You get what you pay for.

With the Typhoon, perhaps not. It is a quite expensive system, and one important reason why it’s so expensive is that there is a lot of inefficiencies and duplications, mainly for political reasons. This has increased the cost quite a lot. The F-35 program tries to do better using “best value” principle to decide who will do what, and also one tries to reduce dublication of efforts. The Rafale program did not always follow “best value” in the sense that they tend to use French contractors in any case, however at least they avoided the duplication. Another thing to keep in mind is that delays are costly. Mainly for political reason there have been a lot of delays in the Typhoon development. This has also contributed to an increase in price.

bring_it_on,

I just wanted to say I enjoy reading your posts — always informative and level-headed. Thanks 🙂

To the F-35 naysayers: I don’t think anything bring_it_on or Spud can say will convince you. However in a few years I think you will come to appreciate that the F-35 can hold it’s ground in most scenarios. Once the F-35 starts flying “for real” and we can read more about what pilots from different air forces think about it, I think the “evidence” will become quite clear.

Of course it will not be an a2a machine like F-22 or PAK FA, however it was never meant to be; also, in spite of not being in the “F-22 class” I think it will demonstrate many capabilities that will come as a big surprise to several people on this board…

Turn rates and acelleration is not as important today as it used to be.

To repeat myself: At this stage the issue is not anymore the technical capabilities of the F-35 (IMHO); it’s more about cost, in particular operating costs. It is supposed to be an F-16/F-18 replacement; and I don’t doubt that as such it will be very successful. However will it do so in a cost-effective fashion?

On verra.

Well except for the Gripen for some reason :stupid:

Nic

The Gripen program is different in that it actually has managed to control costs. There are many reasons, one being that it seems they rely more on COTS than others. Also, they have more flexibility than Dassault in that they pick and choose components not just from Europe but also from the US.

Consider the choice of the F414 for the Gripen E. A very modern, highly capable and still low-cost engine, that comes at zero development costs to the Gripen customers…

The IRST of Gripen E is (if I understood correctly) an upgrade of what’s delivered on the Typhoon.

The AESA radar is an evolution of an existing Selex radar.

Operating costs: A lot of effort was put into making the Gripen simple and cheap to operate and maintain. This was an important requirement, and thus taken into account at the design step. No doubt other fighters have also been designed with this in mind, but I have the impression that it’s sometimes considered “less important”, perhaps in particular for some US fighters of the past, and therefore has been given lower priority.

In addition we all know that in general a single-engine small fighter is cheaper than double-engine larger fighter.

Meanwhile, work moves forward on the “stealthy” SH:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/05/fa-18f-cft-weapons-pod-mockup.html

4 AMRAAMs in a low-RCS weapons pod — not a lot but still the same as the F-35 will carry internally.

With reduced RCS, more sensors, and improved sensor fusion, the 4.5 gen fighters will move closer the F-35 capabilities.

If this can be done with the SH, then presumably also other 4.5 gen fighters can do the same, including the Rafale and Typhoon. Both Rafale and Typhoon already got quite good SA, and if the customers are willing to invest, it can only get better.

What will the gap to F-35 be after such an upgrade? We don’t know but my guess is that the F-35 will still maintain the edge both in terms of “stealth” and in terms of SA/sensor fusion. Also, these upgrades don’t come for free. Still, the SH shows what can be done. The 4.5 gen fighters still got plenty of life in them.

According to DiD the SH may be able to carry 2 AMRAAMs and 2 500 pounds JDAM, so in a2g not the same class as the F-35 (as you would expect).

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mirage-2000s-withdrawn-as-indias-mrca-fighter-competition-changes-01989/

It seems Swedish planners believe JAS-39E Gripens would be able to defeat a Russian invasion force including some PAK-FAs for a “limited period” while acknowledging that “these aircraft can detect Gripen system at considerably greater distances than individual Gripens can detect them.”

What would be Sweden’s force equalizer to compensate for the Gripen’s deficiency in detection/tracking ranges against the PAK-FA?

My guess: a combination of land-based radars, ship-based radars, and Erieye, all linked in with the Gripens.

To maintain a 24/7 hr QRA of around 4 jets you need about 280 tech/maintenance employed. (and 16 pilots) because of work regulations. (70 ppl per shift).

And that is per QRA-unit in “high alert/readyness” as is expected if you have to be able to take of within 30 min or less.

SwAF has 280 ppl in the staff (technicians etc) + 80 pilots (can be wrong). This means we only have jets ready <8,6 hrs per day, in total. And this is according to state media/public service (SVT) http://www.svt.se/nyheter/sverige/gripenplanen-bara-startklara-dagtid

Do you really need 70 per shift? Also, do you really need 4 planes on QRA, I think Norway got only 2.

I think in Norway people working at hospitals have some exemptions from the regular working regulations, this allows them to work longer hours etc.; I would not be surprised if the Norwegian Air Force has something similar for the QRA.

Edit: Perhaps Sweden should hire Czech personell to do QRA: 🙂

Flight International visited Lithuania’s Siauliai air base as the fourteenth nation to assume the Baltic QRA mission was less than three weeks into its four-month detachment at the site. Notably for the Czech Republic, the first operational overseas deployment to have been undertaken by its air force since joining NATO in 1999 is also the first commitment of its kind made by Prague since the end of the Second World War.

Equipped with four Saab Gripen C fighters, the current detachment is drawn from the Czech air force’s 211th Tactical Squadron, home based at Cáslav, around 80km (43nm) east of the nation’s capital.

Two of the aircraft have been held at readiness to take off within 15min on a 24h, seven-day-a-week basis since 1 May, with the commitment forming part of the wider NATO Integrated Air Defence System. Armaments carried for the Baltic mission are two Raytheon AIM-9M Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missiles and typically around 100 gun rounds per aircraft.
[…]
A total of 75 Czech personnel are participating in the Baltic mission, with the majority of these to be rotated half-way through the commitment. The total includes eight pilots and 36 maintenance and logistics personnel at Siauliai and some personnel assigned to a Lithuanian command and control facility at Karmelava.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/baltic-exchange-327070/

Norwegian government asks the Norwegian Parliament for 12.9 billion NOK ( 2.2 billion USD) for six F-35, including training and equipment.

First planes to arrive in Norway should be delivered in 2017.

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/1.11001782