dark light

Spitfire9

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 2,413 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Team Tempest Future Fighter from the UK #2133949
    Spitfire9
    Participant

    Until there is a drastic re-awakening of the German public, don’t expect military spending to increase drastically any time soon.

    After World War II the victorious allied powers wanted the people of Germany to abandon their support for militarism. They did. I think that a lot of Germans do not want their government to spend heavily on the German military machine.

    I believe that NATO members have an obligation to spend 2% of GDP on defence so the German government could push the line to the citizens of Germany that it has to increase spending on defence (especially with Trump’s recent pressure to do this). Perhaps that could provide funds for an involvement in another fighter project. Would that please the USA? Doubt it. They would much prefer to have less competition for their own products. The American line seems to be that they would like countries like Germany to spend more on defence and for as much as possible to be spent on supporting the US defence industry at the cost of their own.

    You talk of the risk involved with using Russia as an energy supplier. Russia could break supply contracts. What about the risk of using USA as a supplier of military materiel? You can’t rely on USA not to break contracts. Congress takes a dislike to you being supplied and suddenly your contracts with US suppliers are unilaterally broken. The lesson: don’t buy from Russia or America unless you are prepared to have them trying to control your internal and external policies and actions.

    For energy independence develop indigenous wind, solar etc energy supplies. The technology is becoming cost effective – for example studies show that it would be cheaper to generate energy through wind rather than nuclear where a new nuclear power plant is proposed in the west of England.

    For defence independence develop national/multinational weapons systems.

    in reply to: Team Tempest Future Fighter from the UK #2133994
    Spitfire9
    Participant

    swerve:

    thanks for clarifying F2 costs

    in reply to: Team Tempest Future Fighter from the UK #2134117
    Spitfire9
    Participant

    A a side not, IMOHO, Japan is must to go for UK.

    I would be worried about teaming up with a country that produced a ‘home grown’ F-16 (the F2) where each F2 cost an extremely large amount of money to produce. I’m sure I’ve seen a figure of $200 million somewhere but cannot find the source. A repeat of this kind of performance would make a future Tempest involving Japan in design/manufacture so overpriced that only the countries involved in its development would consider buying it.

    I appreciate that the F2 project may have had the objective of keeping aeronautical skills alive in Japan (so cost was not so important) but Tempest would need to be a more commercial exercise IMO.

    I wonder if any or all countries that are interested in being involved would expect their own assembly line as per Eurofighter.

    in reply to: Team Tempest Future Fighter from the UK #2134764
    Spitfire9
    Participant

    Maybe Tempest i.e. a national program but utilizing contributions from foreign industries would be a safer way.
    The example of the Gripen E/F i.e a swedish plane with italian avionics and an american engine is a clear indication of how it will be working just fine.

    I agree. When developing a highly sophisticated product such as a fighter jet, failing to take advantage of the excellence of a non-indigenous supplier can show a very expensive lack of judgement.

    in reply to: Team Tempest Future Fighter from the UK #2134766
    Spitfire9
    Participant

    As I understand it only the preliminary work on a future fighter has been funded by the UK government. Would the UK fund all development on its own? I don’t see that as likely. Apart from anything else leaving the EU may result in reduced economic growth for several years (giving the UK government a reduced tax take), making a big spend on a new fighter project difficult to justify/finance.

    To me the best partner bet would be Sweden if that country could accept a medium weight twin to succeed Gripen E some decades on from now. I would like to see that happen with any other interested parties (Japan? Turkey? Korea? India?) joining later with no input on the performance requirements of the aircraft. I mention those 4 four countries as I do not anticipate that they will all succeed in bringing their own projects to fruition.

    in reply to: RIAT v Farnborough Airshow #2134999
    Spitfire9
    Participant

    Got to say I was very disappointed by the Farnborough air display this year on Sunday – no Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, F-18, F-35, Sukhoi or MiG. Just an F-16 giving a flying display (twice during the afternoon). The only airliner that gave a flying display was the A350-1000. I think a B787 was promised but that didn’t happen although I saw one on final approach half an hour after the show was declared to be closed.

    in reply to: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4 #2135210
    Spitfire9
    Participant

    Can’t give a link but I recall SAAB saying some years ago that Gripen E was expected to cost less than Gripen C to produce. I presume that this was linked at least in part to the use of an off-the-shelf engine produced in much higher numbers than the indigenous Volvo incarnation of the F404 used in the ‘C’. Of course the final cost will depend on how much radar, EWS, MAWS etc cost compared with projected costs.

    My reaction to SAAB is that I find it a company that knows what it is doing costwise. It does not accept funding from the Swedish govt to develop a product within a budget then come back and ask for more funds because development has proved to be more expensive than expected. As a buyer I would rather be at the mercy of SAAB as a supplier than Dassault or Eurofighter or LM. $50 million to update IAF M2K’s seems a very high cost to me. Operating Eurofighter – at least where Austria is concerned (I have read) is much more costly than expected. LM seems to want to control as much as it can where maintenance and overhaul are concerned, making users very dependant on its costs.

    Yes, F-35 benefits from economies of scale but that assumes the project is well managed. The benefits reduce if the project is badly managed (which JSF has been). Yes, it is more advanced than Gripen E in several ways (LO, data fusion etc) but it is not known how costly it will be to operate. Countries with limited defence budgets may find that F-35 gobbles up a much greater proportion of the budget than anticipated resulting in cuts elsewhere in their defences or a lack of serviceable fighters due to cost or hangar queen fighters. Not a good risk if you are trying to defend your country IMO compared with Gripen E.

    in reply to: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4 #2136223
    Spitfire9
    Participant
    in reply to: Switzerland fighter replacement plan restarted #2137042
    Spitfire9
    Participant

    @Skyhawk

    Thanks for the info.

    in reply to: Switzerland fighter replacement plan restarted #2137065
    Spitfire9
    Participant

    With the Swiss MOD not having to go through a gruelling referendum AFTER the platform has been chosen they can aim for the most capable ones, unlike the last time when they choose the cheapest.

    I think that what aircraft and SAM are chosen will depend on:

    (a) entire budget for SAM’s and aircraft (I assume the 8 billion Swiss franc spend mentioned is not set in stone)

    (b) cost of minimum acceptable performance demanded from both systems

    I guess the Swiss armed forces will then argue between themselves for the best air defence system at the cost of a better performing fighter and vice versa.

    in reply to: Switzerland fighter replacement plan restarted #2137329
    Spitfire9
    Participant

    This time, the referendum will happen before the final decision by the government. Swiss people will vote on the whole concept of air defense modernisation and maximum budget, not on any aircraft type or number of aircraft.

    If I read you correcly, (a) a fighter purchase (b) the maximum to be spent on it would need to be approved before going any further. That is a LOT more sensible than going through a complex and expensive selection process then asking the electorate if it was all going to be a complete waste of time and money.

    in reply to: Switzerland fighter replacement plan restarted #2137819
    Spitfire9
    Participant

    I recollect that around 2010 the F-5 replacement programme was launched and that some time later Boeing withdrew from the competition. Unless I am mistaken there was a problem with the Superhornet wingspan exceeding the maximum that could be accomodated in bunkers dug into hillsides. What has changed? Would the cost of enlarging those bunkers be added to any quote from Boeing when evaluating Superhornet?

    Looking at CPFH, it seems a big jump from F-5 CPFH (I guess under $5,000) to at least double that (if not triple or more) for all the types offered except Gripen E. I do not know how many hours a year Swiss F-5’s were flown on missions that did not warrant the capability of the Hornets but having to fly air patrols at a CPFH increased by 100% or 150% or 200% compared to F-5 (or possibly even more) seems a massive waste of money to me if it can be avoided. Of the companies invited to quote for supplying fighters only SAAB can offer a product that might not cost several times more to fly each hour than F-5.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News #2138537
    Spitfire9
    Participant

    India’s quest for procuring 110 fighter aircraft for its air force is progressing with six global aviation majors having responded to the Request for Information for the program.

    The six firms which are competing for the IAF contract worth billions of dollars are Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Fighting Falcon, Dassault Aviation’s Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab’s Gripen and Russian United Aircraft Corporation’s MiG-35.

    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/194570/same-six-firms-bid-for-indian-fighter-tender.html

    in reply to: Switzerland fighter replacement plan restarted #2138597
    Spitfire9
    Participant

    ERROR

    Sorry – can’t edit my post. I missed seeing Boeing is included so I guess that means F/A-18 IS included.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News #2138749
    Spitfire9
    Participant

    Good to know that. Would be even better if I could get more detailed information.

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 2,413 total)