LokeI didn’t know that Gripen NG have RCS less than 0,1m2, and without internal weapons? Is this verified?
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1321013&postcount=1
The Swedish defence research agency names the average rcs of Gripen A to 0.1m2
Gripen CD had further RCS reduction — NG will have a lower RCS than C/D.
OK, this is presumably in a clean config — still there must be a reason why all the companies making 4.5 gen a/c work hard on reducing the RCS; look at the SH for instance. Even if adding stuff increases the RCS, I guess it still can give an advantage, perhaps in particular in a light a2a config?
L
LokeNice try, but.
They are not “official program of record numbers”. They are GAO estimates (the GAO’s estimates for weapons systems cost are almost always higher than DOD/manufacturer estimates).
They are not in 2007 USD, they are in then-year dollars extrapolated to the end of the current planned procurement program. And I guarantee that those being procured beyond 2030 are bringing that average up quite a bit as in theory the constant dollar cost should level off somewhere in 2014-2016 but you can bet that inflation will continue to rise (or at least you should know that the estimates are based on a constant average rate of inflation).
For example, 2009 USAF budget documents put (again then-year dollars) the average flyaway cost for its 1763 F-35A at $83.131 million. Take a wild guess what the price in 2015 or 2020 must be if the average with procurement going through 2035 is “just” $83.131 million. Here is a hint…The quoted to partner nations & publicly announced in Apr 2008 flyaway price of the F-35A as $58.7 million in FY2008 dollars falls right in line with these numbers. More specifically a constant average inflation rate of 3% makes $58.7 million in FY2008 dollars to be ~$70.1 million in FY2014 (~$130.3 million in FY2035 dollars) & a constant average inflation rate of 4% makes $58.7 million in FY2008 dollars to be ~$74.3 million in FY2014 (~$169.3 million in FY2035 dollars)…
The price qouted to Norway in April 2008 was 18 billion NOK for 48 F-35 (fly-away price). It was recently revealed in a documentary on Norwegian television that the currency exchange rate used was the one from January 2008, which happened to be unusually low. This gives an estimated fly-away of approx 70 million USD.
This is a bit confusing to me — above you refer to FY08 dollars — since they used the exchange rate of January 08 perhaps this would mean they were talking about FY08 dollars? Or not?
Perhaps they did what you did above and estimated inflation and ended up at a price of 70 million USD for 2015 or so? Then why did they use the January 08 currency exchange rate and not some “historical average”? :confused:
L
LokeThat’s completely unrealistic. I think they meant 1,6:1, that means 16 Flankers downed at the expense of 10 Gripens.
Would Saab bother to publish results that showed 1.6:1 ratio? I doubt it. Could be wrong of course, has happened before 🙂
L
LokeSorry I don’t believe that. 🙂 With better weapons may be twice as good but 6 times over an SU 35. Sorry 🙂
You are forgetting:
RCS less than 0.1m2; AESA; IRST; world class EWS especially developed to handle Russian opponents; strongly improved MMI, improved sensor fusion, world class data link; topped with Meteor and IRIS-T.
To me the 6 to 1 ratio actually sounds very credible.
L
LokeOf course it means Gripen is six times better than SU-35. If not, Saab would not publish those sim results.
Just like LM proved that F-35 is “six times better than any 4. gen jet” including Gripen C….
L
LokeNew Gripen video for India
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-zCxDGpuwQ
Well, if looks was a deciding factor then Gripen would probably win 😎
L
LokeNo it is not!!!
An aircraft having an internal weapons’ bay, is penalized by the extra weight of the structure, skin, and door mechanisms, which is hardly trivial, plus a slight shape compromise, from the aerodynamic ideal.
This extra weight will be translated to the wing, which in turn is going to operate in higher A. Of course the drag in this case is less, but, this aircraft will have to carry its penalty, all the way to and back from the target(s), whistle a non stealth will be clean (real clean) half the way!If the internal carriage of weapons had any advantage, other then LO, then many 2nd 3rd and 4rth generation aircraft would have simply adopt it.
Internal carriage of weapons was not discovered yesterday.
Agree — however how “non-agile” and draggy F-35 will be remains to be seen… Only LM (and a few others) know the truth. Perhaps their marketing is far from the truth, perhaps not. What is true however is that the F-35 engine will be extremely powerful. So for sure it will have a decent acceleration.
As for the rest, it does not matter anymore, remember? HOBS will take care of everything…:rolleyes:
There is one thing I am wondering about though: When will the F-35 get HOBS ammunition for it’s gun? :diablo:
L
Lokefly-away cost of Gripen NG?
Some people over at Defencetalk claimed recently that the fly-away of Gripen NG is almost twice the price of Gripen C/D. I was surprised about that…
Norway was offered 48 Gripen NG for 20 billion NOK — this was a fixed price, and with todays exchange rate it would be 67 million USD per plane. I always thought this was a package price that included a lot of things&stuff, but the experts at dt say that’s not correct.
F-35 was estimated at 18 billion NOK; however this is just an estimate, and furthermore a “favorable” exchange rate was used (5.27 they say) which means that the fly-away of F-35 was estimated to 71 million USD in January 2008.
So only slightly more expensive than Gripen NG.
Anyway, if the fly-away of NG really is around 60-70 million USD, I wonder about it’s chances… I thought even SH was around 50 million or so?
Signatory, where are you?
L
LokeHello loke,
There was an article in A&C about the RBE2 AESA that I summed up on this board in one of the rafale thread.
The thales technical exectutive which was interviewed said that the AESA RBE2 was very similar to the APG-79 in terms of “maturity” and technical choices.
Thanks, interesting qoute.
The reason why I found the qoute from LM so interesting, was because it was not Thales or Rafale person who said that… Every time a vendor says something positive about their own equipment, one can always suspect that it is marketing talk and may or may not be reflecting reality… However when LM people mention Thales as a possible vendor of AESA equipment to F-35, to me such a statement carries a completely different weight… it means they believe Thales can deliver world class AESA. That’s something else than when Thales says they can deliver a world class AESA. They would say that in any case.
Whether they will be picked is another matter altogether, but just that they may be considered is already an interesting statement.
L
LokeWrong:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/05/random-10-list-things-i-learne.html
Wrong. (or rather, misleading…)
RCS for international variant to partners will not be different from the US version…
However for non-partners, the RCS may or may not be the same… that’s depends on the US authorities and what they clear for export to that country.
So Norway’s F-35s will get the same RCS as the US ones. But if, say, Brazil or India buys F-35 they may or may not get the same RCS…
L
LokeBy Stephen Trimble
For different reasons, Heinz said that in theory he could support selecting Raytheon or Thales to supply an alternative radar for the F-35.
Northrop Grumman currently supplies the APG-81 active electronically scanned array (AESA). But if Northrop’s current factory becomes overwhelmed by the production ramp-up, Heinz said, the programme might seek to qualify Raytheon or Thales to supply a compatible alternative.
Raytheon’s APG-79 AESA was originally developed for the Boeing X-32, the losing bidder in 2001 for the JSF contract. However, the US Navy selected the APG-79 for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler, and the radar is now in full-rate production. Meanwhile, Thales is developing the RBE-2 AESA for the Dassault Rafale.
Perhaps the people who claim that Europe cannot develop AESAs should reconsider their opinion… :rolleyes:
If Thales may be considered for F-35, that should be a strong indication that professionals do appreciate what Europe can do…
L
Lokeall studies identified significant, non-financial factors of a two-engine competitive program, which includes: better engine performance, improved contractor responsiveness, a more robust industrial base, increased engine reliability and improved operational readiness.”
The memo also notes that in March 2008, the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff “offered personal support for a competitive JSF engine, citing reliability and redundancy as important factors.” But that doesn’t hold much water, since Michael Wynne and “Buzz” Moseley are gone now.
Congress has also cited repeated problems in the F135 program versus what they see as on-track design maturity of the F136.
L
LokeNo. The JSF is selected for the Norwegian needs to replace the the F-16s in the related roles.
Are the Norwegian F-16s obsolete since the 80s? From that time scale Russia did field double digit SAMs?!
I am not sure if I understand your last sentence, but anyway one of the missions that the Norwegian evaluation committee looked at was to operate in the vicinity of double-digit SAMs. This was one of the missions where Gripen NG failed but F-35 did not fail (according to the simulations). This was used as one of the main arguments to not select Gripen NG.
It was also said that “Gripen NG would be adequate for the next 10-15 years”; implying that it would not be adequate after 10-15 years.
If your point is that Russia already has double-digit SAMs on Kola and F-16 cannot accomplish bombing missions around them, well, good point. F-16 would clearly also not have met the Norwegian requirements. Only F-35 could do (F-22 is not available).
L
LokeWhy to face double digit SAMs?
Who does field that and where?
I assume that is a rethorical question?
L
LokeLM quoted the price in constant (2003??)dollars.
What would the Swedes have done different if what you say is true and they did not get all the requirements? Could they have changed the Gripen in any material way to meet those requirements? If they could have how much more would it have cost?
If the Swedes had been made aware of the requirements they would not have participated in the competition…
What was required: Operate independently in the vicinity of double-digit SAMS (and survive); Fight a future PAK FA independently (and survive). Even armchair generals like us understand that these requirements cannot be met by a 4.5 gen fighter.
The funny thing is that the “double-digit” scenario was actually known a long time ago… We wrote about it in this forum. However it seems the Swedes believed this was a “nice-to-have” feature and not a requirement that had to be met.
When asked why they did not pull out like Eurofighter the Swedes said that it seemed the Eurofighter consortium “had better intelligence” than the Swedes…
I feel sorry for the Swedes, not because Gripen lost but because internal Norwegian politics made the government release information (or disinformation) on Gripen that makes Gripen look worse than it is. I did not like that, and I hope it will not impact Gripens chances in other competitions around the world.
Why Saab did not sue Norway? Perhaps one reason is that Norway actually paid Saab 150 million NOK (24 million USD) as a contribution to development of the NG…. In a hypothetical trial it may have been difficult for Saab to ask for economical compensation since they already got money to cover the marketing campaign in Norway, and then some. (I guess — I don’t really know how much a marketing campaign cost?)
Anyway, I hope NG will win in Brazil and India; it’s not a 5. gen of course, but it is a good, cost-effective 4.5 gen platform which deserves to be recognized as such.
L
PS; For the F-35 offer the January 2008 exhange rate was used; This would mean an estimated unit price of 71 million USD; as others have noted this was just an estimate; the Gripen offer was a fixed price (with today’s exchange rate, 66 million USD…)
Sign In
