eagleNow, that would be a really wild assumption:eek:
Surely, I was exaggerating slightly.
Will there be a referendum on this matter?
That depends. If the money comes from the regular budget, there is no legal requirement for a referendum. The government can conduct (is that the correct word?) a referendum if it wants though, too seek for approval. This has been suggested by the defence minister.
The people i.e. some mostly leftist groups can start a referendum (“initiative” in this case) on their own, 100’000 signatures are required. Happened in 1993, when the Hornet was bought, but was obviously rejected.
Everything afaik, it’s been a few days since I learned that stuff 😀
eaglesimply because there is a confusion between “operational” and “technical” and some want to play on words to make believe that the gripen succeeded the operational evaluation which is not the case.
Let’s assume for a moment the published scores are correct for the final version Switzerland will get.*
Thats 5.68 in defensive air combat and 5.62 in offensive air combat with a minimal requirement of 6.
OK, that’s slightly less than required.
But those are just the scores from 2 out of an unknown number of missions. For all we know, the Gripen could have outperformed Rafale and Typhoon in all the other fields (2 more? 10?). We don’t know how these are weighted. We have no idea about the overall score.
* while the leaks have been confirmed, who knows what tricks they played to make the Gripen look bad.
eagleQuestion for Eagle and others:
Was the F-18 benchmark part of the RFP? Or was the ‘minimum requirements’ the main driver? (I think the name gives it away).
It wasn’t. F-18 benchmark and minimum requirements are not the same.
But of course, a new fighter that would score lower than your existing fighter is not liked by all, even if the purpose of the new fighter is to replace the low part of the high-low mix.
Note that I didn’t say the Gripen E/F is worse than the Hornet C/D.
The Gripen C/D certainly is, in some areas.
eagleIn switzerland only the rafale and typhoon met the minimum requirement in the operational evaluation and only the rafale in each category of tests.
Says who?
Note post #256
TTE is not required to reach the operational level benchmarked by the F/A-18. Besides, Gripen E/F will be a considerable leap forward and surpass F-18 in most if not all areas.
But if you take other factor like costs, maintenance etc then the gripen was considered good enough. So if technical encompass everything yes it met the minimum requirement.
Good enough means it passed the the opeval.
eagleLike the KC-X !!:rolleyes:So you mean Saab deliberately low balled the price just to jack it up when it’s too late !!
Oh those poor Swisscheers
No, I was just comparing the selection processes.
What happens after contract signature is another story but Saab doesn’t have the leverage in Switzerland Boeing has in the US so I guess they will stick to their initial offer even if it means loosing money.
eagle@eagle
You still can make a competition and skip the technical evaluation part so Hurter point of view is valid. You can base your ranking only on price&offsets&Tot&politics if you want.
Just look in India after the technical evaluation is over with the rafale and typhoon selected it restarts at “zero” for both of them and the only criteria to chose the winner will be price&offset&ToT&politic.
So paying 8 million Franc for a technical evaluation that was supposed to weight 60% of the decision was unnecessary. Hence Hurter was furious and that is not bias.
And how do you know if the winner based on price etc. meets your operational requirements? Not at all, but you will find out after you paid the bill probably.
No one said the technical part isn’t 60% of the final score. The Gripen passed the technical evaluation!
The India example is actually a good one. Imagine Typhoon was 30% more expensive. It wouldn’t restart from zero because Rafale would win. The difference between Indian and Swiss evaluation is one of the contender who passed technical evaluation is significantly cheaper.
Another example: What happened in Switzerland is comparable to the KC-X program. Both Boeing and EADS NA met the requirements, but Boeings tanker was cheap enough they got the deal by default.
The only point the critics have is the paper plane argument. But many systems like engine, radar and landing gear have already been tested so the risk isn’t that unmanageable.
eagleWhich of the two aircraft (SH and -14D) could drop bombs in Afghanistan more effectively? Here is a clue… it wasn’t the bug.
Well, thing is, as long as the Air Force is able to provide tanker support over hostile territory, there is no problem with the SH.
It’s just as effective but also much more efficient.
eagleWhat kind of personal problem?
That Gripen is less capable than Rafale, Typhoon or Hornet?
Maybe? Mr Thomas Hurter doesn’t say it like that. He says the evaluation was unecessary and a waste of money if the cheapest option is chosen because it was known beforehand that the Gripen is cheapest. Furthermore, he thinks the performance has been ignored. He also fails to recognize Swedish commitment to the Gripen NG.
Frankly, thats BS. First, without competition, there would have been no reason for SAAB to offer a good price. See the Austrian acquisition where they thought they had a sure deal and consequently priced themselves out of the market. Second, without an evaluation, there is no way to know if the requirements are met. Because unlike Mr Hurter thinks, performance was important and Gripen performed satisfying.
It’s simple really: All 3 were good enough or better, but there was a huge price difference. In that case, selecting the cheapest option is what’s usually done. I fail to see whats wrong with that.
Maybe I forgot that he’s not only an ex pilot, but also a politician 😀
eagleThese numbers are what the Swiss army evaluated. It’s possible that they might be different under different circonstencies.
Edit: according to the Official Swiss Evaluation Defense Dpt evaluation :
Climb rate are (Rafale >250, EFT >200, Gripen>200); but Rafale is slower than the other contenders both at max speed (2mach vs 1.8 mach) and at low altitude (Gripen 1400Km/h, EFT 1390, Rafale 1350) and also has a lower service ceiling (EFT 16790, Gripen >1600, Rafale 15240).
I don’t think these are the actual numbers from the evaluation, just some general data for the press. So take them with a pinch of salt. I found those numbers in my local newspaper the day after the announcement f.e.
Also, the evaluations results are classified. At least they’re supposed to be.
eagleIf they decide to open an inquiry it must say that those leaks are really serious ! Personnaly I can’t see someone else than from the swiss airforce as it is hardly imanigeable that all three manufacturers would have a copy of the evaluation.
Here’s another source in German, already posted in the Rafale thread:
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/KampfjetEntscheid-Bundesanwalt-ermittelt-wegen-Indiskretion/story/28321980
Note while the leaks themselves are confirmed, the content is not. Officially, the scores were tweaked to make the Gripen look bad.
They also say it was clearly an attempt to kill the Gripen. It’s sad that some ex air force pilots seem to have a personal problem with the Swedish jet. Hopefully, this negative campaign is over soon because the alternative to the Gripen is not those pilots favourite, but nothing new at all.
eagleSituation of the austrain case last september :
Please read again post #718 by Scorpion82. That’s fact, in contrast to another misleading article full of mistakes you posted 😉
In Austria, Rafale was not even offered, F-16 was eliminated. Gripen was only around 3% cheaper than EF, so EF was chosen. That was correct and has been confirmed 3 times as Scorpion said.
eagle@Mildave
I gave a poor guidance, here is more specifically right under the text highlighted in blue
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?84527-Gripen-News-Thread&p=5683954&viewfull=1#post5683954
I found it now thanks, I was using ctrl+F text search, that obviously didn’t work.
eagleGripenC loaded with 50% fuel + 6 AAMs and GE 414 will have TWR of
8000kgf/6800kg + 1500kg? + 1000kg + pilot weight/fluids (9300kg), well below 1.0 (0.86)
Gripen NG: 10000kgf/7100kg + 1700kg + 1000kg + pilot weight/fluids (10000kg), barely 1.0 TWR
HOrnet with same loadout will have TWR as foll:
16000kgf/10400 + 2500kg + 1000kg + pilot weight/fluids (~14100kg), TWR well above 1.10
Such a marked difference in TWR should make some difference in performance? Or not?
Gripen C/D internal fuel is 2’600kg, E/F carries around 40% more or 3’600kg. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
Hornet C/D empty weight is 11’325kg, internal fuel 5’125kg.
That would result in:
Gripen C: 0.88
Gripen E: 1.01
Hornet C: 1.07
pilot weight omitted since 1000kg is a lot for AAMs
eagleSo the new look/visual difference to C/D, is a slightly longer fuselage, increased wingspan and new engine inlets,
the rest is avionics, engine, and a massive increase in fuel & range, that should have been there right from start,
roll out 2013And it looks like @Robban was right, it will be diverterless intakes for reduced RCS
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?84527-Gripen-News-Thread/page194
Nice! Hopefully, development will be trouble free…
Your link doesn’t say anything about DSI though.
eagleMy basis for that statement was the stats on the Saab homepage on Switzerland, however according to one of the posts above it seems this has not yet been decided?
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/Gripen-for-Switzerland/The-Gripen-Fighter/
Compare to stats of the Gripen C/D:
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/Gripen/Gripen/Technical-specifications/
In addition to increased MTOW, etc. there is also increased wing span of 20 cm. But perhaps this was just one example of what was offered to Switzerland and the final configuration is for discussion, at least that is my current understanding.
Now that you mention it, wing span is indeed given as 8.6m by the Swiss Government, which is quite obviously not the same as 8.4m 😀
My understanding is Swiss AF will get the standard E/F version, also referred to as MS 21. Thats also what defence minister Maurer said.
But yeah, who knows what negotiations bring. But I think its unlikely they change something.
Sign In
