Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 54 of 55 FirstFirst ... 444505152535455 LastLast
Results 1,591 to 1,620 of 1637

Thread: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

  1. #1591
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,146
    Wellerocks I suggest you look at the appendix to the Belgium RFI that describes various missions. Think about how realistic it is that a 4-ship of Gripen will succeed in completing all those missions. Keep in mind the Gripens will need targeting pods and drop tanks, most likely not needed on the F-35.

    Gripen E will be a fantastic fighter, I am sure. However one should be realistic and accept that it is a) a light-weight fighter, and b) it is a 4.5 gen not 5. gen fighter.

    The F-35 is in a different league alltogether, there have been so many statements from pilots having flown the F-35 that one should basically just accept this. The F-35 is a quantum leap in capabilities.

    Of course the great capabilities of F-35 will not reduce the capabilities of the Gripen E, which will also be very capable. However if you start comparing the two and look at the most demanding missions you will realize that you need much more Gripen than F-35 for the most demanding missions; and you may also have a bigger need for e.g., stand-off weapons; tankers; and perhaps even AEW systems like GlobalEye to get an SA more comparable to what the F-35 can offer.

    There has been a lot of talk about combining the Gripen with a stealthy UCAV; this could perhaps also be a way forward.

  2. #1592
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,146
    I would say there is some risk involved in a p
    covfefe?

  3. #1593
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,146
    As I said; Belgium and Canada are far fetched. Not impossible, but far fetched. As with all large international fighter competitions, it would be a huge defeat not to participate. Even if there is a slight chance, it's a chance worth taking.
    Well, and Loke could also participate in the Olympics -- who knows, perhaps all the others would become ill (stomach pain or something) and Loke would win?

    I must admit I am realistic about my chances of winning the Olympics, and this is why I never bothered to try to attend that event....

    Boeing did the rational thing in Belgium, IMHO: They looked at the Belgium document and concluded that this was for the F-35 to win, and pulled out. Just like Loke decided that the chances of winning the Olympics are rather slim, Boeing concluded the same in Belgium.

    Gripen has on additional challenge compared to the SH in that it is much smaller and lighter, making it even more challenging to execute those missions with a 4-ship only.

  4. #1594
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,146
    There is nothing about the Gripen E/F that makes it more conducive to dispersed basing.
    On this particular statement I am not so sure -- Gripen was designed specifically for being operated from primitive road bases with very limited personnel. Perhaps the F-35 is designed in a similar manner; I do not know?

  5. #1595
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,146
    The Swedish Air Force is plowing SEK2 billion (U.S.$230 million) into new equipment to allow it to resume Cold War–style operations from road runways.
    The money is being invested in equipment for snow clearance and rapid runway repairs, Maj. Gen. Mats Helgesson, chief of the Swedish Air Force, told journalists in Paris on June 18.

    Sweden has famously deployed its jets onto highways and general aviation airfields since the early years of the Cold War to increase their chances of surviving an expected Soviet attack. The dispersed basing systems such as the Ba90 actually shaped the requirements of Swedish fighters, in particular the Viggen and more recently the Gripen.
    However, the skill of operating from roads has faded since the end of the Cold War, and Sweden’s focus on more international operations meant the need for the practice has gone away. However, the resurgence of a more belligerent Russia, military activity in the Baltic and a renewed Swedish focus on national defense has prompted the air force to return to the regimen.

    Helgesson said the air force was “very heavily investing in this [capability] right now,” as it faced unfriendly neighbors, in reference to Russia.
    http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-sh...sed-operations

    Since we are talking about road bases...

  6. #1596
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,386
    On this particular statement I am not so sure -- Gripen was designed specifically for being operated from primitive road bases with very limited personnel. Perhaps the F-35 is designed in a similar manner; I do not know?
    No, the F-35A isn't specifically designed to operate from primitive road bases. The F-35B is, and will operate from M-FARPS.

    The original Gripen does have a short runway capability, but let's stop using the Gripen A-C and the E/F capabilities as interchangable. The new aircraft is larger and considerably heavier. The issue with dispersed basing is the manpower costs. Sweden did away with the BAS90 due to costs and instituted the BAS 04. They really weren't primitive road bases, they were dispersed runways near the main base (hardened highways modified to act as runways in some cases). The myth of the fighters operating from some remote unprepared highway isn't really accurate.

    Edit- here is an old AvWeek article on Gripen and BAS90:
    https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightP...20-%200351.PDF

    Provided the dispersed runways were long enough (and hardened for a heavy aircraft), the F-35A could operate in a similar basing system. The question is, "Would Finland want to implement an expensive and manpower intensive basing option like that"?
    Last edited by FBW; 20th June 2017 at 13:57.

  7. #1597
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,439
    The original Gripen does have a short runway capability, but let's stop using the Gripen A-C and the E/F capabilities as interchangable
    But in this case they are, the ability to operate in the exact same 800X16 m road bases in the exact same manner of the "A/B/C/D" airframes is described in multiple SAAB and Flygvapnet publications.

    The new aircraft is larger and considerably heavier.
    But quite a pint size/weight aircraft by comparison with the Gripen´s predecessor

  8. #1598
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,032
    They told me for E, roughly empty weiht 8000, MTOW around 16500
    We already knew the rough numbers long time ago.
    Yes but I was kinda hoping for an empty weight a bit under 8 t and/or an MTOW a bit over 16.5 t.
    Because this means some loadouts are rather impossible, like the 2x 1000 kg bomb and 2x large fuel tank load.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  9. #1599
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    258
    So the reality remains that the Gripen E is still an expensive low performance alternative to a brand new F-16 or F/A-18.

    So most of its advertised performance cannot be performed at the same time. Supercruise only when it is very cold and lightly loaded. Full weapons load only with very low fuel quantity. Full fuel only when lightly loaded with weapons. So it is much better just to get a new F-16 rather than something like this.

  10. #1600
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,362
    I've just noticed that each base housing 4-6 aircraft would need 1500 personnel to be operated? That seems a lot when it's always mentionned that the Gripen can be operated by 1 officer + 5 conscripts. So what are the other 1464 personnel doing when those 36 work on their Gripens?

    Nic

  11. #1601
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    On the run.. Scandinavia & China
    Posts
    209
    @Nicholas, many ways to cut numbers,

    -article cited is from 1987,
    -in 1989 the airforce operated 500-600 aircraft (https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svensk...lygvapnet_1989)
    -total wartime staff ~60' personnel.

    Hope that is a good enough example to solve the question of what the other "1464 are doing".

  12. #1602
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    95
    A lot of this is ground combat forces , the dispersed basing is by its nature exposed to enemy special forces and the airbase battalions had organic units to counter this threat.

  13. #1603
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,439
    So the reality remains that the Gripen E is still an expensive low performance alternative to a brand new F-16 or F/A-18.
    In the last decade there was one single Viper deal with unit costs aproaching what the Brasilians paid and what the Swiss were offered by SAAB for the Gripen E, it was the 2016 offer to Pakistan for eight Vipers (http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales...ck-52-aircraft), in that particular business the only thing that was bought were the airframes, no training, manuals, logistic suport, whatever, .
    Every single other Viper or SH proposed sale surpassed by quite a decent margin the Brasilian and Swiss SAAB offers.

    Some of them:
    http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/oman-f-16-aircraft
    http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales...-16-aircraft-0
    http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales...rcraft-support

    And while i would caution in making direct comparisons between deals to diferent countries, in this particular case we have the actual Boeing offer to Brasil, the one that lost to SAAB:
    http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales...ornet-aircraft

    Its not merely more expensive, its vastly more expensive and with the caveat that the aircrafts would be assembled in the USA.

    I am not aware of one single obvious public available document that clearly makes a case for the Swedish aircraft to be "expensive" by comparison with the Viper and/or Super Hornet.

    So most of its advertised performance cannot be performed at the same time.
    That happens with every fighter aircraft in the market.

    Supercruise only when it is very cold and lightly loaded. Full weapons load only with very low fuel quantity. Full fuel only when lightly loaded with weapons. So it is much better just to get a new F-16 rather than something like this.
    If we stick a Gripen E with every single bit of internal fuel, we´ll get 5.1 tons of external load till MTOW, thats plenty enough to get something like three external fuel tanks, a pair of Taurus LFK and two AAM´s. More than enough for almost everyone. And the Gripen has some quite obvious advantages over the Viper and the SH (just like they have their own strenghts).

    Cheers
    Last edited by Sintra; 22nd June 2017 at 11:04.

  14. #1604
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,386
    Every single other Viper or SH proposed sale surpassed by quite a decent margin the Brasilian and Swiss SAAB offers.

    Some of them:
    http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/oman-f-16-aircraft
    http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales...-16-aircraft-0
    http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales...rcraft-support
    True, but as has been mentioned about a thousand times by now, careful with FMS figures they are estimates (and usually quite high). Getting an accurate figure for the actual costs associated with the deals that were executed is difficult.
    The FMS system provides for estimated prices and estimated payment schedules. The final price
    of an FMS item or service generally will not be known until after it is delivered. The final price is
    determined by actual USG contract cost and other authorized FMS charges that are applied under the
    provisions of U.S. laws and regulations.
    The fact that the final LOA cost is generally lower than the initial LOA price estimate is a distinctive
    feature of the government-to-government FMS agreement
    This is a good breakdown of the difference in FMS & DCS for those who are interested: http://www.discs.dsca.mil/documents/...15_Chapter.pdf
    Last edited by FBW; 22nd June 2017 at 11:55.

  15. #1605
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,032
    If we stick a Gripen E with every single bit of internal fuel, we´ll get 5.1 tons of external load till MTOW, thats plenty enough to get something like three external fuel tanks, a pair of Taurus LFK and two AAM´s. More than enough for almost everyone. And the Gripen has some quite obvious advantages over the Viper and the SH (just like they have their own strenghts).
    How do you figure?
    A Taurus is 1400 kg. Even if they went with the lighter 1060 kg Taurus 150, which hasn't been sold afaik, that's still to heavy for the outer wing pylons. They're rated under 1000 kg I think.
    Doesn't matter though as even 2 lighter Taurus, 3 tanks and 2 AAMs would be more than 5100 kg. You're looking at 2 tanks and 2 cruise missiles maximum, if those missiles can be carried under the fuselage.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  16. #1606
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,146
    https://twitter.com/Saab/status/877927465267712002

    Second flight yesterday -- that was quicker than what I expected!

  17. #1607
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,146
    In their recent competition Bulgaria ranked Gripen C first, with a score of 0.9; Typhoon tranche 1 was ranked second, 0.61 points.

    Portugal's offer - with a US logistics package - was not classified "because of its price proposal mismatch with RFP requirements."


    http://www.investor.bg/biudjet-i-fin...na-vss-241714/

  18. #1608
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,146
    The Botswana Defense Force (BDF) commander this week confirmed for the first time that the country is negotiating a small order of Saab Gripen C/D fighters. Swedish defense marketing agency FMV said last month that the deal involves approximately eight aircraft.
    http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...n-negotiations

  19. #1609
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,146
    SA use their Gripens to stalk Rhino poachers:

    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...rhino-poachers

    The article also quotes a cost of 6-8k USD per flight hour however also says that the journo does not know what is actually included in that number.

  20. #1610
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke
    SA use their Gripens to stalk Rhino poachers:

    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...rhino-poachers

    The article also quotes a cost of 6-8k USD per flight hour however also says that the journo does not know what is actually included in that number.
    If so that is a pretty terrible use of resources... that is a job for a Cessna.

  21. #1611
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,439
    How do you figure?
    A Taurus is 1400 kg. Even if they went with the lighter 1060 kg Taurus 150, which hasn't been sold afaik, that's still to heavy for the outer wing pylons. They're rated under 1000 kg I think.
    Doesn't matter though as even 2 lighter Taurus, 3 tanks and 2 AAMs would be more than 5100 kg. You're looking at 2 tanks and 2 cruise missiles maximum, if those missiles can be carried under the fuselage.
    You are right, shody maths on my side

    Cheers

  22. #1612
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,146
    If so that is a pretty terrible use of resources... that is a job for a Cessna.
    Yes....

    Note they use this activity as a substitute for some regular training hours, thereby killing 2 birds with one stone.

    The Gripen will also be able to cover a much larger area than a Cessna, I would think.
    Last edited by Loke; 23rd June 2017 at 12:00.

  23. #1613
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by wellerocks View Post
    Belgium & Canada - far fetched, but if successful, they would guarantee a huge opening for Saab among other NATO forces.

    However, Brazil was a far-fetched option as well, with fierce competition from Rafale [Which Silva government preferred and France backed with heavy military deals] and the Super Bug [which Embraer preferred due to the industrial opening to the American market]. Yet, the Gripen won. Fair and square.
    Fair and square? There wasn't a giant scandal involving three letters that went NSA? I remember that pretty good. It's also multi billion dollar contract in a country known for bribes. That's no a knock against Saab, it's just want to no how they ever pulled off a no bribe contract in that country of all places

  24. #1614
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,929
    FBW said:

    No, the F-35A isn't specifically designed to operate from primitive road bases. The F-35B is, and will operate from M-FARPS.

    The original Gripen does have a short runway capability, but let's stop using the Gripen A-C and the E/F capabilities as interchangable. The new aircraft is larger and considerably heavier. The issue with dispersed basing is the manpower costs. Sweden did away with the BAS90 due to costs and instituted the BAS 04. They really weren't primitive road bases, they were dispersed runways near the main base (hardened highways modified to act as runways in some cases). The myth of the fighters operating from some remote unprepared highway isn't really accurate.
    I had the chance to overfly one, here's what it looks like from above.. you can see the main base further down the river, and one of the prepared "road runways" right below my aircrafts wing (there were at least 8-10 spread on the roads around the base overall)

    Name:  base.jpg
Views: 1141
Size:  135.1 KB

  25. #1615
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,151
    Funny, i was there and I asked the FCPH, and Mashba's answer was 180.000 to 200.000 rand... Not exactly joseph values... One of us misheard. (could be me)

  26. #1616
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    649
    Funny, i was there and I asked the FCPH, and Mashba's answer was 180.000 to 200.000 rand... Not exactly joseph values... One of us misheard. (could be me).
    That sounds about right to me if you remove the decimal points. Given the SAAF maintain a small fleet and rotate airframes through short term storage a 13k-15k USD FCPH should be expected.

  27. #1617
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,151
    We all know that calculation of CPFH is a tricky issue to compare with.

  28. #1618
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,420
    Damn right. The NAO in the UK does things like dividing total cost of ownership by hours flown, for example, & calling that an operating cost per flight hour.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  29. #1619
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,151
    Which is a metric as good as another, prob is noone use the same...

  30. #1620
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,420
    Yeah. It's exactly what one wants when one wants to know what's the most cost-effective way of providing a fixed number of flying hours, e.g. for a small neutral country with predictable usage for training & air policing*. But it's bloody useless when one wants to plug in a cost per hour in the air to a calculation of total cost of ownership in different scenarios, so one can use it in projections of costs for specific policy choices.

    It's also useless when used as a basis for working out whether it's cheaper to keep the current paid-for, fleet or replace them with something cheaper. In that case, one should compare the operating cost - only - (i.e. ignore the cost of purchase & all other sunk costs) with the total cost of the alternative.

    *E.g. Austria.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES