Spitfire9its a good bet next US fighter is going to be more A2A oriented than F-35,
can Canada extend service life of current fleet ?
otherwise out of current options, i too think F-16I w CFT is the most appropriate for Canada,
and wonder why its so few takers ?
If there is a political imperative to buy US kit, that’s a choice if F-35 is too costly. Given all the machinations in Canada to hide the cost of F-35, it seems highly probable to me that F-35 IS too costly. If it weren’t, what was the point of fiddling the cost figures?
Spitfire9not only buy, but IIRC Brazil will build all 2-seaters, Sweden won’t
IIRC design and build…
Spitfire9Reading The Globe And Mail, stuff gets even more interesting.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pentagon-briefing-suggests-canada-about-to-buy-at-least-four-f-35-jets/article21496659/
In back-channel dealings, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government has been secretly seeking early delivery of four F-35 deep-strike warplanes as part of a firm commitment to buy more while officially maintaining it is abiding by an open and transparent evaluation of Canada’s combat aircraft needs.
Can politicians get away with this sort of deceit (in particular deceiving parliament) in Canada?
In Question Period, Mr. Harris asked why the government is trying to “bring back the sole sourced F-35 purchase without Canadians or Parliament being told anything about it?”
“No decision has been made on replacing the CF-18s as of yet,” replied Bernard Trottier, although he didn’t dispute the validity or accuracy of the previously undisclosed deal laid out in the Pentagon classified documents.
Failure to dispute the validity or accuracy of the previously undisclosed deal laid out in the Pentagon classified documents = a decision has been made at least in principle on replacing the CF-18’s ie the man is not telling the truth. You don’t negotiate deliveries of goods with a single supplier out of several possible suppliers and reach the point of formally signalling your intention to buy if you have not made a decision to buy that product rather than others on offer.
Spitfire9http://aviationweek.com/defense/jsf-program-office-looks-canada-f-35-swap
Sounds to me like the JSF program office is living in cloud cuckoo land. Or am I to believe that the Canadian government
(a) having been caught out failing to invite competitors to bid for the F-18 successor as required by law
(b) having been condemned for the air force’s “statement of requirements” being written after the decision to make a sole-source F-35 procurement had been made
(b) having been caught out deliberately falsifying F-35 cost figures
(c) having decided to extend F-18 life so that a decision on a replacement is not so urgent
will now order F-35’s this month?
Spitfire9Hummm, do you mean that cost of concurrency that Lockheed contractually has to pay at least half of? I would admonish you like my former pupils in courses, read the details then make a conclusion. Msphere, having a negative comment that is relevant is admissible, having one that has no bearing on reality… well that is poor form.
http://awin.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/05-2013,%20Concurrency%20report%20on%20F35.pdf
How does the report in the link begin? Let me quote what it says on page 1 (quoting an earlier report):
“…the Joint Strike Fighter program is burdened with what could be the highest level of concurrency ever seen in an acquisition program.”
What does that mean to me? It means the delays in developing and implementing the systems to be incorporated in the aircraft have resulted in possibly the greatest disruption and expense ever known in a development program. Yet LM does not have to foot the bill. I find that ridiculous.
Spitfire9Gripen E will be cheaper by “double digits” % compared to Gripen C. And here are some reasons why,
The engine is less fuel consuming.
The engine is cheaper (the RM12 was good but very expensive and most of its features are found in the F414).
The manufacturing process is improved… a lot. Apart from the EW system upgrade this is the largest difference between Gripen E and C.
I recall SAAB stating that Gripen E would have a lower price tag than Gripen C. Among the reasons cited was that the F414 engine would cost less than the RM12. Now that Brazil will be manufacturing parts and assembling aircraft (presumably at a lower cost than in Sweden) I would think that there is scope for further reduction in the cost of producing components and assembling the aircraft. If I were in SAAB’s shoes I think I would be looking to shift as much component manufacture as possible to Brazil for all Gripen E aircraft produced. I would retain the assembly line in Sweden for Swedish Air Force orders and assemble all other aircraft in Brazil. Should a large export order come through requiring delivery at a rate the Brazilian line could not accomodate, the Swedish line could then be used for overspill by increasing the production rate and/or by deferring deliveries to the Swedish Air Force (in the same way as Typhoon production for the RAF was switched to production for Saudi Arabia).
I will not be surprised if assembly in Brazil reaches 150+ units – say ~60 for Brazil, 40+ for other South/Central American customers, 50+ for ex-Americas customers.
Spitfire9The Brazil had almost been taken 18 years of the competition to select a new fighter , in this long time perhaps the single fact that did not change much was that new fighter should replace the: F 5E / F, AMX and Mirage 2000( before Mirage IIIE).
After those 18 years from competition has been established that the 36 new fighters as the Gripen NG will replace approximately 110 fighters and these are the: F 5EM, AMX and Mirage 2000( already retired).
So the emphasis has always been that the new fighter should replace the legacy fleet in a ratio of almost 1: 3, which according to the studies of Brazil Air Force would allow saving resources once it will operating a fleet with a single model as the winner Gripen NG instead of three legacy models( AMX, F 5E and Mirage 2000) , and in quantities smaller too. After all any resemblance to the studies that had been lead at the JSF Program from US are not casual.
Do you have a source for your claim that the plan is to replace the 100+ legacy aircraft with 36?
Yes, Gripen is a multi-role aircraft able to do what AMX can do (strike) and what F-5 can do (intercept) so in a sense 50 Gripens can do the the jobs of 50 AMX and 50 F-5 and do those jobs far more effectively. However the 36 aircraft ordered will not be available for action all the time (none unavailable due to training, none unavailable for MX reasons, none unavailable due to future upgrade work, none unavailable due to foreign joint exercises, courtesy visits etc).
Brazil is a big, big place. Its area exceeds 8 million sq km. By comparison, the area of the UK is less than 250,000 sq km. Let’s imagine for a moment that all Gripens are permanently available for action 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. To provide the same level of cover per square kilometer for the UK as 36 Gripens would provide for Brazil, the UK would need just about 1 Gripen.
The point I am trying to make is that however much of an advance in capability a new fighter offers over existing fighters in service, geography dictates that the number required to replace existing fighters is not inversely proportional to capability ie it is not the case that if a new fighter is 3 times as effective as one’s existing fighter only 1/3 the number will be required to replace the capability of one’s existing fighter.
Spitfire9[QUOTE=TomcatViP;2180728]
How can something raise when it’s going down? (minus 3 or 4 % last buy)
Reduce the last buy cost by 3 or 4 % then add more than 3 or 4 %.
Spitfire9F-35C Makes First Arrested Landing on Aircraft Carrier
Spitfire9Lockheed awarded more contracts for F-35:
Fully eight of these contracts, worth a total of $488.9 million, cover the sixth Low-Rate Initial Production lot (LRIP 6), a previous production batch, and add an average of $15.8 million to each of the 31 aircraft that make up Lot 6. However, as the contracts were awarded well after the main lot production contract, they were not counted when computing aircraft unit costs, which thereby are substantially understated.
It also is worth noting that, although JPO chief Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan famously announced some years ago that the F-35 program would move to fixed-price contracts, all of those listed here are, in fact, “cost-plus-incentive-fee” contracts, which in other words guarantees a profit to the vendor. In other words, Lockheed is guaranteed a profit to fix defective aircraft which should have been delivered without defects.
So the farce continues – not only does LM not have to foot the bill for its failings but actually gets paid a profit premium for screwing things up in the first place! Mmmm… bit of a strange buyer/supplier relationship to me.
Spitfire9We’d need to know more about originally envisaged & final contract terms before judging that.
Look at how much of a Gripen is made outside Sweden. I think 40% is probably roughly SAAB’s share of the aircraft. The Swedes can’t transfer the US parts (i.e. most) of the engine, for example.
What did you expect? That GE would transfer F414 production to Brazil, for an order of 36 engines plus a few spares? SAAB can’t do that, has never claimed to be able to, & everybody has always known that.
You make a good point – SAAB buys in a lot of components so is not in a position to transfer technology it has not developed itself.
I don’t follow why Brazil did not lease interim C/D aircraft to allow local industry more time to develop manufacturing and assembly skills so that more of the 36 Gripen E could be produced locally. Having said that, I see the 36 aircraft involved in the deal as just the first batch for Brazil and follow on aircraft being assembled locally.
Spitfire9A great big chunk of the EW suite, the Martin Baker thingy on the cockpit, the (GKN) transparency over the cockpit, a few other other bits and bobs on the cockpit, the (BAE) HMDS, part of the landing gear, etc, etc…
In fact, there’s so much British content on the Gripen E that I am, more or less, expecting that Spanish Airbus to try to sell to Argentina Eurofighter Typhoons built in Sevilha.I’ll get my hat
How many aircraft would Argentina take? I would imagine that the cost of substitution of British-sourced components with others would be high. If the buyer has very limited funds, that would add very substantially to the cost (to be spread over the number of aircraft supplied). If there were several potential South American customers susceptible to embargo on British content, that would be a different scenario, but there are not. Just Argentina (as far as I know). It does not make commercial sense to me to go to all the trouble of developing systems avoiding British components for a small production run (say <50).
Spitfire9If by “remedial work” you are talking about “concurrency” costs, that is to be paid for by LM … IIRC.
LM will also have to eat all cost overruns (as they have since LRIP6)
Thanks for that. Yes, I was referring to building something with the wrong components in it because the right ones are late and then having to remove the wrong components and replace them with the right components. I have heard the euphemism ‘concurrency costs’. But then I take a rather simple view of things and am inclined to describe screwing things up and increasing costs by being late as screwing things up and increasing costs by being late.
Spitfire9After a wonderfully productive rant session of the thread this weekend, actual news:
As per a media report, the U.S. aerospace and defense major Lockheed Martin Corporation ( LMT ) has been awarded a $4 billion contract from the Pentagon. Per the agreement, the company will develop the eighth batch comprising 43 units of F-35 fighter jets for the U.S. military and its allies, including Britain. The deal was initially expected to ink in either May or June of 2014.
So that’s the next LRIP batch sorted. Good news. I don’t recall – does the $4 billion include the engines? Any extra remedial update work to then pay for? I suppose that what I would like to know is this: what will these 43 frames cost?
Spitfire9Again, bottom line, the F35 is NOT “the plane” for many Nations in the world, the F35 is NOT capable of successfully operating a “single airframe design” Airforce, it lacks the the ability to serve as an Air Superiority fighter.
Some Nations just simply do not have the resources to operate and maintain the type that offers PARTIAL capability , nor to operate multiple types to make up for the shortcomings of the F35.
Listen, such comments are well beyond the acceptable for those who believe that F-35 is the only valid choice for all non-Chinese/non-Russian federation air forces in need of replacement fighters.
Where Canada is concerned, I do wonder how many fighters (of any type) are needed to provide adequate cover for such a vast area.
Sign In
