YellowSunThe K-100/R-100 was an AAM planned for the Ye-155PA. If the K-100 designator is being reused, it’s probably the 9M100 IR AAM. KS-172/R-72 is accurate; as is the new variant reported and advertised as the KS-172S-1.
Nope.
YellowSun…what will be sent.
HEY! Maybe they’ll send the C-17s. That would so rock.
Yeah.
YellowSunKS-172 Confusion
At Zhuhai, Sukhoi and KnAAPO were promoting the K-100 missile for the Su-35. The name appeared in a list of Su-35 weapons in a KnAAPO brochure (actually as K-100-1).
K-100 is KS-172, and the ‘KS-172’ designation – even though it is used by Russian sources – is probably completely wrong.
‘KS-172’ came into use through a mis-reporting of the K-100’s Izdeliye 172 designation some years back. I know that Russian models of the missile have KS-172 written on them, but that seems to be just part of the general mix up.
More important is that Novator’s K-100 appears to be alive and kicking once more.
YS
YellowSunGosh, what a surprise
Well boys
It’s Friday and I don’t see no C-17s. Would anyone care to bring us up to date – or shall I?
YS
YellowSunIn the latest AFM Tim Ripley writes that UK SF troops are already flying in someone else’s Mi-8/Mi-17s in Afghanistan.
I wonder where the funding stream for that came from?
YS
YellowSunDumma Unge
Now Siggy
We were all having a sensible conversation and then you started calling me names. That’s not how big boys are allowed to behave and if you are not careful you’ll be left talking to yourself.
I started to write a reply to your last post but there was just so much wrong with pretty much everything you said that I just gave up – you’ve made it all far too tedious.
My original point was that Sweden would love to have a bunch of C-17s but probably can’t afford them. That is also the view of the Flygvapnet Chief-of-Staff.
If it turns out that your new government can magic up SEK4 billion to buy two aircraft – and afford a TLC that will be at least twice that sum on top of the purchase price – then congratulations, it’s a very big success for Flygvapnet.
Go ahead in four days time you say?
Let’s see what happens….
YS
YellowSunFjaj
Everyone agrees that C-17s for Sweden would be a good thing – and if a way can be found to get them into service then that will be a huge step forward for the Swedish defence forces…even if they have nowhere to keep them each night!
But if, as you say, there is no budget available in the upcoming years then that is the end of the story. The aircraft have to be bought now because the line WILL close – and of course the 1 January 2008 deadline for the Battlegroup gets closer every day.
If the date moves further to the right then the A400M becomes a bigger and bigger factor in the decision (assuming that it stays on schedule which I admit is a big IF). But Sweden has an industrial stake in the A400M and that has to be a factor when it comes to making airlift decisions for Sweden.
How committed is the new government – and people as a whole – to more military spending? How much of an issue was defence in the election??
Not much.
If the C-17s can be dressed up as a ‘national asset’ rather than a military aircraft then there is some hope of finding the money – but otherwise I fear we have to forget about them.
Don’t confuse the money Sweden spends on Gripen with money for Boeing. Gripen is a huge national asset that guarantees jobs, industry, technology, security and independence.
Buying C-17s just boosts Boeing’s share value.
SEK400 million sounds like a lot – but is it enough to cover crew training, spares, mission support, rebuilding F7 and all your day-to-day running costs? It’s only USD54 million…but you still need to find 10 times that amount to buy them in the first place.
And as you say, AMP has already taken a huge chunk out of Flygvapnet’s air planned transport budget…
So it all comes back to money.
When is the Supreme Commander’s request due to be signed off and when will the budget actually be nailed down?
YS
YellowSunCliff
The US government price for a C-17 (which is the hardest figure we have to go on) is actually a bit less than USD300 million (and USD 300 million = SEK2.215 billion BTW)…but expect Boeing to gouge Sweden and any other foreign customers for a bit extra – so your two aircraft will cost you USD600 million, or 10 times the current annual budget for strategic airlift you quoted.
Plus, Flygvapnet also has to find the cash for the C-130 AMP, which isn’t cheap either.
Again, I am not saying Sweden couldn’t use C-17s, but I don’t think those figures are affordable – and neither does Jan Andersson.
You quote the budget as SEK37 billion, of which SEK17.5 billion is available for acquisitions. So you want to spend about 25% of the total acquisition budget for the entire armed forces on one line item for the air force…how likely is that?
And that’s just to buy them, without a single Kroner for operations…hmmm.
The Swedish Tp 84s do fly abroad more than ever these days – but it’s not what they were bought for and supporting Swedish deployments abroad is still a relatively modest task. For most of their lives they flew within Sweden supporting national defence tasks and that is why, despite being the oldest C-130Es in Europe, they are still in very good shape.
Apart from the tanker.
Signatory
The discussion and the need is not in question. As I said, *the Nordic battlegroup concept will not work without strategic airlift*, but the fact that this has been under discussion for so long in Sweden shows that it’s not an easy question to settle – and that’s because of the enormous cost.
Swedish C-17s will NOT be put into a European pooling, where did that idea come from? And let me tell you, Ireland, Switzerland, Estonia, Norway don’t have any money either…and just how do you divide two aircraft among five or six users??
Likewise Sweden will not be able to join this notional NATO C-17 pool, now also being discussed, because it’s NATO.
The money IS a problem. Funding has been requested but not approved so it’s not in any budget – yet. Now maybe that will change…maybe the need for these aircraft will override all other considerations but all of the signs so far point otherwise, despite what it says in the Boeing press releases.
YellowSunThere is no way you can compare leasing worn-out cut-price An-124s for a few hours here and a few hours there with acquiring and operating your own full-time C-17 force.
Quite apart from the cost of buying the aircraft (half a billion Dollars) you need to crew them, support them and change your entire infrastructure.
Sweden’s C-130 force is not maintained by the US – nothing in Sweden is maintained by the US. Those Hercs have spent most (not all) of their lives flying in Sweden and looking after them has been a modest task, accomplished at Sätenås and by Marshall’s of Cambridge. The new AMP deal is outside this equation.
A C-17 operation is a universe away from flying C-130s. For a start the aircraft are maintained by the USAF, so you have to rotate them in and out of a completely US-owned logistics system. Sweden will have to deal with a totally alien operational concept that is about as un-Swedish as you can get – plus sort out all the ITAR bull etc. etc.
The RAF C-17 crews even wear US flying suits – that how US-centric a C-17 operation is.
Flygvapnet won’t know what hit it.
As for the rest of your point:
– No-one else in the battlegroup can afford the C-17s either. Plus, there is no suggestion that these aircraft will be bought for or by anyone other than Sweden.
– My point about finding the money was that it won’t come from the defence budget and Sweden’s only hope is if additional money can be found from the foreign affairs or national infrastructure budgets.
– You ask will the new government increase the budget accordingly? Ho Ho! When was the last time Sweden’s military budget was increased for anything? And what will the man on the Stockholm tram reply when you tell him you want SEK6.38 billion to buy two aircraft…
Sweden would love to have C-17s and would make good use of them – I will be delighted to be proved wrong but it ain’t gonna happen.
YS
YellowSunIt all depends on where Flygvapnet can get the money from. Remember, two C-17s will cost about $500 million to acquire and then you have to operate them (which means joining a US support and maintenance organisation that may come as a shock to Sweden).
Don’t think for one second that you can lease them and save money – the UK experience shows what a joke that idea is.
As things stand right now there is no way that the Swedish military budget can afford this much money for two aircraft – on the other hand, the Nordic Battlegroup simply cannot function without airlift…
So, someone somewhere has to make a decision as to where national priorities lie and find the funding accordingly.
YS
YellowSunUnion flag, not Union Jack.
The UK has its name up there because BAE is still part of the programme, despite its general retreat from Saab – plus Gripen International has ETPS as a user so technically the UK is a customer also.
YS
YellowSunA few more things to consider
Wednesday’s announcement really didn’t tell us anything we didn’t know already. It just formalised matters. Today’s Flygvapnet has four combat squadrons. Four. For better or worse it doesn’t need/can’t support 204 Gripens. This is the situation that has been forced upon it, but it’s no surprise.
The Inspector General has already telegraphed exactly these kind of force levels – this announcement is just a confirmation of that. 100 aircraft is fewer than the 120 or so that some people expected, but it’s not unreasonable – and we have yet to see how the requirement for foreign training/export support is factored into this.
And remember, those 204 original aircraft have been contracted and will be built and paid for. Gripens are not going to be cancelled or abandoned on the production line.
Some other issues that don’t appear to have been mentioned:
The Supreme Commander has stated that ALL of Sweden’s Gripens will be C/D aircraft. This is great news for Saab – it means a whole bunch of additional aircraft will have to be modified to make that 100 figure. Saving jobs, maintaining expertise and making Flygvapnet a VERY capable 21st century force.
The Supreme Commander also said that a Gripen future technology demonstrator programme must be launched immediately. More good news for Sweden (air force and industry) and all export customers. Sweden has said again and again that Gripen technology development will continue for another 30+ years. That process starts now. Saab will be delighted.
People who are calling this a dead programme here are talking out of their @rses.
Surplus aircraft will now become available for disposal by the Swedish MoD. Saab will continue to offer new-build C/D jets for export. Because Swedish thinking is joined up this means more sales, not fewer. ‘Team Sweden’ will be able to offer a whole range of lease/lease-to-buy/purchase schemes to suit any air force that is interested.
The impact of Gripen operations in the Czech Republic and Hungary cannot be understated – more customers are coming.
While this news is a rather sad step for what was once one of the world’s largest air forces, it is much better news for the programme than almost anyone could have hoped for.
YS
YellowSunPaul
I know Gerard, I know his book and I know the programme.
In this case he is incorrect. BAe had manufacturing know-how, not design input.
YS
YellowSunJCM is finished – killed on the Hill. LM is finishing off what remains of its contracted funding and issuing lots of press releases to make as big a fuss as possible about the work achieved so far. It will be useful for something – especially the tri-mode seeker.
YS
YellowSunDoes anyone have any information on the hypervelocity SAMs that Germany is working on? I heard that BGT and LFK are working on projects for future SAMs that can reach speeds of Mach 6 or 7.
The programme you are referring to was LFK’s Hyperschallflugkörper (HFK) project that ran from 2000 to 2003. It was actually a joint German-Swedish effort, but it ended in late 03 when the German side pulled all funding. Two ground-launched test shots were undertaken, reaching a maximum of M7.
YS
Sign In
