Spitfire9….so, I will stand by the fact that Canada has violated it;s own orders, it’s own purchase policies, lied to itself, to the public and is still “claiming” that it is NOT buying F35’s or at least “decided” to do so….
SO, my grasp on “Reality” and what Canada is and has done is fully intact…..
I go along with the essence of what you say.
I find it ironic that the democratic process has been subverted by the Canadian administration in order to acquire what the Canadian administration regards as the best means to defend the democracy that is Canada. I also find it ironic the the US administration is content to join in the deceit to undermine democratic government (defender of the free world etc), assuming that the administration was aware of LM’s attempts to secure an F-35 order from Canada. Had the roles been reversed (US buying from Canada) I imagine that the American press would have slaughtered the US administration and the US judiciary might well have done the same, too.
Those in Canada attempting to sidestep Canadian law, deceive the Canadian parliament and indirectly the Canadian people should be brought to task by the courts IMO. Might be an idea to blacklist LM, too. Or is it OK to have a supplier with so little integrity where Canadian democracy is concerned?
Spitfire9So an VERY experienced and informed Israel has KNOWINGLY and willingly refused to increase the order…. I wonder why?…..
Wasn’t it because of this ( source http://aviationweek.com/defense/israeli-panel-rejects-proposed-increase-f-35 ):
Leading the surprising opposition to the F-35 deal was Minister for Intelligence Yuval Steinitz, who declared: “We are not rubber stamps for the [ministry of defense] and air force.”
Spitfire9I know several swiss people who are afraid about the result of the vote, because Switzerland needed and still need in this area a long-termin relayable fair honest partner.
I am not sure which vote you are talking about but when I look at possible suppliers of fighter aircraft to Switzerland the nearest one to a long term reliable fair honest partner would be SAAB in my opinion.
Spitfire9They’ve been using a tested in Russia. It just needs support.
I think DRDO is aware of insuperable problems that it cannot resolve without outside help, hence the attempt to employ SNECMA’s expertise.
“Refusing to divulge the finer details, Dr K Tamilmani, Director-General (Aero), DRDO, confirmed to OneIndia that the Kaveri project will be scrapped. “Yes. These are part of the bold stand being taken by DRDO. Whereever we have found bottlenecks for long time, with no realistic solutions, it’s better to move on. It is an honest stand we are taking,” Tamilmani said.
When asked whether the decision was a fall out of the recent remarks made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi asking DRDO to come out of the delay trap, the senior official refused to make a direct comment. “If you are fit to run only for 50 km, why attempt 100 km? DRDO has realized its mistakes of the past and we have no hesitation in taking some bold steps,” he said.
My take: DRDO should have recognised their limitations many, many years ago and said they would not be able to succeed on their own instead of releasing BS statements to the effect that they were getting there when they weren’t.
Spitfire9Interesting news!
But for the love of gud.. i can’t figure out why LM are throwing around these “without engine cost”!!
LM does not buy the engines from P&W and send the bill for airframe including engine to the customer?
Edit: However I agree with your sentiment. LM seems talk of the cost of an F-35 when they should be talking of the cost of an F-35 without engine, without extra concurrency costs. I think it suits LM the way things are: the manner in which costs are presented makes it sound like F-35’s are cheaper than they really are.
Spitfire9With Kaveri reaching F404-GE-100 levels, why is there not a reduced mission Tejas version using Kaveri? Its plenty of power for a strike optimized version. In reality its just as good as RD-93 used in JF-17.
AMCA using a pair of Kaveri and optimization for its 78kN maximum output should be more than sufficient for an indigenous strike warplane.
It seems rather silly that Kaveri is mature enough for deployment yet sidelined out of penis envy.
I have not followed the Kaveri project for some time but ask why you think it is in any way mature. Have test engines been run reliably for hundreds or thousands of hours? Additionally IIRC dry thrust was close to target but wet thrust was miles below target.
Spitfire9Kaveri engine development program is being wound up and GTRE will be moving on to different project.
http://www.oneindia.com/bengaluru/oneindia-exclusive-drdo-to-abandon-kaveri-project-gtre-gets-revival-package-1565505.html
From the article in the link: “GTRE has spent so far Rs 2,106 crore on the project so far…” That equates to something in the order of US$350 million over about 20 years at today’s exchange rates. Experienced engine manufacturers spend several times that amount to develop a new engine. No doubt DRDO learnt a considerable amount during the project but I wonder how close they got to a viable engine. Have they learnt enough to develop anything viable off the back of Kaveri or are they still in a position where any attempt to develop a fast jet engine would fail again?
Spitfire9Some important points:
4-The Brazilian industries will be participating in all 36 aircrafth from start
5-NO duplicated production line
It seems to me that production is going to be organised in a sensible, efficient manner (for example, no joint production of a nut or a bolt – either Sweden will make the nut or Brazil will and same for the bolt).
Spitfire9Brazil begins flight training on Gripen
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/brazil-begins-flight-training-on-gripen-406307/
Spitfire9The issue is a bit more nuanced than the quotes from your post imply. First off, Defense-Aerospace.com is not an entirely credible source (i.e. look at source at the top of the page- POGO)
I don’t recall. Are you one of the posters who quotes Lockheed Martin as a source? They’re not credible at all. Just think of all the promises re: schedule broken. Again and again and again, for one. I’m much, much more likely to believe what I read from defense-aerospace.com than from lockheedmartin.com Unless you are dumb you don’t set much store by a source that gets it wrong again and again and again.
You have Senators who don’t want the A-10 retired because it will impact their districts, JTACs who truly feel the A-10 is the best aircraft for certain CAS applications, and the Air force whose budget woes are forcing leaders to make tough choices.
Senators worried about their disticts, yes.
…JTACs who truly feel the A-10 is the best aircraft for certain CAS applications… Is there anyone out there who actually believes the A-10 is NOT the best aircraft for certain CAS applications? I’d love to hear what does better.
…and the Air force whose budget woes are forcing leaders to make tough choices… Mmm. It wouldn’t have anything to do with the most expensive project in history – known as JSF – being horribly over budget? Wouldn’t have anything to do with the extra costs resulting from JSF delays forcing life extension costs for some of the types it was due to replace, would it?
The Air Force is pushing back against sequestration, essentially saying “Our budget is forcing us to make tough choices, so we’re reducing near term capability to ensure future recapitalization”.
I have predicted for years that JSF would result in a reduction in military capability due to budgets being squeezed. I don’t recall any JSF fans on this site agreeing with me… and they still haven’t. But guess who is now saying the same as me – the good old USAF!
Spitfire9LONDON — The four nations behind development of the Typhoon fighter are expected to announce they are moving ahead with a program to fit an active electronically scanned array (AESA) to the jet when the Eurofighter partner nations’ ministerial meeting takes place in Edinburgh, Scotland, Wednesday.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141118/DEFREG01/311180050/
Spitfire9Fight may be coming up over A-10 retirement…
The F-35 will not be equipped and tested for the close air support role until 2021, and when–and if–it is finally certified for that mission, its capability compared to the A-10 will very seriously degrade American capability to support Soldiers and Marines engaged in combat.
The Air Force is arguing that the already years behind schedule F-35A will not meet its artificially early “initial operational capability” (IOC) date–years before initial operational testing is finished–unless the F-35A force gets A-10 maintenance personnel. In furtherance of this notion, the Air Force maintains that these maintainers cannot come from other aircraft being retired, cannot come from civilian contract personnel, and cannot come from activated Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve personnel. They can only come from the A-10 force. That the Air Force has already had 12 years to prepare for the F-35A’s IOC is also a factor it wants no one to consider.
Spitfire9Just to demonstrate about some difficulties of enabling such a plan of the 108 Gripen E/F for Brazil Air Force, I will use the information from Royal Sweden Air Force for the Gripen E.
And once again I will use the unit cost since I have been doing a comparative analyzes of different numbers of aircraft and contracts from: Sweden, Switzerland and Brazil.Comparative Table Sweden / Brazil / Switzerland
width: 500 class: grid align: center [tr] [td][/td] [td]Type[/td] [td]Number of Gripen NG[/td] [td]Amount of Contract (Billions)[/td] [td]Unit Cost (millions)[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Sweden[/td] [td]Gripen E[/td] [td]60[/td] [td]Us$ 13.5[/td] [td]US$ 225[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Brazil[/td] [td]Gripen E/F[/td] [td]36[/td] [td]Us$ 5.4[/td] [td]US$ 150[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Switzerland[/td] [td]Gripen E[/td] [td]22[/td] [td]US$ 3.297[/td] [td]US$ 150[/td] [/tr] Under the conditions of the Royal Sweden Air Force the entire program would cost US $ 13.5 billion in the period 2023-2043, and this cost would include: flyaway cost, logistics, training and weapon systems.
As you can observe the comprehensiveness of the costs for Gripen E in Sweden would be greater than the proposed contracts for Brazil and Switzerland so far.
Therefore by adopting the same values set by Royal Sweden Air Force to Brazil Air Force with an estimated number of the 108 Gripen E/F, then I would have something like this:
Comparative Table Brazil / Sweden
width: 500 class: grid align: center [tr] [td][/td] [td]Type[/td] [td]Number of Gripen NG[/td] [td]Amount of Budget (Billions)[/td] [td]Unit Cost (millions)[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Sweden[/td] [td]Gripen E[/td] [td]60[/td] [td]Us$ 13.5[/td] [td]US$ 225[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Brazil[/td] [td]Gripen E/F[/td] [td]108[/td] [td]US$ 24.3[/td] [td]US$ 225[/td] [/tr] I have done a simplistic and optimistic analysis for the Brazil, since the Sweden will not adopted the Gripen F because of its higher cost of construction and maintenance, and it will use the Gripen D instead the Gripen F.
So I wonder:
How is possible to fit 108 Gripen E / F into the budget from Brazil Air Force today?If anyone says that Brazil has been able to operate 108 Gripen E / F, that is because there are enough resources for such proposal at present time in the Brazil Air Force budget at least to ensure such statement.
While someone says that Brazil will have conditions in the future to operate 108 Gripen E / F, in my humble opinion this is just an enthusiastic statement.
There is something fundamental you do not seem to be able to accept: it has never been Brazil’s intention to acquire 36 Gripens.
Your projected overall cost for 108 Gripens could hardly be more ridiculous. You say “I have done a simplistic and optimistic analysis for the Brazil…” You have indeed done a simplistic analysis. You have assumed that the cost of TOT, building and setting up a production line et al for the first batch of Brazilian-built Gripens will be incurred yet again for every further batch to be built in Brazil. Or worse still, that some of the entire cost to Sweden of Gripen E development will somehow be incurred by Brazil for further Brazilian Gripens!
Spitfire9well, as I see it, you have no idea what has gone into the contract which leads to a unit cost of $150 million per Gripen E…
…It definitely isn’t the affordable solution that it is touted to be. F/A-18 E/F would cost less to acquire, going by the RAAF acquisition of 24 Super Hornets.
The problem is that because all contracts cover substantially variable goods and services, the comparative cost solely for the aircraft is impossible to calculate unless the cost of all other elements of the contract are detailed. IIRC the Oz cost for 24 F/A-18 was calculated to be in excess of Aus$5 billion but that included the cost of altering and running bases for several decades etc etc
Spitfire9What I can not do with these numbers is to get a confirmation that everything the Brazil has stated in its contract in fact has been included in the budget from US$ 5.4 Billions, as well as the Gripen F.
Brazil is going to develop the 2 seater version. I don’t follow how the cost of development work to be done by Brazil (the cost of which is unknown) could be part of the contract with SAAB.
Sign In
