LokeHe says much more than thayt, he says Dassault would contractually guarantee offsets to Canada equivalent of contract value, with possible penalties.
LOL offsets are not enough. It does not help as long as a) Canada is F-35 partner (gives huge opportunities for offsets) and b) Rafale is not American.
I simply do not understand how and why Dassault can believe they have a chance. Are they simply extremely desperate, after losing in Singapore, Korea, Marocco, Switzerland, Brazil, etc?
Perhaps we will see some “leaks” after F-35 has been declared the winner…..? 😉
LokeCan Rafale cope with Canada is the question. I know Rafale has done extensive cold box testing. How that translates to the real world God only knows.
Typhoon probably is the better fit for NORAD. Super Hornet is probably the best cost-effective purchase. But Rafale would be cool to see up north.
I am sure the Rafale willl do fine in cold weather, if there are issues then they will be fixed.
Why is Typhoon a better fit for NORAD?
SH may not be much more cost-effective than the Rafale; for instance Brazil concluded that CPH will be the same for Rafale and SH. And assuming India moves forward and buys 126 Rafale, I’m sure there will also be cost-effective upgrades.
The main issues are: lack of “stealth” (ala F-35) and the fact that Rafale is French not American. Canada is F-35 partner and is paying every year for this. Only if F-35 turns out to be completely unaffordable, will they consider switching. Capability-and cost-wise there will be no big differences between Rafale and SH thus politics will decide, and politics will clearly favor US solution, meanning the SH. However I doubt the F-35 will become so expensive. 45-50 F-35 I am sure Canada can afford 😉
LokeLINKOPING, SWEDEN — Saab expects to halve the cost of developing and building an upgraded E version of the single-engine Gripen fighter, seen as vital for extending the life of the combat jet, senior executives of the Swedish company said.
Lessons learned through Saab’s work on the Boeing 787, Dassault Aviation’s Neuron demonstrator for a combat drone and Catia software for 3D design lie behind that forecast, said Lennart Sindahl, deputy chief executive and head of aeronautics division.
Saab believes it has broken the so-called Augustine’s law, in which former Lockheed Martin Chief Executive Norman Augustine predicted only one fighter would be affordable in 2054, with the Air Force and Navy sharing it and the Marines getting use on a leap year.
Over the past 10 years, the Swedish company has cut costs in development, production, operation and maintenance on the C single-seat and D twin-seat Gripen models, Sindahl told journalists here during a press trip paid for by Saab.
LokeThe “leaks” that has been around the Swiss process in general and Gripen in particular makes me wonder who are behind those leaks?
It must be somebody who:
1. Have some very strong intelligence resources (ie. a major organization with intelligence experts)
2. Have a strong interest in stopping the Swiss Gripen deal from happening.
Sweden (and Switzerland for that matter) probably don’t have the resources to find out who are behind those leaks.
Anyway as LO says since Brazil has decided for Gripen, Switzerland is less important for Gripen’s future success. I wonder if those “meddling” in Switzerland will reduce their activities, or start to shift them to Brazil?
LokeProbably empty airframe.
By empty I mean EMPTY. No systems, no actuators, no engine, nothing. Just structure and aerodynamic surfaces.
Yes, has now been clarified in the article, and it is just the airframe:
Maximum take-off weight will be 16.5t, with the type’s empty airframe weight accounting for just 20% of this, at around 3t
Edit: Does anybody know what are the similar numbers for other fighters like e.g. the F-16 or Rafale?
Loke3 ton aircraft with 16 ton payload, Swedish engineering is astonishing. 😉
Interestingly Flight has not (yet) corrected the 3t number — previously I have seen they have been very quick at correcting errors.
Which makes me wonder; if this number is real (and it seems to be) what is included in that 3t number ? The F414 weighs around 1t AFAIK.
LokeIt does look like a winner for Brazil, however I wonder if other Saab customers either expecting or promised a share of TOT are as enthusiastic about the bromance.
There is still room for TOT — however I also think most countries like e.g. Switzerland care more about offsets than TOT, and for offsets it looks good already.
Switzerland’s Armasuisse procurement agency has so far approved offset proposals worth Swfr250 million, against an agreed pre-contract goal of Swfr300 million.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Gripen is a very “open” system, for instance I belive the Thai Gripen have their own datalink(?), thus a lot of possibilities.
LokeSaab starts thinking about future fighter, together with Brazil
http://www.affarsvarlden.se/hem/nyheter/article3811896.ece
“We are creating the conditions for building the next generation together and share the costs. Hopefully Brazil a new homeland for Saab,” he says.
LokeCraig Hoyle of course 🙂
It was a retweet that got messed up.
LokeThats incorrect.
Perhaps — or perhaps he is referring to something else, like e.g. the weight of just the airframe (w.o. engine, radar and other “loose” parts)? I don’t know. Seems strange if it’s just a typo, because it doesn’t just say “3t”; it also says “20%”. So if it’ wrong then it’s a combination of a calculation error and some other error perhaps.
LokeWhile externally similar, the slightly larger E will have five through-fuselage, aluminium-lithium frames at the heart of its structure, which will support its airframe through to its inner-wing weapons pylons. Its tail section has been redesigned to accommodate the General Electric F414G-39E turbofan engine, and a new intake has been added at the base of the tail for a second environmental control system, which is needed to cool its Selex ES Raven ES-05 active electronically scanned array radar and electronic warfare equipment.
The Gripen’s air intake design has also been enlarged, and new landing gear installed. The latter includes a larger, single nose wheel and main gear which retracts into the wing, freeing fuselage space and enabling a 40% increase in internal fuel capacity. Two additional weapon stations have also been introduced beneath the fuselage.
Maximum take-off weight will be 16.5t, with the aircraft’s empty weight accounting for just 20% of this, at around 3t.
The (presumably completely) empty Gripen E weighs only 3t! Interesting.
Read more: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-reveals-full-gripen-e-design-cost-savings-396977/
LokeTo complete its mission, Rafale needs a dozen or more jets to provide SEAD by launching decoys and shooting ARMs and provide jamming so strikers can get close enough to target for AASM.
Unlike e.g. the Mirage 2000 and F-16, the Rafale is self-escorting
Edit:
SPECTRA is a battle-proven and very effective tool, and there is even some evidence that it was the only platform that performed well against an SA-10B during the NATO exercise MACE XIII in April 2012 in Slovakia. Yet it confronted only one SAM system, and experts are quite skeptical about SPECTRA’s performance when facing integrated air defense systems, which means dealing with multiple threats and multiple enemy radars, possibly AESA ones.
Thanks to its main air-to-ground guided bomb (A2SM), the French Air Force was able to take out a Libyan SA-3 in the first days of operation Harmattan in March 2011. Here again, SPECTRA is also a key instrument to target SAMs for hard kills as it detects them and transmits the target information to the guidance system. In this case, the range of the A2SM (about 45 km) also allowed the pilot to shoot the SA-3 outside its target engagement ring.
Like self-protection however, these kinds of DEAD capabilities are only relevant against second or third-rate, non-integrated air defense systems that we can take out one by one and with limited range so that the shooter can remain standoff. I doubt the system can hang on for long against double digit-based, digitally integrated air defense systems.
http://ultimaratio-blog.org/fr/archives/5749
If the author of this blog is correct then SPECTRA has limited value against modern, integrated systems, and F-35 seems the way to go if one expect to have to deal with such systems.
Loke– Known salty env. behavior (F404 as opposed to Kfir’s J79)
*The Gripen being not “really” combat proven.
Actually it’s the Hornet that got the F404 — the SH got the F414 (sorry about being pedantic); Gripen C/D has he RM12 which is built on F404, Gripen E will use the F414.
As for combat proven: Is the F-35 combat proven…?
LokeI don’t think so. FAC will needs its fighter asap. Unless a leasing offer comes from Sweden (obviously possible), every option are open and staged at the same level (Fr/UK included).
Don’t forget also that Colombia responsibilities span over a vast area of maritime spaces and accepted risk of small arm fire damages.
Boeing has everything to play here:
– redundancy of system (twin)
– commonality with USCG/Counter_Narco assets
– Vast range with offensive payload with a credible survavibility rate over SAM double digits
– Large in-service force
– Predictable low cost parts at long term (the stored F18E/F in 20 years – Navy will predictably have switch to fully a stealth fleet)
– Predictable low cost fleet boost
– Known salty env. behavior (F404 as opposed to Kfir’s J79)
– A big aircraft to easily accommodate in-house upgrades
– Superior to anything flying in the area (close the Su gap / assume the over the Pacific role / assume the Caribbean role and boost your reliability as a strong partner in the region)
– Twin seat aircraft: boost the number in-service of flying personnel without the cost of extra hardware (the Indian’s Su30 strategy)Don’t take me wrong, there is plenty of advantage toward a synergy with Br, what I have alrdy advocated in the past. However there is here an opportunities for Boeing (as for the Fr or even UK here if they keep there golden bullets salesmen away). Even if Boeing might be the one to be able to deliver faster an overall package*.
*Boeing could also offer to “buy-back” the Kfir for a latter re-sale on the US aggressor market
From KFir to SH? Quite a big jump in capabilities, and costs. I strongly doubt the SH is an option. Too expensive.
LokeAnd that is where the utility of the F-35 emerges. If the obsolete Libyan air defences could impose restrictions on Rafale operations, the situation can hardly be better against a more professional, better trained, better equipped adversary. The F-35 wouldn’t have a free run of it either, but it certainly wouldn’t require as a high a margin of safety.
See response from Sintra, perhaps it was not a restriction on Rafale?
Anyway, consider the following two scenarios:
1. Rafale can operative in “vicinity” of 60% of all SAMs on this planet, for the rest it must resort to stand-off; F-35 can operate in vicinity of 70% of all SAMS, for the rest it must resort to stand-off; F-35 is 25% more expensive than Rafale
2. Rafale can handle 40% of all SAMs, for the rest it must resort to stand-off; F-35 can handle 80% of all SAMs, for the rest it must resort to stand-off; they cost roughly the same.
Of course the above numbers are just dreamed-up examples, the idea is to demonstrate a simple point and ask a simple question:
Is the reality closest to scenario 1 or 2 above?
If 1, then it is not obvious that F-35 is the best deal; if 2, then it is obvious that F-35 is the best deal in town.
Personally I suspect 2 is closest to reality, thus I am 100% convinced Canada will pick F-35 not Rafale (which would lose in any case since it’s not just non-American; it’s French!)
Sign In
