Page 8 – Key Publishing

signatory

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 457 total)

← 1 2 3 … 7 8 9 … 29 30 31 →

Author

Posts
November 27, 2008 at 11:47 pm in reply to: Saab JAS 39 Gripen info #2479818

signatory
Participant

If that is really true it makes the Norwegian NG procurement cost assessment look wildly inaccurate. Or should I say deliberately wildly inaccurate?

However much I think about it, I cannot understand how an aircraft costing about $60 million per frame costs less than a derivative of another that costs about $30 million per frame. I hope the members of the Storting will be able to understand better than I when this decision comes up for discussion.:)

Forget them. You think they could have at least asked Saab/Sweden for a freaking comment on those insane numbers… the fact that they didn’t and just called a few minutes before the announcement to let us know they picked someone else tells me they are ashamed and calculative of what they did. Normally the candidates in tenders like this get to come to a pre-announcement briefing and you can make comments and prepare yourselves etc…

Of course the cost to add LINK-16 and so on is not included in the Swedish fly-away price but just how much can that cost…

November 27, 2008 at 9:39 pm in reply to: Saab JAS 39 Gripen info #2479945

signatory
Participant

fly away price of 3 million dollars? thats sweet! 😉

I wish.

But that’s the 10% portion…. 🙂

Still good.

November 27, 2008 at 7:59 pm in reply to: He is back! He is angry! Rafale News Four! #2480025

signatory
Participant

Some spotters in Swiss says that for the noise pollution Rafale < F18 < Grippen. And all says that Rafale strident noise at idle is unbearable !!
We’ll see for the last candidate. Sound pollution seem to be very important there.

Too many factors to generalise on noise really. I don’t know what is most important for them, takeoffs don’t happen often and is over within a few seconds but APUs sit there and annoy for longer even if it’s overall quiter…

The old APU on Gripen was almost twice as loud to the ear as the newer ones and got bad press… that TGA 15 APU was used on Rafale A too but not on the B/C/M.. I don’t know if their new one is more quiet though as they stayed with the same company.

In the news most people seem to put Gripen between Tiger and F-18 but carry the same type of noise as hornet. Same news also says some think Rafale is even louder than F-18 or at least louder than Gripen. The news on EF doesn’t say much but seems to have had some computer problems according to the news.

See links.

Eurofighter

Rafale

Gripen

BTW, where is the French training area[s] that the Swiss might get to use ?

November 27, 2008 at 7:11 pm in reply to: Saab JAS 39 Gripen info #2480072

signatory
Participant

The final jet of Batch 3 aircraft was handed over yesterday to Swedens FMV agency and it was concluded all 64 jets of B3 has been handed over 1500m SEK (US$190m) cheaper than agreed which is about 10% lower.

Swe source.
http://www.fmv.se/WmTemplates/page.aspx?id=4489

🙂

(The industry paid more than 50% of the R&D costs, took the extra costs for R&D delays early in the program and deliver jets at lower than agreed price… Czechs, Hungary and South Africa got jets earlier than scheduled… can’t say that I am too unhappy with Saab & Co..)

November 26, 2008 at 11:53 pm in reply to: Norwegian Government select JSF #2480852

signatory
Participant

Looks like there’s new “myths” for LM to debunk…

Top Stories — Inside the Air Force — November 28, 2008

‘INDEPENDENT’ DOD ASSESSMENT FINDS JSF UNDERFUNDED BY $15 BILLION

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England has directed the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps to all but disregard a recent assessment by a highly esteemed team of military cost estimators that concludes the Joint Strike Fighter program requires two additional years of testing and development — and a staggering $15 billion more than is currently programmed over the next six years.

Story length: 2,162 words.

http://www.defensenewsstand.com/newsstand_latest.asp

They also talk about the F-22A today…

The recent decision by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to fund long-lead item purchases for only four F-22A fifth-generation fighters could result in the cost-per-jet increasing by as much as $35 million, Inside the Air Force has learned.
Story length: 951 words.

November 25, 2008 at 3:01 pm in reply to: Norwegian Government select JSF #2481889

signatory
Participant

http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentarer/article2788757.ece
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2787989.ece

http://translate.google.com/

Opinion,

Norway says: 195 billion. Sweden says: 55 billion. 140 billion is the difference between the estimate of what a Swedish fighter aircraft would cost us.
[…]
Since the government was so satisfied with the external quality assurance of the project, we may quote from the report: (page 23 and 24):
“For JSF, it is estimated a complete cost picture. For Gripen NG has not been possible to calculate a complete cost picture. The analysis of the Gripen NG shows that the cost picture for the identifiable cost items are 20 to 30 billion more expensive than the JSF in a 30-year life perspective. “
Reliability.
What it is said here? Swedes has not provided us with reliable figures, yet they’ve actually flown Gripen (an older version) for several years, and the Swedish taxpayer has had to bag out with the costs
[…]
WHO IS IT that are right? Sweden, which has flown 120 000 hours of its Gripen fighter aircraft Or, Norway has the right, with the simulations.
[…]
It is time that the government explain how it arrived at the figures. It’s about our credibility.

News,

– Norway think that the Swedish government is made up of fraudsters and liars ? asks Saab Johan Lehander and Magnus Lewis-Olsson.

Yesterday took Gripen manufacturer-men trip to Oslo solely to repudiate the Norwegian calculation that makes JAS Gripen aircraft 140 billion more expensive than they actually are, according to the Swedes.

Saab claims that the price will be 55 billion dollars, while the Norwegian authorities have estimated the cost to 195 billion.

A press release about the aircraft purchase and the controversial price tag was yesterday sent Croatian authorities from the Norwegian Embassy in the country. Croatia plan to buy Gripen. Swedes feel the Norwegian message as an unnecessary and unkind action.

How is it possible – after many years of close cooperation, thousands of meetings, questions and tests – for Norwegian authorities to end up with a totally different price, a difference of 255 percent?

November 23, 2008 at 2:08 pm in reply to: Why the lack of a dedicated AT copter in most northern european armies? #2482884

signatory
Participant

Knowing landscape and geography will give you a clue or two.

The north is at lage trees, mountains, water. Other than using existing roads it’s very problematic to perform a land invasion. Alot of the focus has then been on army methods by anti-armor and anti-chopper and anti-attack fighter jets (su25 etc) as a more cost effective way to defend the country than to overspend on attack-helos.

If you look at where Sweden spent R&D on it directly translates into the defense doctine. And often these products become export favourites.

Anti-tank/anti-ship/networkability/anti-air… and in other areas there’s big dark holes as in producing helicopters, high altitude sams, etc.

November 22, 2008 at 10:44 am in reply to: Norwegian Government select JSF #2483628

signatory
Participant

translated..

– We meet all together. Therefore, it is strange that they designate as the Gripen so bad. We also noticed that one of the scenarios that the aircraft would resolve, was taken straight out of Lockheed Martin’s brochures. It was at that time Eurofighter pulled out from the competition, “said Sindahl.

Saab has already said that they have seen that there has been a real competition to win the Norwegian fighter contract. Today, they no longer sure about this.

http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article382244.ece

November 21, 2008 at 5:30 pm in reply to: Saab JAS 39 Gripen info #2484153

signatory
Participant

Sweden’s Deputy Prime Minister Maud Olofsson held talks Friday with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Sao Paulo.

Topic was trade covering mutual interest such as a Gripen deal and bio-energy solutions. It was decided that the Brazilian Defence Minister is to visit Sweden to discuss Gripen NG and Transfer of Technology.

Saab also opened it’s Zagreb office yesterday in Croatia.

November 21, 2008 at 5:27 pm in reply to: Norwegian Government select JSF #2484182

signatory
Participant

You think it would be in the interest of Norway to pay more and get less………PLEASE!:p

There’s no one besides perhaps the Norwegian government who actually believes that JSF is the less costly option. And no one ever believed the tender was fair and open especially not when the requirements changed over time to favor either candidate. (Most recently in January the LO factor was added)

In their own report verified by external consultants issued today the cost of JSF is significantly higher than that mentioned at the pressconf yesterday. And they haven’t even looked at the Gripen 30yr price for some reason. The report also says they want to be a user under a large operator (USA) and put alot of faith in that the F-35 will be sold to further allies.

And suddenly stealth and deep strike became a factor. Air combat focused on BVR fight rather than WVR and the list goes on to suit the JSF capabilities. The industry and most people wanted Gripen and I am not too sure the overall public even agree their new jet should be selected on the basis for stealthy strategic operations and BVR combat. So the bottom line is, they went with the US product because it was a US product.

Price (direct imagelink)

LCC costs (direct imagelink)

Op Costs (direct imagelink)

source

November 20, 2008 at 10:00 am in reply to: Saab JAS 39 Gripen info #2485449

signatory
Participant

Thats cool, do you know if Mk3 has been integrated and certified to launch from Gripen ?

No it has not.

To my knowledge, RBS15 Mk3 is not used by Swedish airforce.

True.

RBS-15F does not have land attack capability, RBS15 Mk3 has.

The exact capability of RBS-15F MK1 is classified but it does have INS and waypoint guidance. If there will be a MK3 of RBS-15F is up to a paying customer, it’s as Saab says a product on the market.

MK3 adds first and foremost besides added range the precision land-attack capability.

November 20, 2008 at 7:53 am in reply to: Saab JAS 39 Gripen info #2485486

signatory
Participant

According to this article, only the latest RBS-15 Mk. III has land attack capability, There is only a ship launched version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBS_15

You use wiki as a source?

I use the manufacturer.

RBS MKIII

The missile can be launched from ships, trucks and aircraft.

SOURCE

In fact the RBS-15MK3 trials has been done from both truck and ship.

Image: The RBS15 Mk3 is a powerful, versatile Surface-to-Surface Missile system with a range of more than 200 km with the capability to combat ships as well as land targets. Photo by RFN

source

November 18, 2008 at 2:32 pm in reply to: Saab JAS 39 Gripen info #2486560

signatory
Participant

Gripen NG Demo with Iris-T, Meteor, 2000-lb GBU-10 and Extra Fuel

(c) Katsuhiko Tokunaga….

November 17, 2008 at 4:07 pm in reply to: Russian analyst: SU-35 clubs F-35 like… #2487349

signatory
Participant

Sounds like marketing to me. The F-35 hasn’t even finished flight testing, so for him to unequivocally state what the performance parameters are is a bit specious. His T/W numbers are incorrect, and the assumption is that the Flanker has managed to get within WVR without the F-35 already engaging.

Yeah sounds like….

F-35 at least 400% better in air-to-air combat against Russian Sukhois says Lockheed Martin Link

November 16, 2008 at 5:34 pm in reply to: Unusual Sidewinder mountings… #2488261

signatory
Participant

Well this is kind of unusual….
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 457 total)

← 1 2 3 … 7 8 9 … 29 30 31 →