Gripen NG

[Vivendi]

Saab made some new claims on Gripen NG today:

Gripen revives war of words over Norwegian fighter assessment (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/03/327317/gripen-revives-war-of-words-over-norwegian-fighter-assessment.html)

What grabbed my attention was this:

Saab's simulations saw the MBDA Meteor- and Diehl BGT Defence IRIS-T missile-equipped Gripen NG defeat the Su-35 at a ratio of 1:6 to 1. "For JSF it's the other way round," says Nilsson

The comments on F-35 we can of course dismiss, the whole point was to show that F-35 would not do well and evidently they picked their scenarios and tactics in such a manner to ensure this happened...

I was wondering about the 1:6 to 1 -- anybody who can make a guess as to what that actually means? One SU-35 shot down for every 6 Gripen? Or perhaps an error, maybe they mean 1.6 to 1 (1.6 SU downed for every NG... Not too impressive if that's the case).

Also rather telling: They simulated against the SU-35, which is really not that interesting. The interesting part will be how a 4.5 gen will fare against PAK FA. My guess: Probably not too well.

Anyway, Saabs marketing department is evidently working very hard :)

Vivendi

[Aussie Digger]

Saabo made some new claims on Gripen NG today:

Gripen revives war of words over Norwegian fighter assessment (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/03/327317/gripen-revives-war-of-words-over-norwegian-fighter-assessment.html)

What grabbed my attention was this:



The comments on F-35 we can of course dismiss, the whole point was to show that F-35 would not do well and evidently they picked their scenarios and tactics in such a manner to ensure this happened...

I was wondering about the 1:6 to 1 -- anybody who can make a guess as to what that actually means? One SU-35 shot down for every 6 Gripen? Or perhaps an error, maybe they mean 1.6 to 1 (1.6 SU downed for every NG... Not too impressive if that's the case).

Also rather telling: They simulated against the SU-35, which is really not that interesting. The interesting part will be how a 4.5 gen will fare against PAK FA. My guess: Probably not too well.

Anyway, Saabs marketing department is evidently working very hard :)

Vivendi

Plenty of very interesting things.

1. The 4x F-35's in their scenarios were only equipped with 8x AMRAAM and 8x Sidewinder.

Given the F-35 will only be able to carry Sidewinder on external hardpoints, initially one wonders why the F-35's were only armed with 8x AMRAAM (2x each)?

L-M has confirmed that each F-35 variant will be capable of carrying 4x AMRAAM missiles internally in the Block 3 configuration with 6x internal carriage planned for the Block 4/5 iteration.

That adds up to a potential maximum of 16x AMRAAM missiles for 4x F-35's according to my math...

Are they truly surprised that the Norwegians dismissed them as a credible option if this is the level of simulation they are attempting to utilise to support their own product?

On top of which, I'd defy SAAB to produce evidence of a REAL LIFE air battle where 12x air to air missiles, plus internal gun ammunition were all expended, leaving some of the aircraft involved in the battle unable to defend themselves...

As to the ratio, I don't understand what they mean by it either. To me it seems every bit as dodgy and incompetent as the other figures they "produced"...

[Vivendi]

Plenty of very interesting things.

1. The 4x F-35's in their scenarios were only equipped with 8x AMRAAM and 8x Sidewinder.

Given the F-35 will only be able to carry Sidewinder on external hardpoints, initially one wonders why the F-35's were only armed with 8x AMRAAM (2x each)?

L-M has confirmed that each F-35 variant will be capable of carrying 4x AMRAAM missiles internally in the Block 3 configuration with 6x internal carriage planned for the Block 4/5 iteration.

That adds up to a potential maximum of 16x AMRAAM missiles for 4x F-35's according to my math...

True... My guess is that they were simulating F-35s in a stealthy multi-role config, i.e. carrying two bombs and two AMRAAMs internally. But this is just speculation of course.

As I said, they have probably picked tactics that would not favor the F-35...

Such simulations are worthless unless all the parameters are disclosed.

The same goes for LM's simulations, of course :)

V

[Grand Danois]

Branding the evaluation process "incomplete, or even faulty", Svensson challenged a decision by evaluators to more than treble his company's guaranteed bid price from NKr55 billion ($8.9 billion) to NKr195 billion: NKr30 billion higher than a JSF figure recently confirmed as only an estimate.

I wonder who the audience is for this? Certainly not acq mgrs and bean counters. Is he trying to troll internet fora? :D

[longbow]

I wonder who the audience is for this? Certainly not acq mgrs and bean counters. Is he trying to troll internet fora? :D

Hell knows no fury like a saab-salesperson scorn - They are still smarting from the Norwegian rejection. Actually though, they have an aircraft to sell, and there is nothing wrong with having the general public believing that you are cheap&capable, after all - the public can influence the desciconmakers:rolleyes:

[Grand Danois]

Hell knows no fury like a saab-salesperson scorn - They are still smarting from the Norwegian rejection. Actually though, they have an aircraft to sell, and there is nothing wrong with having the general public believing that you are cheap&capable, after all - the public can influence the desciconmakers:rolleyes:

You're right about that and from my perspective they were too aggressive on public opinion in Norway forcing the Norwegian Govt to publicly dismember their product.

It's absolutely okay to emphasize your own products strengths. What they (SAAB) and others are missing out is that they really have no place to comment on what the customer estimates the TCO to be. I could write a three page essay, but my posts are short and few, so I'll pick one example...

SAAB is unhappy that Norway used F-16 costings on the Gripen NG. However if:

- the salary levels are higher in Norway than Sweden,
- the RNoAF wish to maintain the organisational back-end from, e.g. continue using specialist ground crew rather than conscripts than in Sweden, meaning direct savings from the Swedish model are not realized,
- Norway has more FH per jet per year, and
- attrition rates are different: the Norwegians operate their jet in an maritime environment and has high-relief mountains (alpine). Check out the accident record (http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents/airforce/RNOAF/) and note how it wouldn't have mattered in most cases if it was an F-16, Gripen or JSF - in other words: the RNoAF record of attrition is different due to the environment they operate in, contrasted by the more continental, low-relief hills of Sweden and SwAFs low accident record with the Gripen.

So using a model based on the F-16 is relevant in this case, adjusted for cost differences in acquisition, spares, fuel and services. Which is basically what happened (though with that 4 bn USD addendum of absolutely needed items at acq to make it mulitrole plus and unknown amount for MLU):

Yet SAAB is claiming that it's the SwAF experience (on A/B/C/Ds, btw) that should be the benchmark for what a Gripen NG would cost in the RNoAF !!!

And as I am pointing out, it is of little relevance...

I'd wish SAAB moved on from the Norway competition and just let it go and focused on the future opportunities. Mostly because it provokes a myth that Gripen NG and Sweden was backstabbed by Norway...

[gf0012-aust]

Anyway, Saabs marketing department is evidently working very hard :)

Vivendi


They should tell the Swedish Defence Minister - as per his interview in DefenceNews where he accepted that the Gripen was not competitive against the RNAF operational requirements.

He's accepted it and said that it won't effect the relationship

[Aussie Digger]

True... My guess is that they were simulating F-35s in a stealthy multi-role config, i.e. carrying two bombs and two AMRAAMs internally. But this is just speculation of course.

As I said, they have probably picked tactics that would not favor the F-35...

Such simulations are worthless unless all the parameters are disclosed.

The same goes for LM's simulations, of course :)

V

Heavens no. L-M are "beyond the pale" and cannot possibly be doubted.

Heathen! :D

I've no doubt the "figures" used to arrive at this outcome, pre-determined just like APA and Bill Sweetman et al, use, are massaged rather heavily...

[Feanor]

I suspect that the problem is that Gripen NG lacks a market. Their chances in the Indian tender are not good. And the Brazilian tender is relatively small. Domestic orders are also small.

[AndiPandi]

...
- the salary levels are higher in Norway than Sweden,
- the RNoAF wish to maintain the organisational back-end from, e.g. continue using specialist ground crew rather than conscripts than in Sweden, meaning direct savings from the Swedish model are not realized,
- Norway has more FH per jet per year, and


Well, thats YOUR explanation of the numbers, but it was never the explanation of the Norweigan government. The swedish airforce are not using conscripts as much as before btw.



So using a model based on the F-16 is relevant in this case, adjusted for cost differences in acquisition, spares, fuel and services. Which is basically what happened (though with that 4 bn USD addendum of absolutely needed items at acq to make it mulitrole plus and unknown amount for MLU):


As for fuel they did not adjust the price. The 4bn extra has never been explained.



Yet SAAB is claiming that it's the SwAF experience (on A/B/C/Ds, btw) that should be the benchmark for what a Gripen NG would cost in the RNoAF !!!


Yes, how stupid! The country that has been using the system for ten years think they know what it costs...



I'd wish SAAB moved on from the Norway competition and just let it go and focused on the future opportunities. Mostly because it provokes a myth that Gripen NG and Sweden was backstabbed by Norway...


SAAB is not trying to change the Norweigans mind, but Norway trashtalked the Gripen quite well, sending press releases to countries that are looking at the Gripen C/D even (and never will buy the JSF anyway) stating that it was a really expensive aircraft so they really have to do what they are doing if they want to sell any aircrafts in the future.

SAABs simulation doesnt say anything, just like LMs (They used the Gripen C without AESA in their simulations)...

[AndiPandi]

...
the Norwegians operate their jet in an maritime environment and has high-relief mountains (alpine). Check out the accident record (http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/mishaps-and-accidents/airforce/RNOAF/) and note how it wouldn't have mattered in most cases if it was an F-16, Gripen or JSF - in other words: the RNoAF record of attrition is different due to the environment they operate in, contrasted by the more continental, low-relief hills of Sweden and SwAFs low accident record with the Gripen.


OK, 22 incidents, 18 in which the aircraft was destroyed.

How many of them had anything to do with the high mountains of norway? 4 of the incidents took place in other countries than Norway, 6 where birdstrikes or engine failures, two where collisions with power cables (we have them in sweden as well you know...) 3 were collisions with other aircraft...

Flying low over sea is nothing unique for Norway either.

[Vivendi]

They should tell the Swedish Defence Minister - as per his interview in DefenceNews where he accepted that the Gripen was not competitive against the RNAF operational requirements.

He's accepted it and said that it won't effect the relationship
Well, he accepted the decision, and he even said something along the lines of "F-35 was the best fit given the Norwegian requirements".

However what the Swedish Defence Minister still does not accept is the way the Norwegians calculated the costs for Gripen NG.

I suspect the "true costs" would be somewhere inbetween what the Swedes claimed and what the Norwegians claimed. The cost estimates look a bit skewed to me, not just for Gripen but also for F-35 -- They used the exchange rate for a specific month in 2008 (January) when the dollar was extremely low compared to the NOK, even if the price is given is USD. The more sensible thing would have been to use some kind of "historical average". At the end of the day it would not have changed the outcome of course, but by skewing both estimates they made F-35 look rather cheap and Gripen NG look rather expensive.


But that's just my opinion.

V

[Grand Danois]

Well, thats YOUR explanation of the numbers, but it was never the explanation of the Norweigan government.

The Norwegian Govt never defended their use of the F-16 as a model for cost - it's Saab who is attacking it.

My main point - to reiterate - SAAB does not control how Norway ope

The swedish airforce are not using conscripts as much as before btw.

...but isn't the Gripen supposed to be serviced by conscripts to keep costs down? Have they adjusted their models to incorporate this new added cost?

And again, Norway does not operate its fast jet the same way as Sweden does !!! The valid model is the one the AF intend to actually use.

As for fuel they did not adjust the price. The 4bn extra has never been explained.

It's correct that "the absolutely need equipment to make the GNG multirole" has not been specified, we (I) can only speculate. However, examples of possible essential mission systems, which SAAB can offer to integrate, but not not otherwise incorporate in their offer could be laser designation pods and IFF, NATO specific data links, etc.

I think I've seen some of this equipment in later (unofficial) offers from SAAB (to the Dutch).

Yes, how stupid! The country that has been using the system for ten years think they know what it costs...

Sweden has 0 hours of experience with an operational NG. They have not used it for ten years - they have used it for 0 years. It is more than twice as expensive at acquisition and 50% more expensive in vendor spares and services. And Norway can easily make out the rest of the numbers as they have all the data and decide how to operate - saab does not.

And MOST essential - Norway does not operate after the Swedish Gripen A/B/C/D model.

SAAB is not trying to change the Norweigans mind, but Norway trashtalked the Gripen quite well, sending press releases to countries that are looking at the Gripen C/D even (and never will buy the JSF anyway) stating that it was a really expensive aircraft so they really have to do what they are doing if they want to sell any aircrafts in the future.

You have followed the campaign in Norway as well as I, and SAAB fired on all pistons with a massive campaign at all levels, particulary influencing the public- the Nor Govt had to make it very, very clear to everyone WHY they made their choice!!!

SAABs simulation doesnt say anything, just like LMs (They used the Gripen C without AESA in their simulations)...

I have no and has made no comment on the sims at this point. ;)

[Grand Danois]

OK, 22 incidents, 18 in which the aircraft was destroyed.

How many of them had anything to do with the high mountains of norway? 4 of the incidents took place in other countries than Norway, 6 where birdstrikes or engine failures, two where collisions with power cables (we have them in sweden as well you know...) 3 were collisions with other aircraft...

Flying low over sea is nothing unique for Norway either.

Thank you for collating the numbers. Read what I said and look at your data again.

Btw, hint, birds are more prominent in coatsal areas where the RNOAF bases are situated, just as power cables are streched out across the high-relief U-shaped fjords and so on.... the main difference between the Swedish data and the Norwegian. How many Gripens have gone down from bird strikes or hit power cables??? 0. The Swedish experience does not apply !

Environment and modus of operation...plus I said that it wouldn't have mattered what aircraft it would have been - check the data again - Saab cannot claim that attrition rates would have been different, yet they do !!!

[AndiPandi]

...but isn't the Gripen supposed to be serviced by conscripts to keep costs down? Have they adjusted their models to incorporate this new added cost?


The only difference is the salary of the staff. The Gripen is still as easy and cheap to maintaine as always. Its the swedish conscript system that is changing, not the Gripen system.



And again, Norway does not operate its fast jet the same way as Sweden does !!! The valid model is the one the AF intend to actually use.


It still does not explain why they expect to lose more than half of the aircrafts over 30 years.



It's correct that "the absolutely need equipment to make the GNG multirole" has not been specified, we (I) can only speculate. However, examples of possible essential mission systems, which SAAB can offer to integrate, but not not otherwise incorporate in their offer could be laser designation pods and IFF, NATO specific data links, etc. I think I've seen some of this equipment in later (unofficial) offers from SAAB (to the Dutch).


SAAB asked the Norweigan government but never got an answer what was missing. But hey, it made the NG 20% more expensive, so why not?





Sweden has 0 hours of experience with an operational NG. They have not used it for ten years - they have used it for 0 years. It is more than twice as expensive at acquisition and 50% more expensive in vendor spares and services. And Norway can easily make out the rest of the numbers as they have all the data and decide how to operate - saab does not.


Now youre trolling, SAAB never said that the NG would be more expensive in vendor spares and service, actually the say its gonna be cheaper than the C/D in that department. The engine is one reason for that. The RM12 is only used in the Gripen (sharing 60% of the parts with the GE-F404). Cheaper avionics & fewer computers is another reason.

So if no information about the NG costs can be derived from the Gripen C/D, would you also say that LM cant give the Indians any trustworthy information about the cost of the F-16 version they are offering to them since noboy is operating them?

[AndiPandi]

...
How many Gripens have gone down from bird strikes or hit power cables??? 0. The Swedish experience does not apply !



Well, could it have anything to do with that Volvo Aero modified the GE-F404 so it could survive a big bird???

[Grand Danois]

Well, could it have anything to do with that Volvo Aero modified the GE-F404 so it could survive a big bird???

They did make it more robust, but i have no clue if it could withstand a birdstrike... should be googlable ? :)

[AndiPandi]

They did make it more robust, but i have no clue if it could withstand a birdstrike... should be googlable ? :)

Let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=RM12+birdstrike):p:

[Grand Danois]

The only difference is the salary of the staff. The Gripen is still as easy and cheap to maintaine as always. Its the swedish conscript system that is changing, not the Gripen system.

Sweden may have 200 cheap personnel and Norway may have 300 expensive personnel per squadron - changing aircraft does not change this.

It still does not explain why they expect to lose more than half of the aircrafts over 30 years.

I have only seen this in a SAAB pres release, so I may have missed the original source, i.e. the documents I've seen says 10 attrition jets are needed.

SAAB asked the Norweigan government but never got an answer what was missing. But hey, it made the NG 20% more expensive, so why not?

Now youre trolling, SAAB never said that the NG would be more expensive in vendor spares and service, actually the say its gonna be cheaper than the C/D in that department. The engine is one reason for that. The RM12 is only used in the Gripen (sharing 60% of the parts with the GE-F404). Cheaper avionics & fewer computers is another reason.

But the offer was twice as expensive per unit at acquisition and more expensive per flight hour !!!

So when it comes to actual data points and not sweet talk the GNG is more expensive !

In theory it may be cheaper, but the actual real world execution makes it more expensive, e.g. if you establish a seperate assembly line for the F414G in Norway or Sweden instead of leverageing it directly off the GE production line, the former was part of SAABs offset plan. It makes a cheap product expensive! Or if there will only be the GNGs that Norway had ordered - then an otherwise potentially cheap modified product made from cots/mots parts becomes as expensive as if it was custom built.

So if no information about the NG costs can be derived from the Gripen C/D, would you also say that LM cant give the Indians any trustworthy information about the cost of the F-16 version they are offering to them since noboy is operating them?

The Indian will take the LM figures and make their OWN estimates, which will decide what they think of the jet. Just like the Norwegians did with C/D/NG data from SAAB.

[Grand Danois]

Let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=RM12+birdstrike):p:

Excellent, how has this worked in th real world, when gripen has hit birds?

[AndiPandi]

Sweden may have 200 cheap personnel and Norway may have 300 expensive personnel per squadron - changing aircraft does not change this.


The F-16 needs 3 times as many people to operate, so the type of aircraft you are using will surely affect your costs.



I have only seen this in a SAAB pres release, so I may have missed the original source, i.e. the documents I've seen says 10 attrition jets are needed.


"Half of the aircrafts" is a quote from SAAB, i've seen the numbers in some slides as well. The figure is high IMO but if we assume they hade the same figure for JSF its nothing to argue about really.



But the offer was twice as expensive per unit at acquisition and more expensive per flight hour !!!


Where is the flight hour cost stated? Every info I read from SAAB say the figure is lower for NG compared with C/D assuming you use them in the same way (for sweden its $2000 instead of $2500 for the C/D). I have seen different figures for different countries though, India $3500 for example. Different countries are asking for different things as well. The India NG can be different from the Norway NG.




In theory it may be cheaper, but the actual real world execution makes it more expensive, e.g. if you establish a seperate assembly line for the F414G in Norway or Sweden instead of leverageing it directly off the GE production line, the former was part of SAABs offset plan. It makes a cheap product expensive! Or if there will only be the GNGs that Norway had ordered - then an otherwise potentially cheap modified product made from cots/mots parts becomes as expensive as if it was custom built.


Now you are speculating again. If SAAB sais the GE-F414 will be 20% cheaper than the RM12 I guess we have to believe them? Remember that the engine is used in a bunch of SHs as well. Even if Norway is the sole user of NG the engine wont be the expensive part. The NG engine wont be modified like the GE-F404, just some small adaptions for single engine usage.


Here is a link with a bird strike:
Jas-plan kolliderade med fågel - tvingades nödlanda - Nyheter - Expressen.se (http://www.expressen.se/1.149932)

[Vivendi]

AFAIK the F-16s did have some issues with bird strikes in "the early days"; I don't know if this was fixed before Norway got her planes?

Anyway (modern) F-16 and Gripen should have fairly bird-resistant engines, however there are limits of course.

I wonder if Gripen may have some advantages when it comes to the air intakes and the positioning of those -- the bird needs to move at a specific angle to actually enter the air intake, if it is "off" it may bounce off the fuselage instead.

Also the much smaller size of the Gripen air intake will make it harder to hit, in addition the really big birds will have a much lower probability of entering a small air intake than a big. The air intake of the F-16 looks like nice "bird catcher" to me...

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the size of the bird can be quite important for the outcome of a bird strike. Whereas small birds will not cause that much damage big birds will. And a big bird will have a higher probability of reaching the engine of an F-16 than a Gripen due to the above-mentioned factors.


V

[Vivendi]

OK, 22 incidents, 18 in which the aircraft was destroyed.

How many of them had anything to do with the high mountains of norway? 4 of the incidents took place in other countries than Norway, 6 where birdstrikes or engine failures, two where collisions with power cables (we have them in sweden as well you know...) 3 were collisions with other aircraft...

Flying low over sea is nothing unique for Norway either.
I have the impression that Norwegians are flying more "aggressive" than the air force of some countries, and that this can in part account for the higher attrition rates.

Hopefully power cable hits will be a thing of the past; a Norwegian company has developed a cheap warning system and I hope it will be installed.

One may wonder if some of the losses could have been avoided with a more modern system with a better MMI and better "situational awareness", ie. the colissions with other a/c. Hard to tell; I think a Norwegian study on the use of bicycle helmets showed that the number and severity of injuries increased not decreased; the most likely explanation was that wearing a helmet made people feel more secure and they therefore increased speed and took more chances when biking.

In general Swedes tend to be more careful --- or Norwegians are more "daring" (or careless as some would describe us :))

I also wonder how the stealth of F-35 will affect it's attrition rates. If two F-35s are both flying in "stealth mode" (with no radar reflector and radar turned off or in LPI mode) in the same area, perhaps the chances of collision may increase not decrease compared to F-16, in spite of the dramatic increase in situational awarenes. The MMI and situational awareness of Gripen NG would presumably be somewhere between the Norwegian F16As and the F-35 ?

V

[AndiPandi]

I have the impression that Norwegians are flying more "aggressive" than the air force of some countries, and that this can in part account for the higher attrition rates.

In general Swedes tend to be more careful --- or Norwegians are more "daring" (or careless as some would describe us :))

...


I think its more of a "cold war" vs "post cold war" behaviour among the pilots, dangerous stunts made by pilots was more accepted in the 80's since it was viewed as training for the coming war and fighter pilots were supposed to be "cowboys". Now its more about saving money and lives and keeping a good safety record. Today you dont hear as many stories about tree branches in the landing gear and wheel marks on snow-covered hangar roofs as you did in the Viggen era...

[Vivendi]

Today you dont hear as many stories about tree branches in the landing gear and wheel marks on snow-covered hangar roofs as you did in the Viggen era...
Surely you must be joking!?

V

[AndiPandi]

Surely you must be joking!?

V

The tree branch story was from a friend who was a firefighter in the air force, the other is not from someone I know. True or not, you just dont here these kind of stories nowadays....

[Grand Danois]

The F-16 needs 3 times as many people to operate, so the type of aircraft you are using will surely affect your costs.

Again (3rd 4thg or 5th time?) - it's not for SAAB to decide how Norway opreates its jets




"Half of the aircrafts" is a quote from SAAB, i've seen the numbers in some slides as well. The figure is high IMO but if we assume they hade the same figure for JSF its nothing to argue about really.

I've only heard it from SAAB.

Where is the flight hour cost stated? Every info I read from SAAB say the figure is lower for NG compared with C/D assuming you use them in the same way (for sweden its $2000 instead of $2500 for the C/D). I have seen different figures for different countries though, India $3500 for example. Different countries are asking for different things as well. The India NG can be different from the Norway NG.

Bob K or some other guy is on record on the 3k usd on spares and acq.

´Now you are speculating again. If SAAB sais the GE-F414 will be 20% cheaper than the RM12 I guess we have to believe them? Remember that the engine is used in a bunch of SHs as well. Even if Norway is the sole user of NG the engine wont be the expensive part. The NG engine wont be modified like the GE-F404, just some small adaptions for single engine usage.

Not speculation, the work was offered as an offset and it owuld not have been cheaper. Period.

20% cheaper in support over lifetime, agree.

´
Here is a link with a bird strike:
Jas-plan kolliderade med fågel - tvingades nödlanda - Nyheter - Expressen.se (http://www.expressen.se/1.149932)

thx for link, will check it out later this evening.

[AndiPandi]

Again (3rd 4thg or 5th time?) - it's not for SAAB to decide how Norway opreates its jets


Of course not, but why on earth would they use more people for maintenance than needed? Do you think they will hire people for doing nothing? Setting up service stations that never will be used? Buying spares they dont need?

This link even states that its almost four times as many people needed for the F-16 compared to the Gripen C:

F-16 vs. Gripen - Croatian Air Force To Spend 800 Million $ For New Wings – Nacional.hr (http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/34674/f-16-vs-gripen-croatian-air-force-to-spend-800-million-for-new-wings)



Not speculation, the work was offered as an offset and it owuld not have been cheaper. Period.


But would it be more expensive? Thats were you are speculating.
Remember that GE is one of the investor in the NG project, they could be willing to take some extra cost if it helps the NG projects getting a few orders. And Volvo Aero in Norway are already manufacturing engine components.

[Grand Danois]

Of course not, but why on earth would they use more people for maintenance than needed? Do you think they will hire people for doing nothing? Setting up service stations that never will be used? Buying spares they dont need?

This link even states that its almost four times as many people needed for the F-16 compared to the Gripen C:

F-16 vs. Gripen - Croatian Air Force To Spend 800 Million $ For New Wings – Nacional.hr (http://www.nacional.hr/en/clanak/34674/f-16-vs-gripen-croatian-air-force-to-spend-800-million-for-new-wings)


But would it be more expensive? Thats were you are speculating.
Remember that GE is one of the investor in the NG project, they could be willing to take some extra cost if it helps the NG projects getting a few orders. And Volvo Aero in Norway are already manufacturing engine components.

I'm not "speculating - it's the way things work. Labor costs are higher, you need to train redundant people (to the GE line), etc., seriously !

You're focusing on direct cost and using the Gripen the Swedish way to Swedish needs - using it differently cost MORE money and MORE manpower. And you're not including overhead and much more.

E.g. flying more hours per year than SWAF require more maintenance and spares, if the maintenance personnel has a higher percentage of specialists they cost even more and a higher level of salary compounds this.

All of a sudden it doesn't matter that SAAB uses SWAF numbers to tell Norway what it'll cost. They can give their numbers to Norway and they'll adjust them to their own circumstancess.

Btw, wrt your link, note that this is the C/D. I agree with these numbers:

In consideration then are concrete and available data on the price of flying per hour. According to the available official data, the cost of an hour of airtime on a Swedish Gripen is 2,500 dollars, while an airborne hour on the F-16 Block 52 comes to 3,700 dollars.

Now it cost Denmark, Holland and Norway around 10-12k usd an FH for a F-16MLU... These numbers above are vendor costs: supplies, spares and services from SAAB and LM.

[AndiPandi]

Norway made their own assumptions and recalculated the price for different numbers of aircrafts and different life cycles ( 35 years instead of 25). There is no way they can say those are the correct prices since SAAB could have given them a fixed price for different life cycle lengths and numbers of aircraft. You cant just assume that 20% more aircrafts cost 20% more since there could be equipment, personel etc. that dont need to be increased as much. There are fixed costs included in he total price that doesnt change if you order more or fewer aircrafts.

And applying the F-16s fuel consumption on the Gripen NG just like that doesnt make me convinced that the Norwegian assumptions were properly made, if they really wanted correct numbers they could have asked SAAB and GE...

[Grand Danois]

Norway made their own assumptions and recalculated the price for different numbers of aircrafts and different life cycles ( 35 years instead of 25). There is no way they can say those are the correct prices since SAAB could have given them a fixed price for different life cycle lengths and numbers of aircraft. You cant just assume that 20% more aircrafts cost 20% more since there could be equipment, personel etc. that dont need to be increased as much. There are fixed costs included in he total price that doesnt change if you order more or fewer aircrafts.

I haven't even touched upon this yet. ;) I'm talking about how Norway intends to use and operate an aircraft in a Norwegian context.

And applying the F-16s fuel consumption on the Gripen NG just like that doesnt make me convinced that the Norwegian assumptions were properly made, if they really wanted correct numbers they could have asked SAAB and GE...

I'm not sure I've seen that Norway used F-16 fuel consumption numbers. The GNG fuel consumption figures from SAAB would of course be the correct ones to model on.

[AndiPandi]

...
Now it cost Denmark, Holland and Norway around 10-12k usd an FH for a F-16MLU... These numbers above are vendor costs: supplies, spares and services from SAAB and LM.


True, but adding labour costs etc. would probably make the Gripen come out even better...

[AndiPandi]

I haven't even touched upon this yet. ;) I'm talking about how Norway intends to use and operate an aircraft in a Norwegian context.


OK, then show me the information about how Norway are gonna use their aircrafts. Show me where the Norweigan government states the difference between the SWAF way of using the Gripen and the RNoAF way explaining the different cost estimates.

What is a "Norweigan context" and how is it different from the Swedish?

[Grand Danois]

OK, then show me the information about how Norway are gonna use their aircrafts. Show me where the Norweigan government states the difference between the SWAF way of using the Gripen and the RNoAF way explaining the different cost estimates.

You can't have that, I can only tell you the mechanics of the calculation. ;)

Edit: let's get some data points: RoNAF flew 10k hours last year on 57 active jets and DK flew 8k hrs on 48 active jet (both have in reality fewer jets, but hey). That's 175.5 and 167.7.

What does an avg Gripen fly per year?

[AndiPandi]

You can't have that, I can only tell you the mechanics of the calculation. ;)

Edit: let's get some data points: RoNAF flew 10k hours last year on 57 active jets and DK flew 8k hrs on 48 active jet (both have in reality fewer jets, but hey). That's 175.5 and 167.7.

What does an avg Gripen fly per year?

No idea, probably much less.

[Grand Danois]

No idea, probably much less.

Okay, iirc, but not sure, it's something like 130-140 hrs a year. If anyone knows, corrections are most welcome. But it's an indication that the F-16s fly roughly 25% more. Assuming everything else is equal, a Gripen in Nor service will cost 25% more in maintenance than in Sweden per year, not per FH. It should also be possible to find an index of labor cost difference between N & S. And if they maintain overhead costs, then fewer savings are realized. Thus examples of how it is very possible that Norways estimates are not ludicrous.

There are debateable items like what are those 4 bn NOK for and what should an "MLU" cost... But the bulk of the costs are legit, imv.

[AndiPandi]

Okay, iirc, but not sure, it's something like 130-140 hrs a year. If anyone knows, corrections are most welcome. But it's an indication that the F-16s fly roughly 25% more. Assuming everything else is equal, a Gripen in Nor service will cost 25% more in maintenance than in Sweden per year, not per FH. It should also be possible to find an index of labor cost difference between N & S. And if they maintain overhead costs, then fewer savings are realized. Thus examples of how it is very possible that Norways estimates are not ludicrous.

There are debateable items like what are those 4 bn NOK for and what should an "MLU" cost... But the bulk of the costs are legit, imv.

Well SAAB could be lying, but if the Norweigan cost estimates could be explained somehow, why havent they done it? SAAB claims that there are tens of billions the cant understand. If there were som hard facts to back the figures up, why havent the Norweigans published them???

[Grand Danois]

Well SAAB could be lying, but if the Norweigan cost estimates could be explained somehow, why havent they done it? SAAB claims that there are tens of billions the cant understand. If there were som hard facts to back the figures up, why havent the Norweigans published them???

I'm not saying they're lying. ;)

The Norwegians can't really respond as they're not in a position to disclose at such a detailed level (and perhaps they prefer to leave the issue behind - it's poor form to antagonise SAAB further, the thing is over), but it leaves the field open for SAAB if they feel they have an issue.

That's why interviews with the involved seem so silly and makes them look as if they are hiding something.

[longbow]

Well SAAB could be lying, but if the Norweigan cost estimates could be explained somehow, why havent they done it? SAAB claims that there are tens of billions the cant understand. If there were som hard facts to back the figures up, why havent the Norweigans published them???

The armed forces are usually tight-lipped about almost everything, so I doubt they will say anything unless they are instructed to. The RNoAF has a very good relationship with the SWAF and conduct loads of tranings with their Swedish counterparts. I don't think they would like to find themselves in a slagging-match with the Swedes. The government does not sell any aircraft, so unless they start loosing votes, there really is no need for them to start angering the Swedes even more. Saab is pitching the Gripen in Denmark right now, and as far as I can see, they are using the same approach as in Norway - focus on costs, groundswell support and industrial cooperation. If the Danish electorate is going to favour the Gripen, then it makes sense attacking the Norwegian "findings".

But, to answer your question, I think the norsemen are staying silent simply because they don't need to say anything. Its frustrating!!!:lul

[AndiPandi]

I'm not saying they're lying. ;)

The Norwegians can't really respond as they're not in a position to disclose at such a detailed level (and perhaps they prefer to leave the issue behind - it's poor form to antagonise SAAB further, the thing is over), but it leaves the field open for SAAB if they feel they have an issue.

That's why interviews with the involved seem so silly and makes them look as if they are hiding something.

Well I dont think it would be a problem to say "We fly more" or "We fly more with heavy payload" etc if that really was the reason for the higher cost estimate.

[longbow]

You're right about that and from my perspective they were too aggressive on public opinion in Norway forcing the Norwegian Govt to publicly dismember their product.

It's absolutely okay to emphasize your own products strengths. What they (SAAB) and others are missing out is that they really have no place to comment on what the customer estimates the TCO to be. I could write a three page essay, but my posts are short and few, so I'll pick one example...

[...]

I'd wish SAAB moved on from the Norway competition and just let it go and focused on the future opportunities. Mostly because it provokes a myth that Gripen NG and Sweden was backstabbed by Norway...

I agree 100% and hope the marketing people stop before it gets to a level where they actually get a response!

[longbow]

Well I dont think it would be a problem to say "We fly more" or "We fly more with heavy payload" etc if that really was the reason for the higher cost estimate.

No, it would not hurt Norwegian intrests, but if all the agressive responses from Saab turns out to be false, it would put Saab at a disadvantage. As absurdly as it may seem, could the Norwegians actually want Saab to prosper??

But, thats just me speculating!!:cool:

[Vivendi]

I was wondering about the 1:6 to 1 -- anybody who can make a guess as to what that actually means? One SU-35 shot down for every 6 Gripen? Or perhaps an error, maybe they mean 1.6 to 1 (1.6 SU downed for every NG...
I am still wondering about this. Andipandi if I recall correctly you had previously some success in communicating with Saab -- would you mind asking them? (I once asked them a question and they never came back to me, don't know why)

Also would be interesting to know some details about the Gripen part of the sim (I would not touch the F-35 part, seems of little relevance)

V

[Feanor]

I wonder where the got the data on the Su-35BM (I'm assuming they don't mean the original Su-27M/Su-35) since the aircraft isn't even completed yet.

[gf0012-aust]

Well SAAB could be lying, but if the Norweigan cost estimates could be explained somehow, why havent they done it? SAAB claims that there are tens of billions the cant understand. If there were som hard facts to back the figures up, why havent the Norweigans published them???

When an evaluation has been completed the unsuccessful vendors are debriefed (if they request a debrief). They are NOT given actual details on where and by how much there was a variation against the superior product as that involves commercial and classified material issues. They are advised within the parameters of their own submission.

In the case of SAAB, they should pay attention to the Swedish Defence Ministers response in DefenceNews 2 weeks ago (I don't have my copy of the interview at my current location).

As far as the Defence Dept would be concerned, the tender is over and the results done. What SAAB should remember is the kind of approach they are taking with the Norwegians does not work. That approach backfired for the French with Rafale, and backfired for companies like ATLAS when they exercised the same kind of public behaviour.

There is no way in hades, that any of the specifics of the evaluation will be released, and SAAB know that full well, so they do themselves no favours by padding the public debate engagement as they know full well that the other side will not engage in a "too and fro" debate about the specifics. If the shoe was on the other foot, I'm sure SAAB would have an immediate appreciation (and again, Rafale, ATLAS, LM in Czechoslovakia) are standout examples of what happens when companies overstep the robust debate to publicly defend their market footprint.

As someone who has been involved on both sides of the procurement and tender fences (for a couple of countries and as a consultant including aviation contracts) I can tell you that SAAB are not helping their position at all.

[B3LA]

As mentioned above, it is really time to move on now.
It will be exciting to have the F-35 so close to Sweden, and I hope we eventually will get the opportunity to see Norwegian F-35s performing live in Sweden. Preferable without live ammo though...
Saab knew the rules from the beginning. So did the Eurofighter Consortium.
Saab still tried to win a lost race by arguing the advantages to the Norwegian people.
To counter that the Norwegian Government had to discredit the Gripen in public.

Unfortunately, the outcome in Denmark will follow precisely in the same pattern.
The Gripen platform can not be sold to any of the old NATO nations, only to the poorer newcomers.
Saab should quit the Danish tender while they can and go for Former East, Latam and Apac nations instead.

[Vivendi]

OK this is not Gripen NG, rather the current Gripen, still, interesting read:

Gripen scores 31 kills (http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/06/08/Swedish-air-force-to-pay-for-killed-hens/UPI-89001244486586/)


Kill ratio of 31-0 is not too bad.. Who said Gripen is not a lethal weapon, in particular in the hands of an experienced pilot? :D


V

[Grand Danois]

Hehe, RDAF chalked up Santa's reindeer. ;)

Air force pays Santa for reindeer death - Weird news- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9542073/)

[IPA35]

Maybe it is because of the METEOR and it does not really matter what plane it is?

[swerve]

According to an article by Craig Hoyle in the current print edition of Flight, Gripen Demo has logged 79 flights so far, in just over a year, i.e. about as many as F-35 logged in the two years after first flight. Different degrees of risk, of course.

SAAB are bigging up the Selex radar, calling it "outstanding", & saying they're much more impressed than by the Thales offering. It's called the Vixen 1000E/ES05 Raven (presumably the latter is the SAAB variant, with PS-05/A functionality, & the former the Selex base radar), & it is discussed as if the swash-plate version is the definitive one. It is stated that it has UK government export clearance.

Given the consistent naming of Vixen variants, this strongly suggests ca 1000 T/R modules.

[Grand Danois]

Given the consistent naming of Vixen variants, this strongly suggests ca 1000 T/R modules.

Well, 600 mm diameter x-band plate has a theoretical limit of 1256 modules with lambda/2 spacing (lambda = 3cm).

(PI * (0.3^2)) / (0.015^2) = 1 256.63706

So 1000-1100 mmics for a fully populated 600mm plate sounds on the mark.

[Grand Danois]

Maybe it is because of the METEOR and it does not really matter what plane it is?

Could be. IIRC both the CAPTOR and the PS-05/A are derivatives of the Blue Vixen back end which are to be/can be upgraded with the same MMICS from UMS and will use the same missile, METEOR, using the roughly the same intercept tactics* and subsequent defensive maneuvering after weapons release of which the moving swashplate radar face is an integral part.

*The EF2K flies faster, higher for better F-pole (and LSZ & NEZ).

[Grand Danois]

You can't have that, I can only tell you the mechanics of the calculation. ;)

Edit: let's get some data points: RoNAF flew 10k hours last year on 57 active jets and DK flew 8k hrs on 48 active jet (both have in reality fewer jets, but hey). That's 175.5 and 167.7.

What does an avg Gripen fly per year?

Addendum: the actual number for RNoAF is 180-190 hrs/yr/F-16.

[Crusader2000]

Well, 600 mm diameter x-band plate has a theoretical limit of 1256 modules with lambda/2 spacing (lambda = 3cm).

(PI * (0.3^2)) / (0.015^2) = 1 256.63706

So 1000-1100 mmics for a fully populated 600mm plate sounds on the mark.

Yet, do we have a official source that states how many T/R Modules the Selex/SAAB Radar will have? As I've heard everything from 500 to 1200????:confused:

[Crusader2000]

What is the Gripen NG best odds of winning a export order??? (if any)

[Grand Danois]

What is the Gripen NG best odds of winning a export order??? (if any)

Well, define success and define Gripen NG.

The Gripen C/D is IMV the best bang for buck you can buy from a Western nation. The Swedish Air Force looks set to be lead customer on many of the technologies on future iterations of the Gripen concept with the E/F, particularly on the avionics side. . Tailoring the capabilities package to the customer instead of going full toe-to-toe with the JSF, trying to match it across the board, which makes it too expensive to the really cost-sensitive customer. And it's really tough to compete on capability with the JSF.

Perhaps letting the customer buy a basic package C/D package with selective focus with peak performance in some areas and with an option to add later developments is the way (?).

I'd suggest integrating Brimstone for interdiction/CAS and Meteor/Iris-T for air-air on the basic C/D package and you'd have a potential seller to many Central European NATO members. Meteor/Iris-T are already in pipeline and Brimstone, although complex to integrate, is doable without breaking the bank.

Basically what the Czechs/Hungarians will be doing. Then there are the Swiss, Croats, et al.of course, who are also looking at C/Ds.

It is possible Brazil or India may choose GNG. ToT and offsets are a great assets here; I wouldn't dismiss the GNG...

Perhaps it's a question of what it'll look like, more than if it gets orders.

And SAAB does have focus on the future with their deep participation in nEUROn.

[swerve]

It would be interesting to have some idea of the relative cost of the new radar (called Vixen 1000E/ES05 Raven in the current issue of Flight - I presume the former is the base model, the latter the SAAB-Ericsson variant) & the current PS-05/A, both initial purchase cost & lifetime operating cost.

Brimstone is now available with a laser seeker, & seems to be the basis for the new "50 kg weapon (http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=287&page_id=463)" development.

[swerve]

Yet, do we have a official source that states how many T/R Modules the Selex/SAAB Radar will have? As I've heard everything from 500 to 1200????:confused:
I tried to track down the source of the 500 modules figure, & I am confident that 1) I've found it & 2) it's false.

It appears to be based on the assumption that the Vixen 500E will be used in Gripen. The 500 refers to the approximate number of T/R modules. Selex is absolutely explicit about this, & gives consistent names to the Vixen variants depending on TRM count, e.g. Vixen 850E. Therefore, the name is crucial to understanding the discussion. Unfortunately, references to the Vixen series are sometimes assumed to mean the 500E, the initial (& so far, only one in series production, about to enter service) model, as not everyone is aware of the existence of other models.

There are numerous references on the internet to the Vixen 500E being the basis for the new Gripen radar, but every one I have found which gives a source links back to this Defense Industry Daily article (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/brazil-embarking-upon-f-x2-fighter-program-04179/#more-4179). That article gives as its source, & links directly to (scroll down to "Per Aviation Week’s March 10/09 report") this Aviation Week article (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/AESA031009.xml) - but when you read the AW article, you find that it doesn't say the Vixen 500E is the basis of the new Gripen radar. It discusses the Gripen radar and the Vixen 500E (& other Selex radars) in separate paragraphs, & different contexts. It is obvious that someone at DID misread the AW article, & as is common on the internet, the error proliferated via cutting & pasting. It's sad how few people check their sources.

The highest figures are based on estimates of how many can be fitted in, derived via calculations similar to GDs, above, which gives the theoretical maximum.

Neither Selex nor SAAB has ever linked the 500E to Gripen. They have never been shown together. Gripen has shared a stand at an airshow with the larger Vixen 850E, but that is the only link between that radar & Gripen. SAAB has released CGI of Gripen with a swash plate mounted array which looks a little larger than that of the 850E. None of this is definite, & I've not found a published statement from either firm which gives a figure, but we now have this article in Flight, in which a reputable journalist who has spoken to both SAAB & Selex says explicitly that the Vixen 1000E is the basis for the new radar.

That is consistent with all the good (as distinct from demonstrably false) previous information, & as far as I am concerned settles it. The number of TRMS is approximately 1000.

[Crusader2000]

I tried to track down the source of the 500 modules figure, & I am confident that 1) I've found it & 2) it's false.

It appears to be based on the assumption that the Vixen 500E will be used in Gripen. The 500 refers to the approximate number of T/R modules. Selex is absolutely explicit about this, & gives consistent names to the Vixen variants depending on TRM count, e.g. Vixen 850E. Therefore, the name is crucial to understanding the discussion. Unfortunately, references to the Vixen series are sometimes assumed to mean the 500E, the initial (& so far, only one in series production, about to enter service) model, as not everyone is aware of the existence of other models.

There are numerous references on the internet to the Vixen 500E being the basis for the new Gripen radar, but every one I have found which gives a source links back to this Defense Industry Daily article (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/brazil-embarking-upon-f-x2-fighter-program-04179/#more-4179). That article gives as its source, & links directly to (scroll down to "Per Aviation Week’s March 10/09 report") this Aviation Week article (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/AESA031009.xml) - but when you read the AW article, you find that it doesn't say the Vixen 500E is the basis of the new Gripen radar. It discusses the Gripen radar and the Vixen 500E (& other Selex radars) in separate paragraphs, & different contexts. It is obvious that someone at DID misread the AW article, & as is common on the internet, the error proliferated via cutting & pasting. It's sad how few people check their sources.

The highest figures are based on estimates of how many can be fitted in, derived via calculations similar to GDs, above, which gives the theoretical maximum.

Neither Selex nor SAAB has ever linked the 500E to Gripen. They have never been shown together. Gripen has shared a stand at an airshow with the larger Vixen 850E, but that is the only link between that radar & Gripen. SAAB has released CGI of Gripen with a swash plate mounted array which looks a little larger than that of the 850E. None of this is definite, & I've not found a published statement from either firm which gives a figure, but we now have this article in Flight, in which a reputable journalist who has spoken to both SAAB & Selex says explicitly that the Vixen 1000E is the basis for the new radar.

That is consistent with all the good (as distinct from demonstrably false) previous information, & as far as I am concerned settles it. The number of TRMS is approximately 1000.


I never heard of the Vixen 1000E??? Is that the new name of the Gripen NG Radar or is it based on that Radar??? Also, do you have a direwct source that says the Gripen Radar does in fact have 1000 T/R Modules? If, so could you provide it??? Seems like alot for such a small aircraft???:confused:

[Crusader2000]

Well, define success and define Gripen NG.

The Gripen C/D is IMV the best bang for buck you can buy from a Western nation. The Swedish Air Force looks set to be lead customer on many of the technologies on future iterations of the Gripen concept with the E/F, particularly on the avionics side. . Tailoring the capabilities package to the customer instead of going full toe-to-toe with the JSF, trying to match it across the board, which makes it too expensive to the really cost-sensitive customer. And it's really tough to compete on capability with the JSF.

Perhaps letting the customer buy a basic package C/D package with selective focus with peak performance in some areas and with an option to add later developments is the way (?).

I'd suggest integrating Brimstone for interdiction/CAS and Meteor/Iris-T for air-air on the basic C/D package and you'd have a potential seller to many Central European NATO members. Meteor/Iris-T are already in pipeline and Brimstone, although complex to integrate, is doable without breaking the bank.

Basically what the Czechs/Hungarians will be doing. Then there are the Swiss, Croats, et al.of course, who are also looking at C/Ds.

It is possible Brazil or India may choose GNG. ToT and offsets are a great assets here; I wouldn't dismiss the GNG...

Perhaps it's a question of what it'll look like, more than if it gets orders.

And SAAB does have focus on the future with their deep participation in nEUROn.



I would define success as winning an export ORDER! Hopefully, with some reasonable numbers to boot........

[Vivendi]

I never heard of the Vixen 1000E??? Is that the new name of the Gripen NG Radar or is it based on that Radar??? Also, do you have a direwct source that says the Gripen Radar does in fact have 1000 T/R Modules? If, so could you provide it??? Seems like alot for such a small aircraft???:confused:
1. It seems Selex consistently name their radars according to the number of T/R modules; Vixen 500 has 500 modules, Vixen 850 has 850 modules. It is quite reasonable to assume that Vixen 1000 will have around 1000 modules.

2. It is well known that the diameter of the current Gripen radar is 600 mm. As demonstrated by GD, a 600 mm diameter radar should be able to fit a tad more than 1000 modules.

3. Saab has stated earlier that the Gripen NG will have an AESA with "1000-1200 modules", I have never seen any reference to 500 modules (apart from the one that Swerve referred to, and as he explained that was based on a misunderstanding.)

You are right in stating that Gripen is small; it cannot have as many modules in its AESA radar as e.g. the Typhoon. However it can fit a 1000 modules radar, and the new Vixen 1000E radar seems to be it.

Vivendi

[swerve]

I wonder what Selex & SAAB will show at Paris next week?

[Crusader2000]

I wonder what Selex & SAAB will show at Paris next week?



Well, hopefully they will clarify the number of T/R Modules. Along with a few other un-answered questions?

[swerve]

Well, hopefully they will clarify the number of T/R Modules. Along with a few other un-answered questions?
That has already been clarified. As you have been told - twice - the name gives the approximate number, as closely as we're ever likely to know. Selex is completely open & explicit about the naming convention for the Vixen series, & 1000E means about 1000 TRMs, as 500E has 500 TRMs & 850E has 850 TRMs. There is no unanswered question about the number.

What other questions do you refer to?

You're uncannily reminiscent of someone calling himself Scooter on the Key Publishing Forum, especially on this topic. Your grammar, syntax & punctuation resemble his, as well as the content of your posts.

[Crusader2000]

That has already been clarified. As you have been told - twice - the name gives the approximate number, as closely as we're ever likely to know. Selex is completely open & explicit about the naming convention for the Vixen series, & 1000E means about 1000 TRMs, as 500E has 500 TRMs & 850E has 850 TRMs. There is no unanswered question about the number.

What other questions do you refer to?

You're uncannily reminiscent of someone calling himself Scooter on the Key Publishing Forum, especially on this topic. Your grammar, syntax & punctuation resemble his, as well as the content of your posts.


Simple Question?

[tphuang]

i don't like it's chances. Right now, Gripen has the added advantage of being cheaper than many options out there, very capable and works really well in a network with Erieye. But going forward, it's simply just going to be less capable than the fighters on tap and also might not be that much cheaper due to a much more limited production run than something like F-35 or PAK-FA. Right now, it can still beat out F-16 in some cases for countries that are looking for fighters with limited range, but how can it beat out F-35? Any country that has embargo issues with F-35 is also going to have it with Gripen.

[Crusader2000]

i don't like it's chances. Right now, Gripen has the added advantage of being cheaper than many options out there, very capable and works really well in a network with Erieye. But going forward, it's simply just going to be less capable than the fighters on tap and also might not be that much cheaper due to a much more limited production run than something like F-35 or PAK-FA. Right now, it can still beat out F-16 in some cases for countries that are looking for fighters with limited range, but how can it beat out F-35? Any country that has embargo issues with F-35 is also going to have it with Gripen.


Well, what competition does the Gripen NG have fair odds of winning??? :confused:

[gf0012-aust]

Well, what competition does the Gripen NG have fair odds of winning??? :confused:

If you have access to DefenceNews for June 1 2009 then there is an article which indicates that Gripen may well struggle for future fighter sales.

Mig is seen as dying out. Typhoon and Rafale are regarded as having a longer surivival time frame due to MLU issues and existing orders.

Brazil and India will determine the survival and viability of a few smaller aviation companies.

[Crusader2000]

If you have access to DefenceNews for June 1 2009 then there is an article which indicates that Gripen may well struggle for future fighter sales.

Mig is seen as dying out. Typhoon and Rafale are regarded as having a longer surivival time frame due to MLU issues and existing orders.

Brazil and India will determine the survival and viability of a few smaller aviation companies.

Thanks,

I'll check it out:D

[swerve]

Well, hopefully they will clarify the number of T/R Modules. Along with a few other un-answered questions?
I repeat: what other questions do you refer to?

[Crusader2000]

I repeat: what other questions do you refer to?


We know almost nothing about the Radar. Other than its part Selex and part SAAB. Unless, something has just recently been released???

[Grand Danois]

We know almost nothing about the Radar. Other than its part Selex and part SAAB. Unless, something has just recently been released???

And that since Selex is consistent with its product names for the E-series of radars it's going to use 1000 modules.

It is for you to carry the argument that this is implausible - can you do that?

[Crusader2000]

And that since Selex is consistent with its product names for the E-series of radars it's going to use 1000 modules.

It is for you to carry the argument that this is implausible - can you do that?

It may well in fact have 1000 T/R Modules. Yet, I don't think its unreasonable to ask for a offical source. Plus, the fact we have no information on its capabilities what so ever???



Hardly, a unreasonable request or I would at least hope not???


Respecfully,

[Grand Danois]

It may well in fact have 1000 T/R Modules. Yet, I don't think its unreasonable to ask for a offical source. Plus, the fact we have no information on its capabilities what so ever???



Hardly, a unreasonable request or I would at least hope not???


Respecfully,

Selex-Saab has only been official for about 2 months and their chosen path even less time than that.

What to expect? The APG-63(v)2 (and perhaps 3?) gives clues on what happens when integrating an AESA array on an older back end. You get same capability plus a little more - plus the reliability and TCO savings, if the production run is large enough.

So expect the same modes plus some extra, e.g. better Pd vs low rcs targets.

Module cost, previously the main reason to reduce mmics numbers, is not really an issue any more and weight/space requirement are almost the same regardless of module count.

More will be known, this is to early to demand specifics.

[Crusader2000]

Selex-Saab has only been official for about 2 months and their chosen path even less time than that.

What to expect? The APG-63(v)2 (and perhaps 3?) gives clues on what happens when integrating an AESA array on an older back end. You get same capability plus a little more - plus the reliability and TCO savings, if the production run is large enough.

So expect the same modes plus some extra, e.g. better Pd vs low rcs targets.

Module cost, previously the main reason to reduce mmics numbers, is not really an issue any more and weight/space requirement are almost the same regardless of module count.

More will be known, this is to early to demand specifics.


I clearly understand it early in its development and I don't expect specifics. Yet, that doesn't mean I have to go along with other "Members" making claims that it has this many modules or it can do this or that.

Personally, I 've seen nothing in my remarks that could be considered "unreasonable".

Respectfully

[swerve]

We know almost nothing about the Radar. Other than its part Selex and part SAAB. Unless, something has just recently been released???
And that it's a swash-plate design -
PARIS AIR SHOW: Gripping Gripen (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/07/327209/paris-air-show-gripping-gripen.html)

But Scooter, you've already been given that link, & many others, including Selex & Saab official statements, on another forum. BTW, how's the weather in Tampa?

[Crusader2000]

And that it's a swash-plate design -
PARIS AIR SHOW: Gripping Gripen (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/07/327209/paris-air-show-gripping-gripen.html)

But Scooter, you've already been given that link, & many others, including Selex & Saab official statements, on another forum. BTW, how's the weather in Tampa?


I see the usual sarcasm is the same regardless which forum your on....


Regardless, I doesn't state the SAAB / Selex Radar has 1000 T/R Modules nor really anythng about its performance does it????

So, as always I don't see your point......

In short we know nothing........

Same story again and again.......;)


Respectfully

[swerve]

I see the usual sarcasm is the same regardless which forum your on....

Regardless, I doesn't state the SAAB / Selex Radar has 1000 T/R Modules nor really anythng about its performance does it????
That isn't sarcasm.

It has been explained to you that Selex has a consistent, & publicly stated, naming system for the Vixen family of radars. Do you dispute that? According to that (consistent, publicly stated) system, the Vixen 1000E has about 1000 modules. Do you understand that?

[Crusader2000]

That isn't sarcasm.

It has been explained to you that Selex has a consistent, & publicly stated, naming system for the Vixen family of radars. Do you dispute that? According to that (consistent, publicly stated) system, the Vixen 1000E has about 1000 modules. Do you understand that?


I dispute we have facts.............You assume because its called the Vixen 1000 E it has 1000 T/R Modules. Which, may in fact be the case. As I have said over and over. We've heard a great deal of speculation (500, 750, 850, 1000) with nothing specific coming from Selex nor SAAB.


Clearly, it not unreasonable to say "lets wait for something" more definitive...

[gf0012-aust]

IAs I have said over and over. We've heard a great deal of speculation (500, 750, 850, 1000) with nothing specific coming from Selex nor SAAB.



DefenceNews June 1. Article on Future combat aircraft, including Gripen, SAAB, their future and Selex

Its hardcopy only as we don't get the digital version, so I can't paste to here. I'm also not going to copy type 5000 words manually. - as you'd appreciate :)

[Crusader2000]

DefenceNews June 1. Article on Future combat aircraft, including Gripen, SAAB, their future and Selex

Its hardcopy only as we don't get the digital version, so I can't paste to here. I'm also not going to copy type 5000 words manually. - as you'd appreciate :)



Well, is it from Defense News or another site and what does it say???

[Scorpion82]

Try this one Scooter
PARIS AIR SHOW: Gripping Gripen (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/07/327209/paris-air-show-gripping-gripen.html)

The most important passages about the Gripen NGs radar are:
from later this year, an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar: Selex Galileo's Vixen 1000E/ES05 Raven.

Bob Mason, Selex Galileo's executive vice-president, radar and advanced targeting, says the Vixen 1000E's advantage comes from the use of a swashplate mounting, which enables the active array to be rotated by +/-100°. This beats a fixed AESA during beyond visual-range and off-boresight missile firings, and while acquiring synthetic aperture radar imagery, he says. "We will be delivering a prototype this year for them to fly, and then will upgrade it over the next 18 months."

And here something about the relation of the Vixen and its modules:
AESA Radars Are A Highlight of Aero-India | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/AESA031009.xml)
Its Vixen series of forward-looking radars, banned by the U.S. from South Korea’s F/A-50, also received a launch order from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, with the 500-module Vixen 500 to be integrated on Cessna Citations.

[Crusader2000]

Try this one Scooter
PARIS AIR SHOW: Gripping Gripen (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/07/327209/paris-air-show-gripping-gripen.html)

The most important passages about the Gripen NGs radar are:




And here something about the relation of the Vixen and its modules:
AESA Radars Are A Highlight of Aero-India | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/AESA031009.xml)


What does it say about the number of T/R Modules in the Gripens NG AESA Radar???

[Grand Danois]

What does it say about the number of T/R Modules in the Gripens NG AESA Radar???

It's a strawman & you know it.

[Crusader2000]

It's a strawman & you know it.



Sorry, you totally lost me???

[swerve]

Sorry, you totally lost me???
We have to make a decision here. Do you really have the problems with processing information that you claim, or are you pretending?

I have some difficulties with accepting the former. After all, you can use a computer. It's hard to see how someone as dim as you are acting could manage that.

[Scorpion82]

What does it say about the number of T/R Modules in the Gripens NG AESA Radar???

Again:
with the 500-module Vixen 500

It says the Vixen 500 has 500 T/R modules, is it that difficult to understand that the Vixen 1000 has 1000 modules?

And once again:
from later this year, an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar: Selex Galileo's Vixen 1000E/ES05 Raven.

Vixwn 1000E for the Gripen NG (antenna) which certainly has 1000 modules.

Another older source:
Ericsson AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) is a new airborne radar project currently in development. This radar is utilizing new, active phased- array technology involving 1,000 or more transmitter/receiver modules.

http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/B6AC635C-3417-437D-B3BE-61D4788008AB/0/gripen_news_1998_01.pdf

If you still don't get it, so be it, but never ask for a source again.

[Crusader2000]

Again:


It says the Vixen 500 has 500 T/R modules, is it that difficult to understand that the Vixen 1000 has 1000 modules?

And once again:


Vixen 1000E for the Gripen NG (antenna) which certainly has 1000 modules.

Another older source:


http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/B6AC635C-3417-437D-B3BE-61D4788008AB/0/gripen_news_1998_01.pdf

If you still don't get it, so be it, but never ask for a source again.


Again, all I said is I would like to see a official source. Nothing hard about that......Further, I did concede many times that it would likely have that many T/R Modules. Just that we have seen nothing to confirm that number yet.................


Personally, I think "some" just want to fight over nothing...............What you can't wait a little while for Selex or SAAB to confirm the number?????


BTW The source you did provide in extremely old and clearly is not the Selex / SAAB 1000E. As the colboration between the latter two was just signed recently for its development..................

[Grand Danois]

BTW The source you did provide in extremely old and clearly is not the Selex / SAAB 1000E. As the colboration between the latter two was just signed recently for its development..................

LOLs, just like it was originally planned to manufacture 3.2 mn modules for 2856 JSF (c. 1100 modules per radar), yet on the CATBIRD it flies with a fully populated dish - c. 2,000.

[Crusader2000]

LOLs, just like it was originally planned to manufacture 3.2 mn modules for 2856 JSF (c. 1100 modules per radar), yet on the CATBIRD it flies with a fully populated dish - c. 2,000.

Well, that just proves my point...............for all we know the Gripen NG AESA Radar may have 1100 T/R Modules or more and not the much discussed 1000???? Who know's.........


Personally, I am dumbfounded that this is a issue at all............Just wait and see.

[Grand Danois]

Well, that just proves my point...............for all we know the Gripen NG AESA Radar may have 1100 T/R Modules or more and not the much discussed 1000???? Who know's.........


Personally, I am dumbfounded that this is a issue at all............Just wait and see.

You're the one making it an issue.

[Crusader2000]

You're the one making it an issue.

How am I making it a issue??? Because, I want to see a official number. Instead of agreeing with other members assumptions???

Regardless, this is all just a big waste of time.............As I have said over and over again. When a official source states it has "X" amount of T/R Modules. I'll be happy to accept number whatever it is..........850, 950, 1000, 1100, or whatever............

[Grand Danois]

How am I making it a issue??? Because, I want to see a official number. Instead of agreeing with other members assumptions???


You're making a strawman by demanding specifics which you cannot get - not on the APG-81 nor the Gripen AESA. You wish to use your strawman to dismiss legit discussion on what an AESA for Gripen will be from existing and valid data points.

This is the format of such discussions on public forums.

[Scorpion82]

Again, all I said is I would like to see a official source. Nothing hard about that......Further, I did concede many times that it would likely have that many T/R Modules. Just that we have seen nothing to confirm that number yet.................


Personally, I think "some" just want to fight over nothing...............What you can't wait a little while for Selex or SAAB to confirm the number?????


BTW The source you did provide in extremely old and clearly is not the Selex / SAAB 1000E. As the colboration between the latter two was just signed recently for its development..................

Are you incapble of summing up 1 and 1? The sources I provided tell you:
1.) Saab & partners ever aimed at a 1000+ modules AESA for the Gripen
2.) The number in the Vixen's name stands for the number of modules
3.) The 1000E antenna is used aboard the Gripen's AESA radar, hence 1000 modules.

From the other forum I know that you expressed your disbelieve in the ~1000 TRM figure. Now you have been provided with countless sources and explainations, but despite all these facts you still play (?) the dumb man. I seriously wonder how you can come to any conclusion about aircraft like the F-35.

[Crusader2000]

You're making a strawman by demanding specifics which you cannot get - not on the APG-81 nor the Gripen AESA. You wish to use your strawman to dismiss legit discussion on what an AESA for Gripen will be from existing and valid data points.

This is the format of such discussions on public forums.


How could I dismiss anything??? :confused: The rest of the members of the forum are "free" to believe whatever they want and to debate the issue for eternity if they like.............


Sorry, I see nothing to debate.....


If, you on the otherhand do. Feel free to debate other members of the preceived performance of the Selex/SAAB 1000E compared to whatever???


Hardly, matter to me................

[Grand Danois]

Hardly, matter to me................

Since you don't accept the format of reasoned discussion, it may be for the best if you didn't commit to one. Particularly if it doesn't hold your interest.

[Crusader2000]

Are you incapble of summing up 1 and 1? The sources I provided tell you:
1.) Saab & partners ever aimed at a 1000+ modules AESA for the Gripen
2.) The number in the Vixen's name stands for the number of modules
3.) The 1000E antenna is used aboard the Gripen's AESA radar, hence 1000 modules.

From the other forum I know that you expressed your disbelieve in the ~1000 TRM figure. Now you have been provided with countless sources and explainations, but despite all these facts you still play (?) the dumb man. I seriously wonder how you can come to any conclusion about aircraft like the F-35.

Just in the last few days has it come out that the New Gripen NG AESA Radar is to be called the Vixen 1000E. Which, many assume it will have 1000 T/R Modules because of its designation. Which, "I have" concede is likely correct. Yet, I prefer to see something more official or at least more reliable.....

Also, in my defense you have to admit there was a fair amount of speculation over these past few weeks. With one member of this very debate stating the Gripen NG Radar would have 850 T/R Modules!?!?!?. Really, I've heard anything from 500 to 1200! So, shoot me for being somewhat of a sceptic....:rolleyes:


Regardless, I have no further interest is stating my opinion for the twentieth time...............believe what you will.


Respectfully

[Scorpion82]

Just in the last few days has it come out that the New Gripen NG AESA Radar is to be called the Vixen 1000E. Which, many assume it will have 1000 T/R Modules because of its designation. Which, "I have" concede is likely correct. Yet, I prefer to see something more official or at least more reliable.....

Also, in my defense you have to admit there was a fair amount of speculation over these past few weeks. With one member of this very debate stating the Gripen NG Radar would have 850 T/R Modules!?!?!?. Really, I've heard anything from 500 to 1200! So, shoot me for being somewhat of a sceptic....:rolleyes:


Reagardless, I have no further interest is stating my opinion for the twenty time...............believe what you will.


Respectfully

Those who deal with the Gripen longer and more intensive are aware of the ~1000 TRM figure since years, it is true that at that time no real AESA radar existed for the Gripen. What you call speculation was in fact based on the manufacturers claims already made years ago, however. The more current sources (also offical ones) confirm exactly that. And as GD said, if you have no interest in the matter simply stay away and stick with what interests you.

[swerve]

How am I making it a issue??? Because, I want to see a official number. Instead of agreeing with other members assumptions???

Regardless, this is all just a big waste of time.............As I have said over and over again. When a official source states it has "X" amount of T/R Modules. I'll be happy to accept number whatever it is..........850, 950, 1000, 1100, or whatever............
You'll never get such an official number, & you know it. The best you'll get is an approximation, & you already have that. It's approximately 1000.

Everyone else agrees on this. It is only an issue because you dispute it, & demand an unobtainable "official" precise number.

[Crusader2000]

You'll never get such an official number, & you know it. The best you'll get is an approximation, & you already have that. It's approximately 1000.

Everyone else agrees on this. It is only an issue because you dispute it, & demand an unobtainable "official" precise number.



So, the T/R Modules Numbers released for the APG-79 and APG-80 are not official???