Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Urban
    Rank 4 Registered User
    • Jan 2015
    • 121

    https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...19730857_o.jpgClick image for larger version

Name:	12748007_1136506816390017_4757366736619730857_o.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	102.8 KB
ID:	3666834

    Comment

    • Spitfire9
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jul 2008
      • 2846

      Pretty picture but what on 18, 05, 2016?
      Sum ergo cogito

      Comment

      • Spyhawk
        Rank 42 Registered User
        • Dec 2011
        • 175

        On May 18 we are unveiling the first of the next generation Gripen aircraft. It’s a key milestone in the evolution of The Smart Fighter.

        See Saab website.

        Comment

        • hopsalot
          Senior Member
          • Aug 2012
          • 3166

          Originally posted by Spyhawk View Post
          On May 18 we are unveiling the first of the next generation Gripen aircraft. It’s a key milestone in the evolution of The Smart Fighter.

          See Saab website.

          Hopefully they will release some useful information when they do.

          Comment

          • snafu352
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jan 2008
            • 2250

            Originally posted by MSphere View Post
            I love those F-35 fanboys masquerading as SAAB fans..
            Check the obsessive trolling in the F-35 thread.
            The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
            Bertrand Russell

            Comment

            • The_5aab_God
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Mar 2015
              • 161

              Originally posted by Robbiesmurf View Post
              You are certainly not false. You perspective is clear and correct. Unfortunately some of the posters here have as the Dutch say, 'long toes'. They are stepped on too easily.
              A number of them do insult many here on the forum, they however are very upset when it happens to them. They can give it but they can't take it......
              Oh, btw, they can post very pretty graphs and pictures. The veracity of them though is questionable..
              I had never heard that phrase before. Thank you. Speaking of pretty pictures, Urban obliges. Urban was the first person here (not the last) to be rude to me so special place in my heart for him.


              This forum is insanely toxic in the way posters treat one another. Its like divorced couple arguing over their children


              Originally posted by Spyhawk View Post
              On May 18 we are unveiling the first of the next generation Gripen aircraft. It’s a key milestone in the evolution of The Smart Fighter.

              See Saab website.
              No that was the Demo Msphere said so. Saab is wrong. Msphere is right:

              Originally posted by MSphere View Post
              The Gripen Demo NG is an NG.. We can spend hours arguing about whether it's a true "prototype" or just a heavily reworked Gripen B under a private initiative financed by the industry but the fact is that it is an NG. It has a new airframe with additional fuel capacity, two rows of fuselage pylons, new landing gear, F414-GE engine, new satcom equipment, electro-optical RWR and MAWS by Avitronics, as well as the Vixen 1000E AESA radar. Whatever changes have been proposed for the final config prototype from your link, they will hardly be discernible..
              Saab when will you learn?

              Very exciting new though, I hope they webcast it so I can watch and there is some Q&A I am interested in seeing the external changes


              Originally posted by snafu352 View Post
              Check the obsessive trolling in the F-35 thread.
              Your rebuttal was brilliant. "ill call him a troll and no will notice I was horrifically wrong!" Seamless, you totally preserved your rep there. No one noticed at all. Feel free to write a rebuttal in that thread, rather than whining about me in another thread.
              Last edited by The_5aab_God; 18th February 2016, 18:48.

              Comment

              • Robbiesmurf
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jul 2014
                • 587

                Originally posted by The_5aab_God View Post
                This forum is insanely toxic in the way posters treat one another. Its like divorced couple arguing over their children.
                It's tame compared to some other sites. I take it you never visited AD.com when it was still alive.

                Comment

                • JakobS
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Aug 2015
                  • 155

                  Here's a fresh photo from Saab, it's coming along nicely!

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	1016001_1136556439718388_4217207508671298814_o.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	122.4 KB
ID:	3666850

                  Comment

                  • wellerocks
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • May 2010
                    • 76

                    Originally posted by Loke View Post
                    For the Swiss eval, all companies were given the chance to describe the 2015 version of their a/c. Of course they used the infamous "credibility factor" to downscale capabilities according to their state of development, however it is to be expected, the Swiss are careful people.
                    Indeed it was, and the Gripen suffered from it the most out of the three contestants, yet it was deemed good enough and chosen as the final bid.

                    Originally posted by Loke View Post
                    The Norwegian competition was "rigged" in the sense that Gripen would not have won even if it had been a fully stealthy 5. gen a/c offered at a lower price than F-35; however it was not really necessary to rig it since the requirements were put very high and Gripen did not meet all technical requirements.

                    The nonsense about pricing in Norway; I don't know why they did that, perhaps just to make the F-35 more acceptable to the anti-US left-wing party that was in government at that time; they stated they wanted the cheapest solution (which was assumed to be Gripen).
                    The deciding factor did not come from specifications in the Norwegian competition, but rather from the deciding factor of cost and subjective reflections on what would come to be the Norwegian future needs.

                    The whole problem with the Norwegian competition was that a choice had been made prior to the competition even taking place. It wasted the time of Saab, the Swedish Defense and everyone involved, not to mention all the possible local norwegian producers and manufacturers that would have been involved in the process if the contract would have landed on the Gripen.

                    The Norwegians had all the right to choose the F-35, no doubt about it, it was just the manner of which it was done.

                    Originally posted by Loke View Post
                    Regarding Finland; I agree that Saab may have small chance however as you say the Finns are very much focused on bang for the bucks, and unlike what you are claiming the F-35 costs are coming down (I suggest you visit the F-35 thread and ask Spud and the other experts about that).
                    I think you've misunderstood the term "bang for the buck".

                    The current and most recent unit cost for the LRIP F-35A is $94.8 million [excluding the engine]. And that's without any specific national requests. It has gone down from the LRIP 1 prices, as expected, but it's not close to its target goal.

                    The hopeful estimate of $60MUSD per F-35A was quoted at around 3000 A/C being manufactured in total, which included full orders from all expected customers and potential customers. The production rate has been ramped down with 20 A/C aswell. And this is all without experiencing any new problems that might ramp up the price. The costs are going down, I'm not arguing you on that, but to such a level that the F-35 would be cheap to buy, maintain and operate, now that's a bold claim. Especially since the F-35 is still significantly more expensive to operate than the F-16 and F/A-18.

                    Finlands "bang for the buck" is however something still rooted deep within its military structure. This is something the Gripens thrives in. The Gripen has excellent records of low maintenance per flight hour, low operational costs and is yet a fighter with relatively long range, more than capable of covering Finlands needs. Not to mention national cooperation and local industrial benefits that the Finns seem to value highly.

                    The Gripen stands well above "a small chance" in Finland.

                    Comment

                    • Loke
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jun 2008
                      • 3302

                      Originally posted by wellerocks View Post
                      I think you've misunderstood the term "bang for the buck".

                      The current and most recent unit cost for the LRIP F-35A is $94.8 million [excluding the engine]. And that's without any specific national requests. It has gone down from the LRIP 1 prices, as expected, but it's not close to its target goal.

                      The hopeful estimate of $60MUSD per F-35A was quoted at around 3000 A/C being manufactured in total, which included full orders from all expected customers and potential customers. The production rate has been ramped down with 20 A/C aswell. And this is all without experiencing any new problems that might ramp up the price. The costs are going down, I'm not arguing you on that, but to such a level that the F-35 would be cheap to buy, maintain and operate, now that's a bold claim. Especially since the F-35 is still significantly more expensive to operate than the F-16 and F/A-18.

                      Finlands "bang for the buck" is however something still rooted deep within its military structure. This is something the Gripens thrives in. The Gripen has excellent records of low maintenance per flight hour, low operational costs and is yet a fighter with relatively long range, more than capable of covering Finlands needs. Not to mention national cooperation and local industrial benefits that the Finns seem to value highly.

                      The Gripen stands well above "a small chance" in Finland.
                      No doubt even in 2025 F-35 will still be a rather expensive a/c; however I think the price will come down quite a lot compared to where it is today. The other important factor to consider in the "bang for the bucks" is not just the "bucks" but the "bang". If they can afford the "right" number of F-35 then it can stand on it's own without any further support. However if they go for Gripen, then, looking post 2030, I think more is needed; more fighter jets, but also other equipment.

                      To be a credible deterrent I think Finland could do the following:

                      1. Enter a defence alliance with Sweden
                      2. Buy 50-60 Gripen E
                      3. Together with Sweden buy and jointly operate 4 Erieye ER
                      4. Together with Sweden develop, buy and jointly operate 12 (?) Gripen G; a Gripen "Growler" platform
                      5. Together with Sweden operate a few tankers

                      If they go for F-35, they could probably drop the Gripen G (which would be quite expensive) and perhaps also drop the Erieyes, and still have a credible deterrent. Which one is cheaper?

                      Of course the best deterrent would be to enter NATO; then it does not really matter what they buy, Gripen or F-35 (or the SH).

                      But a Swedish-Finnish defence alliance could also offer some deterrent, with 110-120 Gripen E; 4 Erieyes, a few "Growlers", and a tiny tanker fleet.

                      Comment

                      • obligatory
                        Senior Member
                        • Oct 2008
                        • 7043

                        does any of the scandinavian nations operate tankers ?

                        Comment

                        • Loke
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jun 2008
                          • 3302

                          Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                          does any of the scandinavian nations operate tankers ?
                          Sweden operates a tanker. Norway has access to tankers through NATO.

                          Comment

                          • Robbiesmurf
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jul 2014
                            • 587

                            KC130?

                            Comment

                            • Loke
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jun 2008
                              • 3302

                              I believe Sweden uses a C130H as a tanker? I may be wrong.

                              Comment

                              • JakobS
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Aug 2015
                                • 155

                                Originally posted by wellerocks View Post
                                I think you've misunderstood the term "bang for the buck".

                                The current and most recent unit cost for the LRIP F-35A is $94.8 million [excluding the engine]. And that's without any specific national requests. It has gone down from the LRIP 1 prices, as expected, but it's not close to its target goal.

                                The hopeful estimate of $60MUSD per F-35A was quoted at around 3000 A/C being manufactured in total, which included full orders from all expected customers and potential customers. The production rate has been ramped down with 20 A/C aswell. And this is all without experiencing any new problems that might ramp up the price. The costs are going down, I'm not arguing you on that, but to such a level that the F-35 would be cheap to buy, maintain and operate, now that's a bold claim. Especially since the F-35 is still significantly more expensive to operate than the F-16 and F/A-18.

                                Finlands "bang for the buck" is however something still rooted deep within its military structure. This is something the Gripens thrives in. The Gripen has excellent records of low maintenance per flight hour, low operational costs and is yet a fighter with relatively long range, more than capable of covering Finlands needs. Not to mention national cooperation and local industrial benefits that the Finns seem to value highly.

                                The Gripen stands well above "a small chance" in Finland.
                                Another factor to weigh in is how much it costs to adjust the air force bases for the F-35. Norway and Australia is using well over 1 billion USD for this purpose alone.

                                Originally posted by Loke View Post
                                I believe Sweden uses a C130H as a tanker? I may be wrong.
                                There is one but it is only used for training the pilots for international missions. It's not used in the daily activities of the air force. This is unlikely to change in the future.

                                Comment

                                • MSphere
                                  Senior Member
                                  • Feb 2010
                                  • 8983

                                  Originally posted by Loke View Post
                                  I believe Sweden uses a C130H as a tanker? I may be wrong.
                                  The C-130E Tp84 #84002 was converted to serve as tanker aircraft.

                                  Comment

                                  • Vnomad
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • May 2011
                                    • 2859

                                    Originally posted by wellerocks View Post
                                    I think you've misunderstood the term "bang for the buck".

                                    The current and most recent unit cost for the LRIP F-35A is $94.8 million [excluding the engine]. And that's without any specific national requests. It has gone down from the LRIP 1 prices, as expected, but it's not close to its target goal.
                                    Try $94.3 million with the engine. Unit recurring flyaway cost for 2016. Well on course to achieve the target goal (<$85 mil by 2019).

                                    In fact, if the plan for the block buy goes ahead, they could probably bring the cost in below $80 mil. The Gripen E will of course beat that figure but not by a huge margin, not with all the performance upgrades planned. The F-35 CPFH estimate was about 28% higher than the F-16C/D (in same weight class as the Gripen E), and that's from when the oil prices were still sky high (and thanks to the shale revolution they're unlikely to ever go up that high again).
                                    Last edited by Vnomad; 19th February 2016, 17:14.

                                    Comment

                                    • Loke
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jun 2008
                                      • 3302

                                      Originally posted by JakobS View Post
                                      There is one but it is only used for training the pilots for international missions. It's not used in the daily activities of the air force. This is unlikely to change in the future.
                                      My thinking was that if you were to have a credible defence alliance with Finland perhaps you would need a couple of tankers -- after all Sweden-Finland covers a quite large land and sea area, and although the Gripen is long-legged in an a2a config, for e.g. an a2g config the range will drop quite a lot.

                                      Imagine if Finnish Gripen are to support defending south of Sweden; or that Sweden needs to support North East of Finland.

                                      Comment

                                      • Loke
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jun 2008
                                        • 3302

                                        Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
                                        Try $94.1 million with the engine. Unit recurring flyaway cost for 2016. Well on course to achieve the target goal (<$85 mil by 2019).

                                        In fact, if the plan for the block buy goes ahead, they could probably bring the cost in below $80 mil. The Gripen E will of course beat that figure but not by a huge margin, not with all the performance upgrades planned. The F-35 CPFH estimate was about 28% higher than the F-16C/D (in same weight class as the Gripen E), and that's from when the oil prices were still sky high (and thanks to the shale revolution they're unlikely to ever go up that high again).
                                        what are "all the performance upgrades" you are referring to?

                                        I think it's difficult to predict Gripen E costs at this point in time; it really depends on how many customers they manage to get by the time Finland is doing the evaluation. Due to Brazil now being a partner in the Gripen project, there is a good chance that several South American countries will go for Gripen E. There are also several opportunities in Asia, of which the biggest would be India. If India decides to go for Gripen, it could change things, in particular when it comes to upgrade costs.

                                        Comment

                                        • obligatory
                                          Senior Member
                                          • Oct 2008
                                          • 7043

                                          i read just the other day IFF is also latest possible tech,
                                          ir/radar/maws/ew/DL/decoupled avionics/...as far as i can see, nothing is left of the old avionics,
                                          in fact its later tech than F-35,
                                          the savings is going to come through operational cost

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X