Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • swerve
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jun 2005
    • 13610

    They say the delay is all about the software. That's credible.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

    Comment

    • Loke
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jun 2008
      • 3302

      Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
      I don't buy it for a second. They are delaying the start of flight testing by ~6 months even though they claim they are confident in the system? Time is money... if they were really sure the plane would perform as intended they would start testing on schedule and obtain the civilian certification somewhere down the road.

      Given the flight control system related crashes they had in the original Gripen program I can't blame them for being cautious, but a delay is a delay.
      They claim shifting the date of the first test flight will not lead to a delay in the program later on -- let's wait and see.

      Comment

      • hopsalot
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2012
        • 3166

        Originally posted by swerve View Post
        They say the delay is all about the software. That's credible.
        I have no problem believing it is the software... but modern fighters can't fly without software and a delay is a delay.

        I just don't like them pretending that this isn't a delay and that somehow they just decided to shift their entire flight test schedule to the right by another 6 months as a result of "optimization."

        Don't forget, the original schedule called for first flight back in 2015, indicating that they are now roughly 18 months behind schedule.

        Saab has meanwhile started assembling fuselage parts for test aircraft 39-8 and static test article 39-83 at its Linkping site, and also is producing the first components for flight test asset 39-9.

        First flight of the lead test aircraft is scheduled for the second half of 2015, with the single-seat asset to be used primarily for airframe and flight control system testing. The next example will be flown in the first half of 2016, and will support tactical systems work. Any required adaptations will be embodied with flight test instrumentation-equipped aircraft 39-10, which will join the test campaign in early 2017 to prove the final E-model configuration.
        https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...avings-396977/

        They can spin things however they want, but they are already 18 months behind their schedule.

        Comment

        • Spitfire9
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jul 2008
          • 2834

          Originally posted by eagle View Post
          The public doesn't necessarily have a say about what is an acceptable replacement. A public vote is not mandatory. Besides, the public didn't accept Gripen as an F-5 replacement either when asked about it, so....
          I think a public vote is mandatory if enough citizens ask for a referendum. My take is that a sizeable proportion of the electorate will object to any proposed replacement, sufficient (is it 200,000? - don't remember) to trigger a referendum.
          Sum ergo cogito

          Comment

          • Loke
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jun 2008
            • 3302

            Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
            I have no problem believing it is the software... but modern fighters can't fly without software and a delay is a delay.

            I just don't like them pretending that this isn't a delay and that somehow they just decided to shift their entire flight test schedule to the right by another 6 months as a result of "optimization."

            Don't forget, the original schedule called for first flight back in 2015, indicating that they are now roughly 18 months behind schedule.



            https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...avings-396977/

            They can spin things however they want, but they are already 18 months behind their schedule.
            The flightglobal article you linked to was written when the plan was still to go with Switzerland as the first customer; when S pulled out due to the referendum results, things were put on a halt until Brazil and Sweden agreed to move forward. New timelines were then drawn up with Brazil, stating that the first a/c will be delivered in 2019, with first flight end of 2016.

            On the basis of this, how do you conclude that they are "already 18 months behind their schedule"?

            Comment

            • hopsalot
              Senior Member
              • Aug 2012
              • 3166

              Originally posted by Loke View Post
              The flightglobal article you linked to was written when the plan was still to go with Switzerland as the first customer; when S pulled out due to the referendum results, things were put on a halt until Brazil and Sweden agreed to move forward. New timelines were then drawn up with Brazil, stating that the first a/c will be delivered in 2019, with first flight end of 2016.

              On the basis of this, how do you conclude that they are "already 18 months behind their schedule"?
              They are 18 months behind schedule because that is how far they are behind the original schedule.

              Are you saying they literally put their tools down (and turned their computers off) and stopped working when the Swiss backed out? I am not saying the Swiss mess didn't cause delays, but you can't just turn a program on and off like a switch. Engineers, software developers, facilities, etc... all of these cost money and can't just be turned off. (or directed to another purpose)

              Now they are announcing still further delays. It isn't clear yet how serious the impact on the overall program will be but there is no point pretending that this is anything other than a delay.

              Comment

              • Spitfire9
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jul 2008
                • 2834

                Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                They are 18 months behind schedule because that is how far they are behind the original schedule.

                Are you saying they literally put their tools down (and turned their computers off) and stopped working when the Swiss backed out? I am not saying the Swiss mess didn't cause delays, but you can't just turn a program on and off like a switch. Engineers, software developers, facilities, etc... all of these cost money and can't just be turned off. (or directed to another purpose)

                Now they are announcing still further delays. It isn't clear yet how serious the impact on the overall program will be but there is no point pretending that this is anything other than a delay.
                Gripen NG was a demonstrator. I'm not sure how much effort SAAB would have put into designing/developing Gripen E on a private venture basis. The Swedish government made a Gripen E order contingent on SAAB getting another customer first IIRC. Had Switzerland placed an order satisfying the Swedish government's requirement for them to order as well, the project would have been launched in earnest but Switzerland did not order. I suspect that SAAB did not start ploughing significant resources into Gripen E until it knew Sweden would place an order. While the original schedule was not adhered to because there was no foreign order, I don't see that as a delay in the normal sense of development taking longer than scheduled. I see the 4-6 month delay in first flight as a delay. However if it makes no difference to when Gripen E will be delivered, does it really matter?
                Last edited by Spitfire9; 24th November 2016, 18:10.
                Sum ergo cogito

                Comment

                • The_5aab_God
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Mar 2015
                  • 161

                  Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                  And Super Hornet was even more expensive than Rafale.. Yes, that Super Hornet, which is significantly cheaper than the F-35..
                  You can continue your tirades using Qatari numbers.. not that they mean anything, but don't get disturbed...
                  I don't always dismiss evidence, but when I do...

                  ..its at the same rate that it is produced

                  current cost flyaway for the Super Hornet is 78 million according to the lying liars at the US Navy by the way. I'm not going to post the official documents just to see you ignore them. if want source look

                  Originally posted by Loke View Post
                  They claim shifting the date of the first test flight will not lead to a delay in the program later on -- let's wait and see.
                  Why on earth would anyone believe that? Do they think they will encounter more or fewer problems when test begin? come now. Super Hornet was same. Even growth from legacy plane will enoucnter test problems. I promise. its already started.

                  Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                  I have no problem believing it is the software... but modern fighters can't fly without software and a delay is a delay.

                  I just don't like them pretending that this isn't a delay and that somehow they just decided to shift their entire flight test schedule to the right by another 6 months as a result of "optimization."

                  Don't forget, the original schedule called for first flight back in 2015, indicating that they are now roughly 18 months behind schedule.

                  .
                  which "original schedule" are you referring to? please be specific. I think the current Original schedule is version 5.2. This program keeps getting "optimized"

                  This is all the stuff I was said saab wouldn't encounter unlike da boobs at LM. We all know when Saab start Gripen NG idea, the plan was first flight 2017, IOC 2023, FOC 2025ish. Back in 2007 this was always the plan. the original schedule has it right there. Please don't make me point to the "original schedule" again.

                  bad joke, the first flight will be this year!

                  They say that every year.

                  We employ a balanced survivability concept with very low audio, visual, radar, and infrared signatures, plus an extensive suite of on-board integrated defensive aids. Gripen has for decades matured a highly sophisticated interflight data link that complements the wide-picture information incoming from Link 16. This local data link allows Gripen to share total situation awareness while operating in emission silence, which greatly enhances survivability and maximizes the chances of full mission success.
                  Future growth is built into the design concept. Gripen is designed to meet the demands of all future threat scenarios, and to remain in active operational service for 8,000 flight hours, which, at an annual flying rate of 170 hours a year, is about 40 years of service.
                  With the current procurement schedule, Saab can confirm deliveries to Canada of the Gripen NG in 2016.
                  That was back in 2010. no idea which original schedule this was

                  source:

                  http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati...&DocId=4865088

                  Guys big picture, and for many reasons some of them "credible", some not the Gripen E is going to have simliar timelines to the much maligned F-35. its going to take 20 years from from "concept ready to combat ready" and the costs may well be simliar.

                  but here we are.
                  Last edited by The_5aab_God; 24th November 2016, 18:33.

                  Comment

                  • Loke
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jun 2008
                    • 3302

                    Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                    They are 18 months behind schedule because that is how far they are behind the original schedule.
                    I am saying that in the article you linked to their assumed first customer was Switzerland, and the Swiss wanted to have delivery of the first a/c in 2018; however Switzerland then pulled out.

                    When Switzerland pulled out those plans were discarded, binned, thrown away.

                    New customers came in and they wanted the a/c not in 2018 but in 2019. New plans were made and according to these new plans the first a/c will be delivered in 2019.

                    Is this so hard to understand?

                    Comment

                    • The_5aab_God
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Mar 2015
                      • 161

                      sorry double.
                      Last edited by The_5aab_God; 24th November 2016, 18:46.

                      Comment

                      • The_5aab_God
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Mar 2015
                        • 161

                        Originally posted by Loke View Post
                        I am saying that in the article you linked to their assumed first customer was Switzerland, and the Swiss wanted to have delivery of the first a/c in 2018; however Switzerland then pulled out.

                        When Switzerland pulled out those plans were discarded, binned, thrown away.

                        New customers came in and they wanted the a/c not in 2018 but in 2019. New plans were made and according to these new plans the first a/c will be delivered in 2019.

                        Is this so hard to understand?
                        So they changed the schedule like the JSF in 2010? Crazy to think its not actually as delayed and behind as we thought...

                        Can you imagine if Spud or Hopseydaisy were trying to defend the JSF in such a manner? serious question.

                        "Hey guys its not really delayed, because we changed the schedule back in 2010 and its been basically on target give or take 6 months of optimization? If anything this delay is an advantage... no no it won't affect the program we will make up the time lost with magic"

                        people would accuse them of LM PR on the level of Orwellian 1984.

                        Comment

                        • hopsalot
                          Senior Member
                          • Aug 2012
                          • 3166

                          Originally posted by The_5aab_God View Post
                          I don't always dismiss evidence, but when I do...

                          ..its at the same rate that it is produced

                          current cost flyaway for the Super Hornet is 78 million according to the lying liars at the US Navy by the way. I'm not going to post the official documents just to see you ignore them. if want source look



                          Why on earth would anyone believe that? Do they think they will encounter more or fewer problems when test begin? come now. Super Hornet was same. Even growth from legacy plane will enoucnter test problems. I promise. its already started.



                          which "original schedule" are you referring to? please be specific. I think the current Original schedule is version 5.2. This program keeps getting "optimized"

                          This is all the stuff I was said saab wouldn't encounter unlike da boobs at LM. We all know when Saab start Gripen NG idea, the plan was first flight 2017, IOC 2023, FOC 2025ish. Back in 2007 this was always the plan. the original schedule has it right there. Please don't make me point to the "original schedule" again.

                          bad joke, the first flight will be this year!

                          They say that every year.



                          That was back in 2010. no idea which original schedule this was

                          source:

                          http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati...&DocId=4865088

                          Guys big picture, and for many reasons some of them "credible", some not the Gripen E is going to have simliar timelines to the much maligned F-35. its going to take 20 years from from "concept ready to combat ready" and the costs may well be simliar.

                          but here we are.
                          The original schedule I referred to was the one from when the project actually got the green light and assembly began.

                          ...and hopseydaisy? Really? Have we had some negative interaction I have forgotten?

                          Comment

                          • MSphere
                            Senior Member
                            • Feb 2010
                            • 8983

                            Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                            India has never formally been offered the F-35...
                            They have been offered the F-35 twice..

                            http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/10587245.cms

                            Comment

                            • MSphere
                              Senior Member
                              • Feb 2010
                              • 8983

                              Originally posted by The_5aab_God View Post
                              I don't always dismiss evidence, but when I do...its at the same rate that it is produced

                              current cost flyaway for the Super Hornet is 78 million according to the lying liars at the US Navy by the way. I'm not going to post the official documents just to see you ignore them. if want source look
                              Wrong.. it's $78 million unit recurring flyaway in FY2018 dollars.. the corresponding price of the F-35C is ~$130 million (don't remember which FY).

                              Comment

                              • Ozair
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Oct 2015
                                • 822

                                Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                                Wrong.. it's $78 million unit recurring flyaway in FY2018 dollars.. the corresponding price of the F-35C is ~$130 million (don't remember which FY).
                                And yet no export customer is offerred a price anywhere near that low... The RAAF and the Kuwaitis were both above $100 mill with additional suppprt contracts after that.

                                Then of course you need to factor in the additional range, safer landing, superior sensor fit and two orders of magnitude lower RCS.

                                The safer landing is a massive deal, USN pilots can now focus on fighting with the jet instead of prowess being ranked by how well you land.

                                Comment

                                • Sintra
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Aug 2007
                                  • 3849

                                  Originally posted by hopsalot View Post

                                  ...and hopseydaisy? Really? Have we had some negative interaction I have forgotten?
                                  Or ... really... positive?

                                  Ill get me hat...
                                  sigpic

                                  Comment

                                  • MSphere
                                    Senior Member
                                    • Feb 2010
                                    • 8983

                                    Originally posted by Ozair View Post
                                    And yet no export customer is offerred a price anywhere near that low... The RAAF and the Kuwaitis were both above $100 mill with additional support contracts after that.
                                    Right.. because it's weapon system cost what counts.. not flyaway..
                                    Nevertheless, a direct comparison of recurrent flyaway prices might provide some insight into the overall pricing.. A $120mil jet surely won't be having cheaper spares than an $70mil counterpart..

                                    Originally posted by Ozair View Post
                                    Then of course you need to factor in the additional range, safer landing, superior sensor fit and two orders of magnitude lower RCS.
                                    Not the scope of this talk.. But.... safer landing? In Canada?

                                    Comment

                                    • Vnomad
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • May 2011
                                      • 2859

                                      Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                                      They have been offered the F-35 twice..

                                      http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/10587245.cms
                                      Unless they were willing to offer it within the terms of the MMRCA contract i.e. ToT & local production (you think?) the 'offers' were just small talk (or bait), nothing else.

                                      Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                                      Wrong.. it's $78 million unit recurring flyaway in FY2018 dollars.. the corresponding price of the F-35C is ~$130 million (don't remember which FY).
                                      The corresponding price for the F-35A for the same year is about $90-95 mil. Add in an additional 5% for export customers. The F-35C isn't relevant to anybody but the USN.

                                      Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                                      The notion that the F-35 is cheaper than Rafale is pure myth spread by some individuals who love to compare US flyaway cost for the Pig with export program of Rafales for Qatar, incl. weapons and support for 30 years..
                                      Flyaway cost for an export Rafale - $96 mil (C) & $100 mil (B). Figures from the Indian sale, not the Qatari one. Nobody AFAIK has compared the $300 mil acquisition for the latter with the F-35's flyaway cost.

                                      Comment

                                      • maurobaggio
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jul 2008
                                        • 521

                                        Originally posted by swerve View Post
                                        They say the delay is all about the software. That's credible.
                                        Has Gripen Demo( supposedly Gripen NG) been flying since 2009 without any software's?

                                        I don't think so, then it is possible to download the software from Gripen Demo to new prototype Gripen NG, indeed this could be very easy once both it has been equipped with datalink ( wire less), since it should not be necessary to stretch some cable to connect both fighters.

                                        After all the Gripen Demo has been flying since 2009 with perfect safety record, otherwise if this solution could not have been possible for the Gripen NG , then maybe the reason should be that Gripen Demo and Gripen NG are incompatible...

                                        Delays are delays, as well as excuse are excuses.If such important program like Gripen NF has been little bit behind the schedule for some reason, it almost certain that someone will appears with any excuse to justify this situation.

                                        After all the timing are not comfortable for just to admit that program could be little behind the schedule in this moment, once the Gripen NG has been offered for the Indian Government in their program Make in India.

                                        Indeed the promise had been made in the last two years that Gripen F would be developed and built in Brazil has been recently changed that: the Gripen F will be developed and the prototype will be assembled in Sweden.

                                        I do not believe that two facts are remotely connected, but it is almost a rule that programs about new fighters has been found out with some delays, still the most important its not the maiden flight, but that the Gripen NG will performs all the tests and proves its parameters like it has been announced for several years.

                                        Comment

                                        • MSphere
                                          Senior Member
                                          • Feb 2010
                                          • 8983

                                          Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
                                          Unless they were willing to offer it within the terms of the MMRCA contract i.e. ToT & local production (you think?) the 'offers' were just small talk (or bait), nothing else.
                                          The offers were performed outside of the scope of the running competition and were meant to revert the MMRCA decision and let Indians go for direct purchase of the F-35, instead. As much as you'd love to twist it, you can't say the F-35 was never offered to India.. It was, and several times on top of all that..

                                          Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
                                          The corresponding price for the F-35A for the same year is about $90-95 mil. Add in an additional 5% for export customers. The F-35C isn't relevant to anybody but the USN.
                                          The mentioned 5% for export customers might be applicable on what LockMart charges to US DoD within the framework of the FMS deal but it's not necessarily what the final recipient is paying.

                                          Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
                                          Flyaway cost for an export Rafale - $96 mil (C) & $100 mil (B). Figures from the Indian sale, not the Qatari one. Nobody AFAIK has compared the $300 mil acquisition for the latter with the F-35's flyaway cost.
                                          Yep, these are all export cost and should only be compared to F-35's export flyaway cost, at best within the same competition adhering identical requirements. Only then it's apples to apples..

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X