alexzNever ever said that FA-50 would be even a candidate for the philippine air force MRF requirement.
Just saying as PAF already has 12 FA-50, and going to add another 12 in Horizon 2 as its SAA/LFTA, why do PAF need to add another lightweight fighter, no matter if it is a gripen, tejas, or FC-1? Philippines has a big archipelago to cover, and needs a MRF with more range than a lightweight fighter.
The latest USAF SLEP would increase F-16 structural life to 13,856 equivalent flight hours. With the SLEP, USAF is planning to fly the F-16s past 2048, along with all the support required for it. Would the Gripen C still be supported in 2048?
An F-16C/D modified with the SLEP package plus the F-16V modification and conformal tanks would not cost more than a Gripen C, and both are actually used planes ( all brand new Gripen C uses a lot of parts canibalized from a retired Gripen A). You would get a fighter with long range, AESA radar, exellent spares availability (can you borrow around critical spares in emergency situations like Marawi?)
http://www.janes.com/article/71414/usaf-increases-scope-of-f-16-slep-to-include-more-aircraft-and-airframe-hours
In this article it is said that USAF considers 4000 hours as equivalent to 8 years of operational flying. Most other air forces barely fly 200 hours annually. Even israeli F-16 retired after 40 years of service flown only about that much. Even if you pull out a used F-16 from davis-monthan with 6,000 hours (like the indonesian birds), that still gives you 7,856 hours remaining, which is more than enough for any air force outside of USAF to last a lifetime.
alexzTonnyc
Noted.
So that is just a wish list, and that includes budgets for 16 projects, not just the MRF.
More reasons for not getting the gripen c then. The best platform for MRF IMO is still the F-16. Unless they go and pick up the remaining ex IAF Su-30K in Belarus LoL!
alexzalexzI fully understand the difference. Are those little difference that can easily be implemented worth the more than twice the cost difference? Also understand PAF is already a FA-50 operator, the MRF needs to have a big difference in capability for it to be worthwhile.
Simple, Gripen C costs more than twice of the FA-50 but does not give twice the performance capability.
alexzFA-50 refuelling studies.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]258623[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]258624[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]258625[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]258626[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]258627[/ATTACH]
T-X boom receptacle
[ATTACH=CONFIG]258628[/ATTACH]
alexzFor the Philippines
They already have the FA-50, and they are planning additional batch of FA-50 in Horizon 2, giving a total of 24 FA-50s. Why do they need a second lightweight fighter too? No matter if it is gripen c or even FC-1, other than political (in FC-1 case) reasons? In gripen’s case, it is double the price of FA-50, is that worth it? If you want to say cheap operating costs, that is also already applicable to the FA-50. Other than things like BVR missiles, AAR capability and other weapons that can be added in the future to the FA-50, what is the advantage of the gripen c compared to the FA-50? Does it have a longer internal fuel range compared to FA-50? Does it have significantly higher weapons load than the FA-50? Is it really better than the F-16?
The quoted cost for 16 gripen c/d for botswana is around 1.4 billion usd. You could have refurbished F-16 to the F-16V standard with AESA plus plenty of missiles and bombs with that price.
alexzSwerve,
I am comparing the FA-50 specifically with Gripen C. Why are you bringing in the Gripen E in this? As they already have the FA-50, I am pointing out that the Gripen C does not give double performance of the FA-50 for double the price.
The total budget is just 2.73 billion usd for everything, including a second batch of FA-50, MPAs, Transports, Ground radars the lot. You would clean up all the budget if you go with the Gripen E.
alexzProple are too blinded by the glossy advertisements that saab put out. Kudos to saab for the brilliant marketing plan. They blatantly put out max numbers with different setups. Max range is actually with 3 drop tanks, max speed was at high altitude in winter, max weapons load will mean limited internal fuel by weight etc etc. Things they highlight like datalink, low operating costs are also applicable to the FA-50 (same engine, same fuel consumption, with link-16 datalink). So why is the gripen 2x the price of the FA-50?
But when you compare all the hard technical specifications, the gripen c, and the golden eagle are basically a similar class of fighter, with similar engine thrust and similar internal fuel capacity.
Carrying more loads with the same sized airframe and same powerplant performance will incur performance penalties, which obviously not pointed out by saab.
Basically what im trying to say is, PAF had its FA-50, so for MRF, go for something that is more potent than just a very expensive tarted up lightweight fighter pretending it is a medium fighter that is the gripen c.
alexzThe Gripen C is exactly twice the price of the FA-50.
The FA-50 comes with Link-16 datalink.
Its max weapons load is also similar to the gripen c. There is now plans to integrate more weapons to the FA-50.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]258615[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]258616[/ATTACH]
As the Philippines already has the FA-50, it is better for them to go for something in the F-16 class of fighter. Anyway all new gripen c are cobbled up from used parts taken off canibalised gripen a anyway, so why not used F-16s?
alexzRegarding them as worn out and tired.
” Now, as the IAF’s first F-35As arrive and the M346 Lavi fills Israel’s advanced jet trainer role, the Netz have finally been pulled from service. The type had flown 335,000 flight hours and participated in 474,000 sorties during its IAF career “
There is about 100-120 Netz in IAF service, so on average it could be said that they are flown for 3,500 hours only. Most F-16 in Davis-Monthan are retired at 6,000 hours. But with the new SLEP, it could have almost similar remaining flight hours as a new fighter aircraft.
alexzI really think the FC-1 and Gripen C does not give significant performance difference compared to the FA-50. Brand new F-16s are still available, but that is probably beyond what PAF can afford.
Most USAF F-16s are retired after 6,000 hours and with the latest SLEP, it can still fly for a futher 7000 hours easily. That is like more than 40 years worth of flying hours. It is really the default choice for PAF. A program something like Indonesian Peace Bima Sena 2 could be requested, free EDA F-16s with the upgrade costs paid for by indonesia.
alexzMore news on Croatian F-16s
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-agrees-to-sell-30-aging-f-16-planes-to-croatia/
30 F-16s for 500 million usd? That is quite a jump from the current 12 MiG-21 they are using. Makes the Romanian deal looks expensive.
alexzThe original 3.6 billion euros is the budgetary planned for everything in the capability transition period in the RfGP. That is what US DSCA is responding to.
9.3. Binding Nature of the Responses to the RfGP
The responses to the RfGP are official government proposals and as such will be considered as
formal offers. The responses will be used as primary input for the analysis and assessment
activities and will drive the outcome of the recommendation to the Belgian government.
The proposal for the capability transition period will be considered as binding, as it will form
the basis of the agreement(s) to be signed.
alexzSo now with the F-35A price is out, we know that it is nealy 2 billion euro more than Belgium’s buget for 34 new fighters.
So now if Belgium insists on having F-35A’s, they need to
a) increase the budget
b) reduce the number of F-35A’s
BTW would the 3.6 billion euros budget really get them 34 Rafales or Typhoons? Would a SLEP (to 13,856 flying hours) and uprade program (AESA and others stuff) to their existing F-16s give Belgium similar capabilities to Rafales or Typhoons?
Or a reduced F-35A buy (say 16) for expeditionary operations and retaining upgraded F-16s (say 32) for CAS in permissive airspace and national air policing? Surely that could be had within the original 3.6 billion euros budget.
As a recap, the intended capability
From the Belgian Air Combat Capability document
“” Level of Ambition
The level of ambition for the future Belgian air combat capability is to be able to
simultaneously
– guarantee Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) / Air Policing duties with 2 aircraft (24/7) – in an
alternating rotation regime with the Royal Netherlands Air Force
and
– contribute air power to expeditionary operations for a sustained period of undetermined
duration with 6 multi-role aircraft. “”
alexzThey overengineered a ship when something like the Absalons would fulfil the expeditionary takings that is expected from such a ship.
Sign In
