Spitfire9That Jane’s “study” was commissioned by Saab and is little more than a slightly disguised marketing brochure. People have pointed out one major flaw in its numbers after another.
Come on, those numbers aren’t even close to plausible. (as an apples to apples comparison)
I tell you what I might do if were an OEM and I knew my product was cheaper to operate than other products: I might ask an independent consultant to compare the cost of operating my product with the cost of operating others. And guess what? It would come as no surprise if the consultant calculated that my product was the cheapest to operate.
Spitfire9Hmm, there are two ways of discussing:
one way is to carry along with the sentiments of “they are lying, cause that’s how i feel !!”
the other way is to say “it’s a conspiracy, cause 1] according to formula x/wwwww^2
and 2] this link, and 3] history, 4] etc
On the ball to me. Janes has no act to grind IMO. I think it was endeavouring to come up with “level playing field” figures avoiding the different approaches of different users using different criteria to calculate their costs whereby one is inevitably comparing the cost of apples from one source, oranges from another, mangoes from another etc etc
If Janes estimates X costs 50% more than Y to operate that is the most credible source available IMO. The figures cited will not be absolutely correct but IMO they are a valid guide for the purposes of comparison.
Spitfire9There is also one thing that we hve forgot to discuss that this deal tells us: Br has turn its back to the possibility of being a strategic mil partner in the region. There is a lot of missions that they hve discarded with this choice.
Strategic military partner of whom? Not sure what you mean when you say a lot of missions have been discarded.
Spitfire9The timescale doesn’t fit the facts, but why let the facts get in the way of some Typhoon bashing.
True, I am very critical of the Typhoon program. The inability of the partner countries to do a little joined up thinking has deeply compromised the success of this aircraft. It has added billions to its cost (eg dithering over order timing) and squandered the opportunity of winning export contracts by failing to fund developments that were going to be funded eventually anyway (eg by having to offer a multi-role aircraft that was not multi-role to Korea and Singapore years ago). Extra orders would have strengthened the high tech industrial base of the countries concerned and increased government tax takes. I live in England so pay tax, part of which goes towards paying for the RAF to buy and operate Typhoon. I do not like seeing my financial contribution and that of other taxpayers squandered by basic, basic stupidities such as failing to make all aircraft upgradable easily to allow CFT, AESA to be installed if/when required.
The facts are, the Typhoon now is as developed as any customers want it to be and that will be true in the future too.
It hasn’t been true in the past and some people are stuck there….
If you are going to post seriously you can at least bother with the facts.
I don’t believe the Typhoon now is as developed as any customers want it to be. It does not provide the strike capability of the Tornado. What are the facts? Have Meteor, Brimstone, Storm Shadow integration contracts been signed?
Spitfire9Who says the UAE would have purchased the Typhoon as it is now? If they wanted a “developed” aeroplane then they wouldn’t have looked at it in the first place.
True.. but IIRC they did not look at Typhoon in the first place. They looked at Rafale, wanted some improvements and took exception in a big way to the price they were asked to pay. Remember also that the UAE were so disenchanted with the negotiations that their representative went to France to see President Sarkozy who was unaware of the reason for the visit. They publicly snubbed France and started talking to Eurofighter.
What do UAE do next? I have no idea. If they don’t like the deals Dassault and Eurofighter offered they could always buy more Block 60 F-16 aircraft if they want to increase their air force’s capability. Then they might be able to buy shiny new F-35’s to replace their M2K’s in the next decade.
Spitfire9Good bnew for the UAE, so they won´t buy the least developed fighter offered.
You must have had so many sleepless nights trying to think that one up.
True, though, isn’t it?
Spitfire9Thanks for the info.
Bye the way I’m not good on US politics. Just looking at your picture. Very impressive pose. Stars and stripes and much gravitas.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223884[/ATTACH]
Are you / were you a politician? Congressman perhaps? Senator? President?
Spitfire9No modern supersonic air fighter has CPFH less than US$10,000 in the last years : F-16, Mirage 2000, F-18 Hornet, etc. All cost way more than US$4,000/hour. So if anobody says that today an air fighter costs US$4,000/hour, it should be proved.
Do you want to see receipts for the fuel and parts and the pay slips for the pilots and maintenance guys before you will believe the figures given by SAAB and/or the Swedish Air Force which covers fuel, parts, pilot and maintenance crew costs?
Spitfire9“The main advantage of Gripen is low operating cost in comparison with larger aircraft equipped with two engines,”
says de la Motte. “Now for the Flygvapnet [Swedish air force] the cost per flight hour is less than $3,000 and for
the export customers it will be less than $5,000, including maintenance, spare parts, fuel and manpower.”
I think Flygvapnet uses a reasonably simple system for calculating CPFH: it looks to me like they calculate the extra costs incurred in flying the aircraft for 1 more hour (disregarding other costs such as depreciation, building the base from which it operates, running the base etc)
Spitfire9So this Saab UK office has any experience with CATOBAR operations in aircraft carriers ? How many engineers have worked in this subject in the last 10 years, for example ?
Possibly none. However the UK has a lot of experience in developing jet powered carrier aircraft. I can think of 4 without checking.
US$4,000/hour for Gripen NG is marketing BS.
So, please give us the last swedish operational cost per hour of Gripen C/D. And other operators of Gripen C/D.
The only authoratative figures I recall are from the Swedish Air Force. IIRC they cited a figure below US$4,000/hour. I can’t find the source quickly. Even if I did I think you would tell me that the Swedish Air Force had got it wrong so I don’t see the point in finding that source. May I suggest you refer to the much quoted Janes bar chart comparing the operating costs of several types which I suspect you will dismiss as being BS, too.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223867[/ATTACH]
Spitfire9Oy, yeah, Saab has long experience developing naval air fighters for aircraft carriers with catapults… 8-P
Why do you think the Sea Gripen design office was set up in the UK?
The operational cost of Gripen C/D from South Africa was officialy stated here, about US$13,245/hour.
No real operational cost for Gripen NG exists.
No real operational cost for anything exists until it starts being used. Every air force will use aircraft differently, will be paying different labour rates for pilots, maintenance crew etc so there cannot be a fixed rate for CPFH. However, you choose not to cite the CPFH of the air force that has the greatest experience of operating Gripen C/D. You choose to cite a figure 300%+ higher from a country whose national airline is allegedly being run into the ground by “political appointees” (incompetents who are friends of the political elite) and whose air force may be suffering from the same sort of ailment.
An insight into how things have been going in South Africa:
” …back in 2009, the South African Air Force stopped automatically releasing data on how many hours combat pilots flew for training. When the numbers were finally obtained, it was discovered that in 2008, fighter pilots were in the air for 325 hours (less than two hours a month per pilot). In contrast, pilots on VIP flights (carrying politicians and government officials) were in the air for 1,932 hours. “
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/south-africas-fighters-grounded-t104760.html
If you have 30+ aircraft and fly each of them for an average of 10 or so hours pa they will cost a small fortune to operate per flying hour.
Spitfire9Biggest mistake in my opinion is to not have bagged the thing when Lula and Sarkozy agreed on it.
But Dassault were not desperate for more Rafale orders to keep the line going. I doubt they are now. I think Dassault would have needed to drop their price to get an order from Lula but chose not to offer a price that would reduce their profit below the level they hoped to get in the end.
Spitfire9When did they want the things for anyway? Stormshadow, Brimstone and any number of PGMs are not good enough for that? Same kit the UK plans to use in its F35s at this point…..
More or less 10 years since entering service this swing-role A2A and A2G aircraft’s A2G capability is limited to (a) dropping dumb bombs (b) making a large bang with Paveway II. No customer wanting a serious A2G capability would choose Typhoon on merit over F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Gripen or Rafale. You don’t see Stormshadow, Brimstone and any number of PGMs on Typhoon. The only guided munition you see on Typhoon is Paveway II. By the time the full range of planned A2G munitions is integrated Typhoon will likely be out of production.
Spitfire9So … who has Gripen artwork in Brazilian colours?
I think it would have been kinder to ask that question in the Gripen thread.
Spitfire9FlightGlobal is also reporting the same..
Damn, with this rejection, one fun series of threads on Typhoon vs Rafale fanboys will end..:D
Rafale back in the driver’s seat now?
I suspect that the problem with trying to sell to the UAE is that they have no pressing need to buy new fighters (their existing fleets are not running out of hours / becoming much more expensive to maintain). I think UAE is in a strong position as a buyer. UAE can ask for an awful lot and if the seller does not want to play ball, UAE can say they do not want to talk about a deal any more.
I think the decision in Brazil has not made things any simpler for Dassault: 2 or 3 years ago Dassault might have been able to take the UAE M2K’s and sell a lot of them to Brazil so a big FX-2 spend could be deferred for a few years. Assuming that taking the M2K’s back would be part of a Rafale deal, to whom could Dassault sell them? Some of the Balkan / ex-Yugoslav / South American states?
Perhaps UAE will approach Dassault again. They could also just opt to buy another squadron of F-16’s.
Sign In
