioc in 2013, until this is shown to be wrong there is no delay, it they thought they needed more money for this, they would of asked for 10bn instead of 3bn
Well, the other experts evaluating this disagrees with LM. And so far it seems they have been right and LM wrong. Let’s see how it goes in 2010.
Lokeif you buy LRIP, you pay more, if you dont want to pay more, dont buy LRIP
why assume a 2yr delay, LM doesnt
the cost in 2018 will be full production and about 70mn in 2014 $
Its headline conclusion is that even with favorable test results, more test aircraft and more funding, initial operational test and evaluation “could be” finished by early-to-mid 2016 – 18 months behind today’s schedule.
I would not discount the possibility that it could become 2 years late (compared to the current plans). Why should I trust LM — did they tell anybody one year ago that they would complete only 10% of the test flights in 2009? Nope. Either because they surpressed information, or because they expected a different outcome…. which means that they are not really on top of things.
The problem with delays is that many countries (including Norway) is currently flying old F-16 that are becoming a very expensive nightmare to maintain. So if the delays become sufficiently large we are faced with a difficult choice: Buy expensive F-35 or keep expensive F-16 flying even longer.
Looking at big defence projects, a 2-year delay is not that extraordinary. I would say, almost to be expected. Look at NH-90. And A400M. To be honest if they can deliver with only 2 years of delay that is not too bad IMHO.
LokeClaimed by who? Some J-10 official data is already out and you can find it in Chinese Aviation Museum , the empty weight is 8840kgs, MTOW: 19277kgs
But I assume that’s the 10 and not the 10B?
LokeThailand buys another 6 Gripen
The Cabinet on Tuesday approved the Bt23 billion budget spreaded over five years for the Air Force to buy six Grippen fighter aircraft from Sweden and upgrade six F-16 fighter jets. The budget will be disbursed between next fiscal year, beginning in October and 2014. To deploy a Grippen squadron, the total cost will amount to Bt16.2 billion. The planned spendings will cover the aircraft procurement, pilot training, repair and maintenance system and ground service preparations for deployment.
Gripen — not Grippen! Oh, well the French have to struggle with Rafael. 😀
I believe they already had approved 6, so this will give Thailand 12 Gripen when all have been delivered.
Lokehttp://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=1453&thisSection=military
Indeed and I am surprised that has not been discussed more in this forum.
Only 10% of the test program was completed for 2009. Does this not mean that things are quite far behind schedule?
All this talk about cost make me head spin — it’s too complicated to follow. Costs will come down, but how rapidly? That depends on the progress, and how big the delays of the R&D program will be.
I have said this before and Spitfire9 I think expressed it a bit more clearly: Countries that had planned to buy in the not to distant future may need to pay a very high price (pun intended) for their a/c if they buy at the steep slope of the price curve. Which they can easily end up doing.
Assume a 2-year delay. What will the F-35 then cost in 2018?
Lokeyeah, I hesitated before answering in the first place… but you must be right.. it’s a piece of cake to navalize an aircraft… next conclusion should be that those americans definitely have no clue… in 60 years of operating, they didn’t manage to efficiently navalize one ground aircraft (unless they almost completely rebuilt it… and even then, it wasn’t exactly a top performer either)…
As others have said already; Gripen is different from most other land based aircraft. How much different, and how close to a carrier aircraft I think nobody on this forum really knows. And since we don’t know we are left to speculate. But the point remains; The argument you are making that other land based aircraft are difficult to navalize is not relevant for Gripen. You have to look at that particular a/c and see how much work is needed.
Saab has done this. Their analysis show that it is doable with a surprisingly little amount of modifications. Could you tell us more details of your analysis? What assumptions are you making? Do you have access to detailed technical specifications on the Gripen? What models are you using to analyze the stress on the airframe? And what are the results?
Also note that it’s not the first time Saab looks into building a naval Gripen. They did that also back in the mid ninteties. So when India sent an RFI Saab already had some analyses available from that time they could dust off. That’s probably also why they could quite soon after the RFI tell the media that “yeah, this is doable and the mods will be minor”.
Perhaps they are underestimating the work that needs to be done — then again, perhaps not. After all it’s just physics (and some chemistry, when it comes to corrosion :)).
LokeI am still more worried about the maintainance costs than the unit costs — after all the F-35 is still planned to be produced in enormous quantities and this will help keep the price at (hopefully!) a not too painful level — at least for those lucky countries that can wait for the price to drop.
OTOH: The price of Typhoon and Rafale seems to be roughly in the same category, in spite of Typhoon being produced in much larger numbers. So I guess it may not be that simple?
over at f16.net a person that has actually worked on maintaining the F-22 expressed some doubts about the “low cost” maintainance claims of the F-35 made by LM — he pointed out that similar claims had been made also when F-22 was being built; it turned out to be much more expensive and more hassle than what was originally claimed by LM.
Now they are saying that F-35 maintainance will cost 60% of F-16 maintainance..? Sure if you skip the stealth stuff… but keeping the RCS low at all times?
Perhaps some countries after a while divide their F-35s in two groups: one group for “day one” with a low RCS; and another group that does not have the same low RCS… Would that make sense?
LokeFernando Arbache, consultant and professor of FGV (Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funda%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Get%C3%BAlio_Vargas) seems to support the FAB. He claims that Dassault will not even share the source code? If that’s the case it is easy to better understand why FAB is rather sceptical to the Rafale.
So my main question becomes: Is the information given in this interview mostly correct, or not?
http://www.band.com.br/jornalismo/brasil/conteudo.asp?ID=252959
Google translated:
The French Rafale fighter, the one favored by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to renew the fleet of Air Force (FAB) is a “big monkey”, the worst shot between competitors, according to Fernando Arbache, president of Consulting Arbache , Doctor of Market Intelligence from ITA (Aeronautics Technological Institute) and professor of FGV (Fundação Getúlio Vargas).
According to the teacher, the Rafale, made by Dassault, is more expensive, it offers the possibility of joint development project with Brazil, and France does not intend to provide the source code and system integration of aircraft and weapons, that the FAB would totally dependent on France. Arbache also said that if Brazil is going to manufacture it and wanted to sell to other countries, could also face the French veto.
“[France] wants us to swallow an aircraft at a price above the price obtained by the French Air Force. It is a big mistake, a monkey, the Rafale. It is the worst of all, at all levels, “said the analyst, in an interview with ebanda.
To Arbache, Brazil should buy the Gripen NG, the Swedish Saab. The professor agrees with the report of the FAB on the fighters, making the Swedish plane as the best option. Second comes the F-18 Super Hornet, the American Boeing, and finally, the Rafale.
Still a project, the Gripen NG would be developed in partnership with Brazil. The aircraft meets the needs of the FAB, is much cheaper and fits the demands and budgets of various air forces in the world. It is also the best option in terms of strategy and policy, second Arbache.
“Exports, improved technology park, in short, has several elements that Gripen will bring to us. Secondly, would be the [American F-18 Super] Hornet, and, last but far away, would be the Rafale, the worst shot candidate, “he said.
Read the full interview:
ebanda – The decision should be guided by political and strategic criteria, or the technical-operational and cost / benefit?
Fernando Arbache – There is to make a mixture. Have to join the technical policy and strategy. Both are extremely important. The first parameter is the coach, to make the classification of who has the slightest technical ability. Then you pick the finalists and make a careful analysis in terms of strategy and policy.
It is being done this way, multi, you are not taking the basic technique as the first element of decision making.
ebanda – Following this form of selection, which should be chosen?
Arbache – I made a thorough analysis of the three fighters agree in number and gender and level with the Air Force. I would choose the first, the Gripen, which is the game that are best suited to Brazilian needs in terms of policy, strategy, sophisticated weapons, and especially, cost.
There are a number of benefits that we gain from the use of the Gripen. Exports, improved technology park, in short, has several elements that Gripen will bring to us. Secondly, it would be the Hornet, and, last but far away, would be the Rafale, the worst candidate shot.
ebanda – What are the positive political aspects of a business with the Swedes?
Arbache – The most important point is that you have a diversification of suppliers. We are working with the concept of geopolitics. By the time you work with fewer vendors, creates a very high dependence. And for Brazil, which is an alleged major economic power, he has to seek diversification, especially military weapons – it may have for deterrence capability at the right time without the authorization of a particular country.
Because when I go to attack a country, I have to accept, sometimes, the decisions of the country that gave me the weapons, but it cuts the supply line. It is therefore very important to diversify suppliers in the war.
ebanda – At least two cases – in the Six Day War and the Falklands War – France left its customers military equipment on hand.
Arbache – Fully hand.
ebanda – We run this risk?
Arbache – Totally. Historically, in general, it ends up not fulfilling its promise – we have several historical moments in which we confirmed. Even France had several disputes with Brazil.
One of the most recent was the Lobster War, when General Charles de Gaulle said that Brazil is not a serious country. So I do not believe that the French can support Brazil as they speak.
ebanda – About the Swedish fighters, raises the question that many U.S. components. This could be a drawback, since, if Brazil began to make it, could face U.S. control over your sales?
Arbache – Have no doubt. If we start to manufacture the Swedish game, we are left with a certain restriction of the Pentagon. Only has one detail: this is going to be a part of the plane that we can even develop. If we have the project and all source code, we can develop or seek alternatives, as Israel did, as several countries have done.
In the case of France, 100% of the aircraft is French. So, if France say “no” is not for all. If the U.S. speak “not” is “no” to a party. We have to consider the following: the Swedish game still gives us a basic concept that can be used with different suppliers.
ebanda – So this is the downside of the business with the Swedes, but that would be manageable.
Arbache – manageable. For example, the turbofan engine is GE [General Electric, U.S.]. If Brazil wants to, can get a turbofan French, Russian, I know how to integrate the device to the product. I can get a turbofan Rolls Royce, English. There are other alternatives that are not necessarily the U.S. so I can escape this rule.
In the French case, as everything is French, if he says no, just. And he will not have, for example, the system integration of weapons and aircraft. If he does not have it, we can not develop other weapons for the Rafale, they have to be French. This is a big monkey to us.
ebanda – And how do you see the fact that he is just a project? It is not, or is an advantage to develop in partnership.
Arbache – This is the biggest advantage. Because the F-18 and Rafale are articles shelf, do not have to design. So do not make sense to say “I’ll give you a part for you to design. Since the Gripen is a project that will end up being developed with Brazil.
A classic example: the most successful Brazilian aircraft, RJ 145, which was the product that generated the Legacy and EMB 170/190/195. These aircraft were not designed as Brazil did with Alenia and Aeroitália project AMX. So he created design capacity – just had this success because he has a partnership where he could develop the project. What will be our development if we buy the Rafale and the F-18? None.
Not develop at all. So the fact that he is still on paper is the biggest advantage we have.
We have to think like a great nation now. I do not want a finished product. I want to develop a product to my sovereignty. This must be the reasoning of Brazil.
ebanda – So, the aircraft that best meets the needs of the FAB is the Gripen?
Arbache – Absolutely. For price, maintenance cost, operational, finally, several other criteria that bring for the following: is the aircraft that best suits the budget of various air forces. So I can still make me, as a country, an exporter of advanced aircraft. The Rafale, for example, was rejected by several air forces.
ebanda – No country uses the Rafale. The deal would represent the survival of the model and give impetus to Dassault. We can expect a return of France?
Arbache – I do not believe that France will be giving consideration to more than it promises. She sold the design of submarines, sold three nuclear plants, which was signed in the dark, is competing with the bullet train. She is taking a huge advantage.
So what, indeed, France is giving us in return? Or give the sources she wants, or lower the price. She wants us to swallow an aircraft at a price above the price obtained by the French Air Force. It is a big mistake, a monkey, the Rafale. It is the worst of all, at all levels.
ebanda – The report of the FAB can serve as an instrument of pressure to the French lower the price?
Arbache – The report of the FAB clearly rejects completely the Rafale. It can be used but by the Brazilian government to pressure for price reduction.
ebanda – So if Brazil decides the Rafale will be a totally political decision?
Arbache – 100% politics, no doubt.
LokeFolha newspaper sustains that the leaked docs come from a final evaluation report writen after the delivery of the last “Best and Final Offer” that was requested from the bidders at the Lula Sarkozy meeting in Sept 7th. The conflicting info, according to Folha, is just a Government ruse to minimise the importance of the information present in the leaked document. If they didn’t contest it’s origin or the quality of the info Jobim and Lula would have to explain ro the press why after all the goverment’s “pressure tactics” the French have still not lowered their prices…
Hammer,
Thanks again for an interesting post, it is much appreciated.
Do you have links to to the information above? It seems quite a few people on this forum do not believe that the latest report was leaked; instead it is believed that the first version of the report was leaked.
LokeHe said the decision involves the national sovereignty and technological sovereignty of the nation.
I am curious as to what level of ToT and collaboration the French is willing to offer. France is very special in that it is one of extremely few countries in the world that is quite independent when it comes to military equipment; add to that the nuclear dimension, and France is up there with the US, Russia, China, and no others! Quite impressive for a nation of that size.
However it is costly and although France has been good at selling stuff I guess that perhaps they also realize that the independence on military equipment side can become too expensive?
So, perhaps Brazil will really become more than a “special customer”, and instead become a true partner with France?
Brazil should be a bit careful; as demonstrated during the Falklands war, France has in the past chosen old allies and sacrificed a customer… However if Brazil feels confident that the relationship becomes strong enough then perhaps that would not be an issue?
To become truly independent, Brazil would need her own military industry, like the US, China and France — I doubt Brazil would like to pay that price. And I also question if France can afford to continue pay that price in the future, I guess the answer is no, we already see collaboration with other nations on e.g. frigates. So Brazil needs to work with others, the question is, with who? And why not do like most other nations and work with more than one nation?
If the relationship with France (for whatever reason) becomes “cool” in, say, 15-20 years, that could cause a lot of problems, mainly for Brazil. However one can also argue that if the collaboration becomes sufficiently deep and that Brazil and France becomes equal partners then France will depend on Brazil as much as Brazil depends on France.
Is France willing to lose her independence to Brazil?
Sign In
