The F-16 replacement of the Royal Netherlands Airforce.

[IPA35]

I need you opinions on this.

We currently own 86 F-16's that need to be replaced.
The MoD's favourite is 85 F-35A's but it is getting clear that we are not able to affor 85 units, it has leaked that we will onlky be able to buy and operate 55 planes and that while we might be able to buy the other planes we will not be able to operate them.
The F-35 budget was around 6 billion for the purchase and 10 for 30 years of service.
SAAB offered their Gripen NG at 5 + 5 billion BTW.

So what do you people think that's the best solution?
Feel free to suggest more then 1 type.

[zeven]

You guys are second tie partner in the project, so i can't see you picking someting els. and i strongly believe the competetion is only there because it needs to be. so its really no reason to debate it! I do have my personal opinion on the matter and which platform that suits you best. but thats another story. F-35 will be your new platform

[IPA35]

Hhmmm, it is not yet decided and the F-35 is getting more and more negative media attention over here.

But what do we want to do with 40 aircraft?!
Equip 2 squadrons, close an AFB and place some in the US for training?

Let's say we want a 1 on 1 replacement of the F-16, as planned.
What's you opinion?

[B3LA]

Unfortunately, the safety umbrella of ol' Uncle Sam does not come cheap these days.
The Netherlands have to pay its part by participating in the F-35 project and then
maintain as many of the bombers as possible.
In the worst case scenario, (where the Bear wakes up in a foul mood), the F-22s will
clear the skies for you, and then all of NATOs F-35s will go on deep strike missions
carrying tactical nukes.
I can't see any other risk assessments for Netherlands, why do you need an air force anyway ?
Are those naughty Belgians arming up again ? :rolleyes:

[Grand Danois]

Ahhh the unsubstantiated "JSF is a bomber" myth once more.

The very abridged answer to your question is the ability to escalate - this will make a country like Russia - or other believers in hard security hesitate.

[IPA35]

No, the Belgians are currently destroying their military...
We should not follow their path.

40 planes is far too few:sleepy2

We could buy like 2 squadrons of F-35's but we would still need 85 planes so we would have to buy something else...

IMO

[Stampe]

First post on this interesting board.

As for the Dutch and the JSF, I think that Jack de vries and the entire Netherlands Air forces are pretty much deathset in going for the JSF.
Even 56 will be hard for the NLAF to maintain, they"ll probably get the numbers but will budget yearly flying hours for 48 frames or so.

It is very likely that the Dutch will once again be flying 2 frontline fighter types (as they did in the F104/F5 years) with a number of the lowest hour F16 frames going through a second type of MLU update ,probably with the LM option of doubling framelife from 4000 to 8000hrs, which will keep them up and running until atleast 2030 or 2035.
48 JSF + 8 factual reserve together with 24 or 36 F-16's will still be a very potent force and will give the Air Force the option of budgetting for extra/newer JSF's 15 to 20 years from now.

It's probably not the politicians that are going to kill the dream of owning 86 JSF from the start but more likely the other forces who just won't put up with it.
The ARMY and NAVY are both very opposed to the JSF and the effects it will have in the following years on the budget and with the current Chief of Staff they have a very strong allie on their sides.

the only thing wich for now seems to play in favor of the JSF is the dollar-Euro value now
First Joint Strike Fighter Test Aircraft Cheaper (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/110077/first-dutch-jsf-cheaper-than-budgeted.html)
First Joint Strike Fighter Test Aircraft Cheaper


(Source: Netherlands Ministry of Defense, issued November 19, 2009)



The first F-35 (JSF) test aircraft [for the Netherlands] is 13.5 million euros cheaper than anticipated, because the current value of the dollar is lower than the budgeted rate, State Secretary Jack De Vries reported today in a letter to the House.

[IPA35]

I actually calculated the Japanese offer...
The said 9 billion yen for 40 planes, that like 68 million euro's each.
Now that's pretty impossible...


I'd rather see 2 squadrons of the JSF and 3 of the Gripen NG, the F-16 ARE getting too old.
And the Gripen is better and heaper to operate then the F-16 block 60.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I actually calculated the Japanese offer...
The said 9 billion yen for 40 planes, that like 68 million euro's each.
Now that's pretty impossible...

Not when you include through life support, weapons, training and spares (which has to be budgeted for. To put it in perspective the RAAF has purchased 24 F/A-18F's and budgeted $6 billion AUD, but the actually cost of the platforms was $2.7 Billion AUD. The rest is through life support.


And the Gripen is better then the F-16 block 60.

Really? How so? AFAIK the block 60 out performs the Gripen in almost every PI, INCLUDING cost.

[IPA35]

I meant the NG.
I read somewhere F-16 costs like 3600$ per flight hour and a Gripen NG 2500$.
But please correct me, if it is true new F-16's could complement the small number of F-35's.
Prehaps less conversion training would be needed since already own F-16's.
(AFAIK all are block 20 MLU's.)

[Toptob]

I didnt even think about a two type solution. But it sounds pretty good. To bad we sold our good F-16's, but it sounds like a realistic solution.

However, i'd rather see a 1 type solution with another plane. Maybe gripen, but atleast something with some decent ofsets for industry. But we in the NL seem to be allergic to support our own economy and rather sell anything off to some fat Yanks or crazy Germans who strip it and sell it. Thats the new poldermodel.

But none of this is going to happen. I think the KLU should be happy if they receive one squadron in the end. The surrender monkey's on the left rather see no armed forces at all and spend it all on invalids and eastern europeans who come here to get some welfare!

oh and the airforce had already decided to buy the F-35 before the Americans even thought of it. They're just sluts for american materiel.

[quote]'s probably not the politicians that are going to kill the dream of owning 86 JSF from the start but more likely the other forces who just won't put up with it.
The ARMY and NAVY are both very opposed to the JSF and the effects it will have in the following years on the budget and with the current Chief of Staff they have a very strong allie on their sides.[/quote}

could you explain some more about the politics behind the scene's ?

grtz Rob

[IPA35]

AFAIK we kept the F-16's with the lowest flight hours (block 20's only?).

We now all know that there are no funds to operate 85 F-35's (JSFNieuws/Reporter doco).
I agree the politicians are incompetent pacifists, although not all your agruments are valid;)
Sooner or later they'll probably tell us we an't afford a military and they'll create a EU military:D

I really like the Gripen for it's STOL capabilities, including the way the Swedes operate these planes.
(land on road, refuel, rearm...)
That gives it the edge over the block 60 to me, unless we take the F-35B, but that's very unlikely and expensive.


People always tell me two types is too expensive, but let's face it, it's far cheaper then operating 85 F-35A's...
And only the Gripen NG might not be capabel enough for all types of missions.

[Stampe]

's probably not the politicians that are going to kill the dream of owning 86 JSF from the start but more likely the other forces who just won't put up with it.
The ARMY and NAVY are both very opposed to the JSF and the effects it will have in the following years on the budget and with the current Chief of Staff they have a very strong allie on their sides.

could you explain some more about the politics behind the scene's ?

grtz Rob

Just like in most other Armed Forces there exists an everlasting , yearly returning, fight about the division of funds for the procurement of new or more weapon-systems and others.
IIRC in most NATO countries about 15-20% of the DoD budget goes to purchases, in this case the Air Forces of the NLu need a disproportionate percentage to fund the new fighter, be it JSF or whatever else.
This obviously will cut deeply in the available budget and will leave the NAVY and ARMY postponing or altogether abandoning plans for their own new weapon systems which might be equally necessary

Also there is a big conflict between the Air Force and the NAVY, both use big and very unit-expensive weapon-systems, the AF these days relies heavily on foreign (read US) manufacturers and in a lesser degree on Dutch suppliers:partners in the JSF projects while the NAVY basically has to support an almost entirely internal Dutch military shipbuilder economy.
Political pressure to favor the Navy will be all the bigger for it.

Getting their dream of 86 JSF's from the start will proof to be impossible, that's why they are willing to put up with a very slow rate of writing of the old and trusted F16, which ,with the necessary upgrades, could very well do part of the job for 25-30 more years.
Effectively giving a 2 type fighter air force for the next decades.

Their is also another big reason and it is a purely practical one.
The JSF (as the F22 before) is an exclusive 1 seater, this means that many training missions will have to be flown with 1 or more extra planes (for the instructor - senior pilot).
This can be problematic for little air forces (like most European ones are in comparison with the US).

Eg, IIRC in the early 2000's we had 10860 total yearly flying hours on the F16 fleet in Kleine Brogel (Tiger squadron).
It is absolutely vital to use these hours as efficiently as possible and to make every single one count.
Young or low hour pilots need a lot of training and therefore we need the F16B actually more than the A-type.
EG; If you fly to the gun range and have to do a 15° nose down 1000kph Vulcan cannon gun-run for the first time you need an instructor in the back as a backup.
In case of the F35 you need at least another instructor following and shadowing you all the way through the run.

Many times a two seater adds to the efficient use of allocated flying time and more specifically training and instructor time (which if the hours are all used up in October or so will lead to the fleet being grounded for the rest of the fiscal year)

This is a serious handicap in the JSF (and F22) which can partly be overcome by newer , more modern simulators but ultimately actual flying hours remain critical.
Even the USAF keeps its newest jets on the same base as their older F15's or F16's to overcome this shortfall.

I really like the Gripen for it's STOL capabilities, including the way the Swedes operate these planes.
(land on road, refuel, rearm...)
That gives it the edge over the block 60 to me, unless we take the F-35B, but that's very unlikely and expensive.


Most of these nifty features like the ability to TO+Land on short improvised runways can also be done by the F16 if the need arises, however it is not a good enough reason to go for the Gripen.
these abilities are virtually useless for the Dutch.
The "low hours F16's" can be upgraded (higher hours airframe ,better radar and CFT if the need exists) so much so that the Gripen would only be equally capable with the modernised F16 at best.

One of the best reasons Air Forces all over the world go for US equipment is the knowledge that
the US aviation defense industry is committed to constantly upgrade almost every system on active airframes.
That's why US 30+ years old designs still are at the top when it comes to combat effectiveness , level of technology and cost efficiency of use.

A shrill contrast with older European systems that where outright innovative at their time of conception but gradually lost their edge due to the inefficient follow up programs (Jaguar/Tornado/F1/....).

I hope these days us Europeans realize that when we've made the choice to field something as big and important as a new fighter plane we have to stick with it over its entire lifespan, constantly improving upon the design.
Saab seems to have understood this vital lesson.

[Aussie Digger]

Unfortunately, the safety umbrella of ol' Uncle Sam does not come cheap these days.
The Netherlands have to pay its part by participating in the F-35 project and then
maintain as many of the bombers as possible.
In the worst case scenario, (where the Bear wakes up in a foul mood), the F-22s will
clear the skies for you, and then all of NATOs F-35s will go on deep strike missions
carrying tactical nukes.
I can't see any other risk assessments for Netherlands, why do you need an air force anyway ?
Are those naughty Belgians arming up again ? :rolleyes:

The F-35 is no more a bomber than the Eurofighter Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale, Super Hornet or even SU-30 is.

It is a multi-role fighter aircraft.

[B3LA]

It's a jack-of-all-trades. Jacks usually do all things reasonable well, but they do not outperform dedicated experts.
It's a compromise where the highest priority have been given to low frontal observation from ground based radar.

[Palnatoke]

In my mind this comes down to money:

Austria bought (a few) Eurofighters for a unit price of Euro 63M. This included quite extended service contracts.

SAAB has apparently offered DK 48 Gripen NG for 22B DKkr (that's 62M Euro per unit) (includes pilot training, simulators and 20 years full life cycle costs).

What will be the price of the F35? What will be the exchange rate between dollar-Euro in 5-10 years from now?

We don't know, the people behind the F35 are either unable or unwilling to quote a pricetag (that should raise some alarmbells for people that got an ounce of brain left) estimates as far as I can see range from around dollars 60M to 120M.

Let's assume worst case scenario - that's only fair when the dealers won't cite a price (they probably have a reason for not wanting to cough up a price estimate) That's dollars 120M per plane. Let's assume that when these money are to be paid the dollar has strengthen herself to 90% of a Euro (that's not unreasonable) then the euro price for a F35 is 108M!!!!!!!!!

I don't know whether these price estimates are realistic at all. I am uncertain that anybody knows the final price tag to any reasonable degree of certainty, since it all depends on how many planes the US are going to end up buying.
I do know that the number of planes that the US is going to buy is governed by the following simple equation:

Number =Budget/unit_price

In other words, if the price (per unit) goes up, the only way to maintain the number (of airplanes) is to increase the budget - we can then ask ourselves wheter we think that the Obama administration (or another administration) will increase the budget in the face of/or aftermath of an financial crisis, State finances that look terrible, a huge debt and a tradebalance that's really looking awfull? Notice that, assuming constant budget, an increase in unit_price leads to a decrease in number, which directly translates into a higher unit_price: That's a downward spiral.
As far as I know the original buisness case proposed by LM, envisioned possible sales of 5000-6000 F35s, to this day many partner nations use a sales figure of 4500-6000 F35s.
Even the low number seems pretty high to me, and will undoubtably be very sensible to increases in unit price..

The important thing here is that a number of NATO countries are running a huge financial risc in this adventure. For them the F35 is intended to be the one and only plane and many (let's just say all) these countries are not very hot on increasing their defense spendings. End result can be few flying F35 - which will be hugely expensive to operate per unit since much of the costs are relatively fixed. Ofcourse should the price tag prove to be too much, other airplanes can be considered - though that's perhaps not an option since these manufactors will have scaled their operations under the impression of a smaller market.
And in my oppinion this is why you don't get tangible price estimates out of LM - they want to keep the bowl stiring - and suffocate the competitors.

Also since we don't get tangible price estimates out of LM, we can take that as a sign that LM fears that their plane is not financially competiative. They must fear that disclosing price estimates will open up for competion, that potential buyers will get scared off and head for existing alternatives while time is.
At this advanced state a competent firm like LM must have a pretty good idea what the F35 will cost per unit as a function of total ordered planes - it must.

[Grand Danois]

In my mind this comes down to money:

Austria bought (a few) Eurofighters for a unit price of Euro 63M. This included quite extended service contracts.

SAAB has apparently offered DK 48 Gripen NG for 22B DKkr (that's 62M Euro per unit) (includes pilot training, simulators and 20 years full life cycle costs).

What will be the price of the F35? What will be the exchange rate between dollar-Euro in 5-10 years from now?

We don't know, the people behind the F35 are either unable or unwilling to quote a pricetag (that should raise some alarmbells for people that got an ounce of brain left) estimates as far as I can see range from around dollars 60M to 120M.

Let's assume worst case scenario - that's only fair when the dealers won't cite a price (they probably have a reason for not wanting to cough up a price estimate) That's dollars 120M per plane. Let's assume that when these money are to be paid the dollar has strengthen herself to 90% of a Euro (that's not unreasonable) then the euro price for a F35 is 108M!!!!!!!!!

I don't know whether these price estimates are realistic at all. I am uncertain that anybody knows the final price tag to any reasonable degree of certainty, since it all depends on how many planes the US are going to end up buying.
I do know that the number of planes that the US is going to buy is governed by the following simple equation:

Number =Budget/unit_price

In other words, if the price (per unit) goes up, the only way to maintain the number (of airplanes) is to increase the budget - we can then ask ourselves wheter we think that the Obama administration (or another administration) will increase the budget in the face of/or aftermath of an financial crisis, State finances that look terrible, a huge debt and a tradebalance that's really looking awfull? Notice that, assuming constant budget, an increase in unit_price leads to a decrease in number, which directly translates into a higher unit_price: That's a downward spiral.
As far as I know the original buisness case proposed by LM, envisioned possible sales of 5000-6000 F35s, to this day many partner nations use a sales figure of 4500-6000 F35s.
Even the low number seems pretty high to me, and will undoubtably be very sensible to increases in unit price..

The important thing here is that a number of NATO countries are running a huge finacial risc in this adventure. For them the F35 is intended to be the one and only plane and many (let's just say all) these countries are not very hot on increasing their defense spendings. End result can be few flying F35 - which will be hugely expensive to operate per unit since much of the costs are relatively fixed. Ofcourse should the price tag prove to be too much, other airplanes can be considered - though that's perhaps not an option since these manufactors will have scaled their operations under the impression of a smaller market.
And in my oppinion this is why you don't get tangible price estimates out of LM - they want to keep the bowl stiring - and suffocate the competitors.

Fer ferks sake that Dutch piece is a hack job - amateur hour - an epic fail. He doesn't understand the numbers, their background. He's unable to pass reasoned judgement based on knowledge, context and history of the source... a petty conspiracy theorist.

Will tear it apart when I have the time - sometime tomorrow. Have a job y'know. ;)

[Palnatoke]

Fer ferks sake that Dutch piece is a hack job - amateur hour - an epic fail. He doesn't understand the numbers, their background. He's unable to pass reasoned judgement based on knowledge, context and history of the source... a petty conspiracy theorist.

Will tear it apart when I have the time - sometime tomorrow.

quit the dutch guy, he doesn't interest me. Instead give me tangible estimates of the price of the F35, in different sales scenarios.


Have a job y'know. ;)

Yeah maybe I should return to my modelling of, funny enough, absence of workers at f_____styrelsen :o

[Grand Danois]

quit the dutch guy, he doesn't interest me. Instead give me tangible estimates of the price of the F35, in different sales scenarios.




Yeah maybe I should return to my modelling of, funny enough, absence of workers at f_____styrelsen :o

The Dutch guy is the source of what you wrote, not only that but you make a lot of allegations based on this, and now you want me to ignore him?!

And I dont work at f__styrelsen, if that's what you insinuate.

[B3LA]

Well...If you're worried over the future exchange rates, buy the Eurofighter :p:

Nobody knows of course, but it would seem that the US$ steadily looses it's importance globally.
If the oil producers abandons it (as the rumour say that they have discussed ), the only key players
who wants to keep it up will be the Chinese and those the US have borrowed money from.

The Americans themselves are not that interested in keeping it up. They want to print more of them instead.
Their current deficit and their immediate bleak future, their huge international loan burden points to that
the US$ will stay reasonable low for a longer period of time.

That is a good thing for all F-35 partners.

[Palnatoke]

The Dutch guy is the source of what you wrote. And I dont work at f__styrelsen, if that's what you insinuate.

No, the joke being that I skip work, which for the moment is to make a system to meassure abscence of the workers at one of our customers.

[Palnatoke]

Nobody knows of course, but it would seem that the US$ steadily looses it's importance globally.
If the oil producers abandons it (as the rumour say that they have discussed ), the only key players
who wants to keep it up will be the Chinese and those the US have borrowed money from.

The Americans themselves are not that interested in keeping it up. They want to print more of them instead.
Their current deficit and their immediate bleak future, their huge international loan burden points to that
the US$ will stay reasonable low for a longer period of time.

That is a good thing for all F-35 partners.


However you think the dollar will do, there remains a significant exchange rate risc.

[B3LA]

Sure.
So the only solution is finding a provider that either can offer
a fixed long term exchange rate or can sell them in €.

[Grand Danois]

No, the joke being that I skip work, which for the moment is to make a system to meassure abscence of the workers at one of our customers.

Ah, sorry. My English is obviously not as good as I thought. ;)

[IPA35]

I don't think that the ELU for our old F-16's is a real option, none else is doing it and we would still have those old planes that would need to be replaced a couple of years later anyway.

And why I prefer STOL?
That has something to do with my prefered doctrine.

[AndiPandi]

In my mind this comes down to money:

Austria bought (a few) Eurofighters for a unit price of Euro 63M. This included quite extended service contracts.

...


I think that figure is way to low, at least if you trust this source:

Eurofighter’s Rough Ride in Austria (updated) (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/eurofighter-set-for-rough-ride-in-austria-updated-02701/)


"Eventually, a grand coalition government was formed that pledged to resume negotiations with EADS, after a response from Eurofighter GmbH set Austria’s cost of cancellation at EUR 1.2 billion in return for zero aircraft. While those negotiations continued, the first Austrian Eurofighter flew, #2 was rolled out, #3-6 were in final assembly, and the rest kept advancing into partial assembly. Eventually, a EUR 1.63 billion compromise was set for 15 Tranche 1, Block 5 aircraft and support services."

Thats about € 109M per unit.

[Todjaeger]

I don't think that the ELU for our old F-16's is a real option, none else is doing it and we would still have those old planes that would need to be replaced a couple of years later anyway.

And why I prefer STOL?
That has something to do with my prefered doctrine.

STOL is a capability... Therefore I am curious as to your preference in air doctrine for a country like the Netherlands. Does it revolve around being able to have the RNLAF fighters operate from roads within the Netherlands, or is the desired intent more expeditionary in nature?

-Cheers

[IPA35]

Both actually, and yes I am more focussed on old fashioned defence rather then offense but we should have some expeditionary capabilies. And a STOL aircraft has much more choices where to operate from.
A question, is it possible for an advanced F-16 to be used in such a way?
But if we want to discuss this I could create a Part 2 of my old dutch defence thread soon.

[Palnatoke]

I think that figure is way to low, at least if you trust this source:

Eurofighter’s Rough Ride in Austria (updated) (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/eurofighter-set-for-rough-ride-in-austria-updated-02701/)


"Eventually, a grand coalition government was formed that pledged to resume negotiations with EADS, after a response from Eurofighter GmbH set Austria’s cost of cancellation at EUR 1.2 billion in return for zero aircraft. While those negotiations continued, the first Austrian Eurofighter flew, #2 was rolled out, #3-6 were in final assembly, and the rest kept advancing into partial assembly. Eventually, a EUR 1.63 billion compromise was set for 15 Tranche 1, Block 5 aircraft and support services."

Thats about € 109M per unit.

I thnk it depends on what you include in the price, my source, FLUG REVUE September 2003: Austria signs up for Eurofighter (http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH0309/FR0309d.htm) uses both numbers side by side (albeit that's the original 18).
That puts the SAAB gripen offer (which include 20 years full life cycle costs) in perspective.

[AndiPandi]

I thnk it depends on what you include in the price
....


Exactly, and the price you quoted was the fly-away cost (according to your own source), but you wrote that the price included a service package.

[swerve]

I think that figure is way to low, ...

"Eventually, a EUR 1.63 billion compromise was set for 15 Tranche 1, Block 5 aircraft and support services."

Thats about € 109M per unit.
Including spares, weapons, training, support, etc., & starting from a signed contract for more aircraft with penalties for full or partial cancellation. It may also include, like the original cost, interest charges.

[AndiPandi]

Including spares, weapons, training, support, etc., & starting from a signed contract for more aircraft with penalties for full or partial cancellation. It may also include, like the original cost, interest charges.

Never said anything else...

[Palnatoke]

Exactly, and the price you quoted was the fly-away cost (according to your own source), but you wrote that the price included a service package.

Yes, I stand correct. The quoted amount is the fly away cost.

The numbers seems to suggest that you can get gribenNG for nearly half of that of the eurofighter.

[longbow]

Both actually, and yes I am more focussed on old fashioned defence rather then offense but we should have some expeditionary capabilies. And a STOL aircraft has much more choices where to operate from.
A question, is it possible for an advanced F-16 to be used in such a way?
But if we want to discuss this I could create a Part 2 of my old dutch defence thread soon.

Yes, the RNoAF use their MLU'ed F-16's on short runways, its part of the doctrine to spread the airforce out among austere short-field airfields should the shit hit the fan. A powerfull engine and a braking-parachute give you a STOL capability. The Norwegian F-35's will also have a braking-parachute, so you could theoretically have a STOL-capability even with the F-35A.

[IPA35]

Good to knopw, thanks.

Now I would like to have some info on the costs of the Gripen NG and of the block 60:D
SAAB offered 85 NG's for 4.8 billion for the planes (and stuff) and and additional 4.8 billion for 30 years of service.
That seems like a very reasonable price, can the F-16 block 60 beat this?
And the Gripen uses less fuel, right?


So 3 squadrons of either the Gripen NG the new F-16's should be stationed at Volkel AB, the training should in the case of the F-16 stay where it as or when we would choose the Gripen it should be placed in Sweden or back here.
Two squadrons of F-35A's should be placed at Leeuwarden AB, one squadron would have a secondary training role.

Reasonable?
In price?

[Palnatoke]

IPA35

I have quoted what appears to be an official bid for 48 GripenNG above. Notice that it include substancial "services".

I think the main problem with gripen is that it's backed by a too small industry. There is a high risc that the plane's realistic update path is not adequate.

In regard to the F16s. IF extending the life of the F16s can make you jump a generation, so to speak, it's an obvious alternative, if not you are only postponing a problem.

[AndiPandi]

I think the main problem with gripen is that it's backed by a too small industry. There is a high risc that the plane's realistic update path is not adequate.


The Gripen NG is backed not only by SAAB but also by rather many american and british companies. For example did GE give away the two engines for the demo for free and many parts of the aircraft are bought from the shelf and are not limited to the Gripen only. Computers, HMS etc are bought of the shelf. The NG project is set up as an investment project where the different suppliers are sharing the risk with SAAB. The commitment from the Swedish government is also very solid. UK government is supporting SAABs effort in Brazil.

Its true that for the F-16 or the JSF some of the development cost for upgrades can be spread out on more customers and aircrafts but that calculation is not completely linear since there is a production cost for each engine, radar, sensor etc. Also, american military equipment tend to become very expensive quite often compared to the lean development taking place at SAAB. Some development costs can be shared by airforces flying other airplanes, for example the engine.

There is also much historic evidence that shows that a future upgrade of the Gripen wont be much more expensive (if at all) than for planes build in much higher numbers. The upgrade of the swedish A/B to C/D was 10% under budget and the flyaway cost of thoose aircrafts was not much higher than the original A/Bs. The upgrade from C/D to NG or E/F (or whatever the name will be) is not expensive either, SAAB has given several countries fixed and guaranteed prices that are not connected to how many planes SAAB will sell in total, and those prices are very competitive.

[IPA35]

I know the SAAB is very reasonably priced.

Anyone has a source on the UAE deal on the F-16E/F and it's operational costs??

[Palnatoke]

AndiPandi

Very interesting.

With JSF surposedly priced at 200M dollars, Gripen should have an increasing chance,
I mean, in my country paying 1.1 billion DKr for one airplane that the defense has a really hard time convincing the public that we really need, is probably not going to go down well with the ordinary man.

Though I fear that the generals and current goverment has made up their mind, so gripen's best chance is probably with the national audit and public oppinion.

[longbow]

I know the SAAB is very reasonably priced.

Anyone has a source on the UAE deal on the F-16E/F and it's operational costs??



This article says zero about cost, but still an interesting read if you like the Block 60:)

Code One Magazine: UAE Air Force/F-16 Block 60 — Fourth Quarter 2003 (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2003/articles/oct_03/uae/)

[longbow]

AndiPandi

Very interesting.

With JSF surposedly priced at 200M dollars, Gripen should have an increasing chance,
I mean, in my country paying 1.1 billion DKr for one airplane that the defense has a really hard time convincing the public that we really need, is probably not going to go down well with the ordinary man.

Though I fear that the generals and current goverment has made up their mind, so gripen's best chance is probably with the national audit and public oppinion.

200M??? This sounds like the Norway-deal all over, when the press compared the TCO cost of the F-35 to the unit price of the Gripen.. :confused:

[Palnatoke]

200M??? This sounds like the Norway-deal all over, when the press compared the TCO cost of the F-35 to the unit price of the Gripen.. :confused:

See the australien bid for 14 JSF. I don't know the details.

[Grand Danois]

AndiPandi

Very interesting.

With JSF surposedly priced at 200M dollars, Gripen should have an increasing chance,
I mean, in my country paying 1.1 billion DKr for one airplane that the defense has a really hard time convincing the public that we really need, is probably not going to go down well with the ordinary man.

Though I fear that the generals and current goverment has made up their mind, so gripen's best chance is probably with the national audit and public oppinion.

About 56 million USD fly-away - 200 million AUD is LRIP package UPC and introduction into service plus a lot of infrastructure (tools, shops, training, basing, personnel salaries, etc.)

This is "standard practice" in Australia, I refer you to the Shornet deal.

Official SAAB Gripen NG fly-away is 55 million USD (2008). This price may include some extra items though, can't remember everything. ;)

[IPA35]

4.8 + 4.8 = 9.6/85= Gripen TCO.
Unless this package is incomplete...


Also, how long will the block 60 or the Gripen stay effective in modern combat?
The Australians want to replace their newly ordered SH's in the 2020's already, I hope the planes that we would buy in this scenario will have a longer lifespan?


Anyone knows the F-35 TCO package includes maintainance by LM personell?
I prefer not to privatise the military TBH.

[Grand Danois]

4.8 + 4.8 = 9.6/85= Gripen TCO.
Unless this package is incomplete...


Also, how long will the block 60 or the Gripen stay effective in modern combat?
The Australians want to replace their newly ordered SH's in the 2020's already, I hope the planes that we would buy in this scenario will have a longer lifespan?

The aircraft manufacturer can't really calculate a TCO - this is for the customer to do, as it includes many items unrelated to the manufacturer ( typically more than half the TCO).

[longbow]

Also, the Gripen-price is far from complete - the devil is in the details! It includes some spare parts, but not all the spare parts needed through the lifespan, and certainly not the needed updates, like a MLU-kit. It is NOT a representative TCO prize.

[Grand Danois]

Also, the Gripen-price is far from complete - the devil is in the details! It includes some spare parts, but not all the spare parts needed through the lifespan, and certainly not the needed updates, like a MLU-kit. It is NOT a representative TCO prize.

Some of it was guaranteed by the Swedish Govt, though. But it's hard to get smart on these things since how a package is priced and what is included is rarely transparent!!!

[IPA35]

I believe SAAB said it was a complete package, I'll try to find the source later today.

[gf0012-aust]

The Australians want to replace their newly ordered SH's in the 2020's already, I hope the planes that we would buy in this scenario will have a longer lifespan?


They're being replaced in 2025 because they were only ever regarded as an interim buy. They will end up back with the USN or if not then the State Dept will hold them over for someone else to use under an FMS deal. They will not be at their "use by date" by a long shot.

The Shornets were always intended to be stop gaps just in case the JSF was delayed and also to enable us to maintain combat capability for other doctrinal demands whilst the new ORBAT was defined and grew.

[Palnatoke]

They're being replaced in 2025 because they were only ever regarded as an interim buy. They will end up back with the USN or if not then the State Dept will hold them over for someone else to use under an FMS deal. They will not be at their "use by date" by a long shot.

The Shornets were always intended to be stop gaps just in case the JSF was delayed and also to enable us to maintain combat capability for other doctrinal demands whilst the new ORBAT was defined and grew.

Are you guys printing money or do they just grow on those eucalyptus trees???

[zeven]

Really? How so? AFAIK the block 60 out performs the Gripen in almost every PI, INCLUDING cost.
Really? Now i've been looking for hours to find some kind of source that support this claim. can't find it, will you please provide me with it or some information? and is F-16 block 60 superior to all Euro/canards or is it just Gripen that is inferior to everything els??

[zeven]

Also, the Gripen-price is far from complete - the devil is in the details! It includes some spare parts, but not all the spare parts needed through the lifespan, and certainly not the needed updates, like a MLU-kit. It is NOT a representative TCO prize.
Incorrect, the offer includes a COMPLETE package supported by the swedish government.

[longbow]

Incorrect, the offer includes a COMPLETE package supported by the swedish government.

Really? Now i've been looking for hours to find some kind of source that support this claim. can't find it, will you please provide me with it or someinformation?

[delta2005]

Really? Now i've been looking for hours to find some kind of source that support this claim. can't find it, will you please provide me with it or someinformation?

FYI
/delta2005

[longbow]

Yes... but... :) It depends on what you consider to be the complete package. The offer contains nothing about the future upgrades (that could prove to be so expensive if the Gripen turns out to be an orphan) - because it is not included in the offer. Neither is all the needed spares included in the offer. To say that Saab has offered RNLAF a fixed TCO-price is a misconception of the offer.

[gripen39]

Also, the Gripen-price is far from complete - the devil is in the details! It includes some spare parts, but not all the spare parts needed through the lifespan, and certainly not the needed updates, like a MLU-kit. It is NOT a representative TCO prize.
Far from complete?? FAR?? where is your source? it is a all inclusive package
I.m not saying that gripen is the better fighter but lets stay to known facts!
and spares are included ;)

Gripen - The wings of your nation - Gripen NG Fighters for The Netherlands (http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/080901_Gripen_Netherlands.htm)

[longbow]

Far from complete?? FAR?? where is your source? it is a all inclusive package
I.m not saying that gripen is the better fighter but lets stay to known facts!


Gripen - The wings of your nation - Gripen NG Fighters for The Netherlands (http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/080901_Gripen_Netherlands.htm)

Saab does its best to make their offer seem like a fixed definitive (and cheap) offer, as oposed to the "LM does not even say what the F-35 will cost" - This equates to something like: Gripen - Fixed low cost - F-35 - Unknown, possibly high cost. I don't blame anyone if they believe that the Gripen represents a fixed price - Saab has obviously learnt their lesson from the Norway-deal, and are doing their best to regain their "cheap&capable-image". The problem is, the package can not be complete if it does not say anything about the upgrades. The price of the upgrades are high, and the dutch should know this from the MLU, and Saab is in no position to make any guarantes on the price of the upgrades that the dutch might want 20 years from now.

[Todjaeger]

FYI
/delta2005

AND

Far from complete?? FAR?? where is your source? it is a all inclusive package
I.m not saying that gripen is the better fighter but lets stay to known facts!
and spares are included ;)

Gripen - The wings of your nation - Gripen NG Fighters for The Netherlands (http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/080901_Gripen_Netherlands.htm)

Have looked at both linked items. Having read through both of them, they IMO far from being 'complete' packages.

The first link, provided by delta2005 seems to be missing the following types of systems.
Targeting pods not included, and no mention of what pods, if any, will be already integrated for use by the Gripen NG
Any DAS (Danger Awareness System)
EWSP
What muntions are integrated with the Gripen NG?
Who pays for future weapons integration onto the platform?
What sort of datalinks included and what/who do they interact with?

The second link, provided by gripen39 also does not answer many of these questions.
It lists 'EW systems' but neglects to identify what types of EW systems are included with the offer. These 'EW systems' may or may not include many of the ones I listed above. It also lists several types of air to air missiles which will apparently be able to be used from the Gripen NG, though it does not specifically state that. It does however neglect to say anything about any air to ground munitions. Lastly, it states that the Gripen NG will be able to use the Gripen datalink, but neglects to mention if the offer includes any datalinks which would be compatible and interoperable with the rest of NATO.

In short, the offers either omitted a number of items which would be included as part of the 'complete' package or the offers were not in fact for a complete package.

-Cheers

[IPA35]

Does the F-35 price include all that?

And why would they pay for weapons?

[B3LA]

Can somebody please link to or upload LMs offer to the Netherlands ?
(I can't find it :()

[AndiPandi]

Saab does its best to make their offer seem like a fixed definitive (and cheap) offer, as oposed to the "LM does not even say what the F-35 will cost" - This equates to something like: Gripen - Fixed low cost - F-35 - Unknown, possibly high cost. I don't blame anyone if they believe that the Gripen represents a fixed price - Saab has obviously learnt their lesson from the Norway-deal, and are doing their best to regain their "cheap&capable-image". The problem is, the package can not be complete if it does not say anything about the upgrades. The price of the upgrades are high, and the dutch should know this from the MLU, and Saab is in no position to make any guarantes on the price of the upgrades that the dutch might want 20 years from now.

This is no new approach from SAAB, Norway & Denmark was given the same kind of fixed priced offer before Norway went for the F-35.

There are upgrades defined and priced (for Norway at least) but they are not public. Of course there can be changes to what the duchtmen wants in 20 years time but upgrades up to that point can be included. The Gripen is upgraded at least every year, they have a bit different approach than most other fighter manufacturers.

And you cant deny the fact that SAAB has a very good knowledge about their own capabilities and the cost of owning and using the Gripen.

If the price of the JSF is not unknown, please tell us all what it is. Of course it depends on numbers built and what year you buy your plane, but LM cant even sat "if we build X many planes the price will be Y". There is a whole lot of more uncertainty in the JSF project.

[Palnatoke]

but LM cant even sat "if we build X many planes the price will be Y". There is a whole lot of more uncertainty in the JSF project.

Ofcourse LM knows pretty well that the JSF will cost, Y, if you build N planes.

I just suspect that if LM says "Y" at "N" then there will only be ordered "K" planes where "K"<<"N".

[gripen39]

This is no new approach from SAAB, Norway & Denmark was given the same kind of fixed priced offer before Norway went for the F-35.

There are upgrades defined and priced (for Norway at least) but they are not public. Of course there can be changes to what the duchtmen wants in 20 years time but upgrades up to that point can be included. The Gripen is upgraded at least every year, they have a bit different approach than most other fighter manufacturers.

And you cant deny the fact that SAAB has a very good knowledge about their own capabilities and the cost of owning and using the Gripen.

If the price of the JSF is not unknown, please tell us all what it is. Of course it depends on numbers built and what year you buy your plane, but LM cant even sat "if we build X many planes the price will be Y". There is a whole lot of more uncertainty in the JSF project.

$ 228m per unit including spares and support for these 14 JSF.
Source.:Australian aviation
JSF acquisition answers some questions, raises others | Australian Aviation Magazine (http://australianaviation.com.au/raaf-jsf-acquisition-answers-some-questions-raises-others/)

[Todjaeger]

Does the F-35 price include all that?

And why would they pay for weapons?

Since the post came immediately after mine, I will assume the question was directed at me.

The F-35 has built into/carried internally in the design various avionics systems which have been touched upon in the various F-35 threads in DT. Just going over it briefly here, the F-35 will include all the various types of systems I mentioned. In order to operate as a multi-role fighter in hostile airspace, it needs such systems.

Without a targeting pod or equvilent, an aircraft has a difficult time detecting, illuminating or targeting a ground target with munitions, therefore the F-35 will have this built in.

Without DAS and EWSP and aircraft is even more vulnerable to GBAD and air threats. This would be of even greater importance for a non-LO offering like the Gripen NG, since it would not benefit from the overall difficulty a potential threat would have of detecting and engaging a LO platform like the F-35. All the same, the F-35 is to have these types of systems in case it does get detected and engaged.

The F-35 will have NATO compatible datalinks, otherwise the aircraft would not be able to make use of the significant work already done to pass information between different platforms.

Now weapons integration is also important, and it is not the same as purchasing the weapons. Rather, it means an aircraft design has been tested and can successfully deploy a particular type weapon. For air to air missiles, this usually means that the aircraft's radar and/or IRST can provide cueing and guidance information to the missile. For air to ground missiles and bombs, it means that the aircraft knows when to release the weapon to successfully reach the target, as well as being able to properly illuminate the target and/or pass target location information to the weapon being deployed.

Now in the case of the F-35, AFAIK since all variants (-A/B/C) will be seeing US service, the various US weapons will be integrated with the design. This means that AIM-9X, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AGM-65 Maverick, AGM-84 Harpoon, JASSM, JSOW, JDAM, SDB, etc will be able to be used from the F-35. I believe, but have not spent significant time checking, that if a partner nation wants to operate other weapons from the F-35, they can pay the costs to have a particular weapon integrated. Having said that though, there are a number of partner nations which likely would like to use various weapons from MBDA like Meteor, Brimstone, etc and therefore the integration costs would likely be spread out across a number of different end-user nations. It only really becomes an issue if there is just one nation which wants to employ a particular weapon, then that nation would be stuck paying the cost to integrate their chosen weapon. Given the weapons used by the different partner nations, IMO the nations which are most likely to have this occur if they order the F-35 is Israel, Japan and Singapore.

In the case of the Netherlands, which has stocks of US and possibly European weapons for use from their F-16s, such weapons would most likely either be already integrated for use from the F-35, or be the subject of several nations working together to get a particular weapon integrated. This would not necessarily be the case with the Gripen NG, since it seems likely that there will be significantly less users of the Gripen NG than the F-35. This could leave the RNLAF in the position of either having to pay to integrate some/all of their weapon stocks onto the Gripen NG, or having to purchase a new set of weapon stocks which are already integrated. Either of which effects the real price of getting the Gripen NG into Dutch service and does not seem to be reflected in the 'complete' packages listed.

-Cheers

[Grand Danois]

$ 228m per unit including spares and support for these 14 JSF.
Source.:Australian aviation
JSF acquisition answers some questions, raises others | Australian Aviation Magazine (http://australianaviation.com.au/raaf-jsf-acquisition-answers-some-questions-raises-others/)

Already posted and commented upon.

Australia bought 24 Super Hornets a few years ago for 6 billion AUD. Super Hornet fly-away is known, publically, to cost 58 million USD.

But they paid 250 million AUD apiece !!!

This means that if a JSF costs 228 AUSTRALIAN dollars, then the fly-away cost of the JSF must be...?

Come on, try to answer this one. :D

[B3LA]

"if a JSF costs 228 AUSTRALIAN dollars" I'll order a couple myself :rotfl
(Sorry GD, I have a very boooring day at work :cool: )

[gripen39]

Already posted and commented upon.

Australia bought 24 Super Hornets a few years ago for 6 billion AUD. Super Hornet fly-away is known, publically, to cost 58 million USD.

But they paid 250 million AUD apiece !!!

This means that if a JSF costs 228 AUSTRALIAN dollars, then the fly-away cost of the JSF must be...?

Come on, try to answer this one. :D

as of what we know today,no less than $80m and with the Nr,s above i would say that that Australia,a super hornets are very fully armed.
The "bridging" super hornets were acuired to replace the F-111with the intention of beeing in service for a 10 year period before they themselves were replaced by JSF,so..
24 Super hornets estimated for 10 years of service for $250m apiece
14 JSF estimated for 30 or 40 years of service for $228m apiece says me that if you should compare those two,the JSF must be pretty unarmed or have a fly-away cost of no more than 30 or $ 40m?? ;)

[Grand Danois]

as of what we know today,no less than $80m and with the Nr,s above i would say that that Australia,a super hornets are very fully armed.
The "bridging" super hornets were acuired to replace the F-111with the intention of beeing in service for a 10 year period before they themselves were replaced by JSF,so..
24 Super hornets estimated for 10 years of service for $250m apiece
14 JSF estimated for 30 or 40 years of service for $228m apiece says me that if you should compare those two,the JSF must be pretty unarmed or have a fly-away cost of no more than 30 or $ 40m?? ;)

Ah, so you do understand! As you say yourself in above, the price is not for the SHs only, but the total cost of acquisition and operations in a given number of years.

The same applies to the JSF - in this case it seems there are no weapons in the deal, but the even more significant and larger cost of introduction of type into the RAAF.

This Total cost of ownership (TCO, or costings similar to that, ) is typically many times bigger than the contract to the aircraft manufacturer. An example is Norway - the TCO for using 56 Gripen NG is 165 billion NOK for 30 (?) years, which SAAB compared this to the life cycle cost of the Gripen, which is but a fraction of the TCO.

Anyhow, wrt to the JSF buy check this out: here's the cost for a very early build fully-fledged test aircraft:

"Based on the “dollar plan,” the price of the first test aircraft was estimated at 113.2 million euros, but the adjusted price, using the current exchange rate, is 99.7 million euros. "

First Joint Strike Fighter Test Aircraft Cheaper (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/110077/first-dutch-jsf-cheaper-than-budgeted.html)

[Grand Danois]

"if a JSF costs 228 AUSTRALIAN dollars" I'll order a couple myself :rotfl
(Sorry GD, I have a very boooring day at work :cool: )

yeah, meh...

[IPA35]

I would have decreased the planned numbers of F-35's and just kept the SH's in service.
Although 24 is a bit few for 2 squadrons;)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AFAIK we posses the Sidewinder, AMRAAM, Iris-T, Maverick and the dumb, JDAM and Paveway versions of the Mk. 82 and Mk. 84.
Most of these are used by the Swedish Airforce themselfs, so I believe integration won't be a problem.

We also own soms pods currently used on the F-16's.


Anyone knows the extra costs of operating two types? Surely it can't be much more expensive then operating 85 F-35's:D

[delta2005]

Comparison?

[IPA35]

Link does not work.

[Todjaeger]

I would have decreased the planned numbers of F-35's and just kept the SH's in service.
Although 24 is a bit few for 2 squadrons;)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AFAIK we posses the Sidewinder, AMRAAM, Iris-T, Maverick and the dumb, JDAM and Paveway versions of the Mk. 82 and Mk. 84.
Most of these are used by the Swedish Airforce themselfs, so I believe integration won't be a problem.

We also own soms pods currently used on the F-16's.


Anyone knows the extra costs of operating two types? Surely it can't be much more expensive then operating 85 F-35's:D

WRT to the RAAF SHornets, IIRC the 24 is for a single squadron plus some OCU.

As for the weapons (and pod) integration with Gripen NG, it should not be a problem for the weapons which are not already integrated with it. However, there will still be costs to achieve successful missile integration. By way of example, the Australian programme to acquire and integrate the AIM-132 ASRAAM onto RAAF F/A-18A/B Hornets had a total cost of ~A$300 million. From what I have been able to gather, the ASRAAM likely had a per-unit cost of ~A$500,000. Now, while I do not know the total number of ASRAAMs the RAAF would have purchased, the ADF has been noted as not maintaining large warstocks of munitions. I therefore doubt that Australia purchased more than 300 ASRAAMs (enough for 4 per Hornet), which would put integration costs at around A$150 million...

As one can see, even if the munitions are already owned and stocked by an air force, the integration costs onto a new aircraft can quickly raise programme costs. While I believe the air to air missiles might already be integrated (it is not entirely clear if this is the case though) the air to ground bombs and munitions are another story. A version of Maverick appears to be in service with Sweden so will likely be integrated with Gripen, however Sweden appears to use bombs manufactured by Bofors which would suggest that the JDAM and Paveway versions of the Mk 82 and Mk 84 bombs would need integration. If the RNLAF chose in the near future to also have newer munitions like the SDB, JSOW, JASSM enter service, I can see the programme cost rising by €1 billion just in weapon integration costs alone. Hence the previous question or concern about the Gripen NG offer being a 'complete' package.

-Cheers

[AndiPandi]

WRT to the RAAF SHornets, IIRC the 24 is for a single squadron plus some OCU.

As for the weapons (and pod) integration with Gripen NG, it should not be a problem for the weapons which are not already integrated with it. However, there will still be costs to achieve successful missile integration. By way of example, the Australian programme to acquire and integrate the AIM-132 ASRAAM onto RAAF F/A-18A/B Hornets had a total cost of ~A$300 million. From what I have been able to gather, the ASRAAM likely had a per-unit cost of ~A$500,000. Now, while I do not know the total number of ASRAAMs the RAAF would have purchased, the ADF has been noted as not maintaining large warstocks of munitions. I therefore doubt that Australia purchased more than 300 ASRAAMs (enough for 4 per Hornet), which would put integration costs at around A$150 million...

As one can see, even if the munitions are already owned and stocked by an air force, the integration costs onto a new aircraft can quickly raise programme costs. While I believe the air to air missiles might already be integrated (it is not entirely clear if this is the case though) the air to ground bombs and munitions are another story. A version of Maverick appears to be in service with Sweden so will likely be integrated with Gripen, however Sweden appears to use bombs manufactured by Bofors which would suggest that the JDAM and Paveway versions of the Mk 82 and Mk 84 bombs would need integration. If the RNLAF chose in the near future to also have newer munitions like the SDB, JSOW, JASSM enter service, I can see the programme cost rising by €1 billion just in weapon integration costs alone. Hence the previous question or concern about the Gripen NG offer being a 'complete' package.

-Cheers

Your pretty much guessing without any hard facts at all.
And I Seriously doubt that the integration of a handful of weapon systems will cost as much as 20 Gripen NG. Also its not very likely that SAAB lets the dutch air force (or any other first user) to take all the integration cost, they are smarter than that.

[Toptob]

Hey everyone I dont remember the names to go with every post, but I'll comment what I want to comment point by point.

First thing was the post about the insidious incomplete deal from Saab.
So the weapon integration was one of the hickups, but you also said you didnt know which weapons would be integrated from the start.
I dont know that much about defense procurement, but it seems to me that the rnlaf wouldn't buy something they could not use. So I would figure that the weapons would be integrated, same with the datalinks and targeting/scanning equipement we want. Otherwise it could be bargained into the deal, we're still Dutch. And there's the fact that Saab needs the export order reaaaaly badly, and a european partner nation would really hit the spot for them. It could also be an idea to start shopping elsewhere for our airborne arsenal, maybe pick up some good offsets in that area.

Also it was said that the terrible deal also didnt include a MLU, and that those are very expensive.
What I asked myself was:
- was the MLU included in the F-16 deal? ( I would really like to know)
- Will it be included in the F-35 deal?
-Is that standard in aircraft procurement agreements?

I guess we could't do it ourselves anymore since they killed fokker (with the apache deal) so who would do it? Could the Yanks do an upgrade cheaper than Saab could?

And would it not be cheaper to integrate a new pod with the latest tech than it would replacing core systems from your avionics suite.

[longbow]

The bill for the MLU-deal was split between the danish, the dutch, the belgian and the norwegian airforces - it was not included in the original purchase. It will not be included this time either, not for the F-35, not for the Gripen. Regarding upgrades - choosing the F-35 would give you two advantages; The more modern aircraft(less urgent need for upgrades), and more partners to split the costs of future upgrades with.

[Todjaeger]

Your pretty much guessing without any hard facts at all.
And I Seriously doubt that the integration of a handful of weapon systems will cost as much as 20 Gripen NG. Also its not very likely that SAAB lets the dutch air force (or any other first user) to take all the integration cost, they are smarter than that.

Not entirely. The ASRAAM purchase and integration cost A$300 million. The cost for a single ASRAAM is ~£200,000 which I believe at the time worked out to about A$500,000.

Where guess work enters is in the total # of ASRAAMs in RAAF inventory, but as I had mentioned, the ADF typically does not keep a high warstock of munitions. An example of this would be the Harpoon AShM, the RAN does not currently have enough for simultaneous deployment aboard all RAN frigates. Therefore a figure of 300 missiles is IMO not some entirely wild figure to deploy from 73 Hornets... Particularly when 16 of them are the two-seater training and OCU version. The RAAF Hornets which would most likely see air combat initially would be the F/A-18A Hornets which are single-seater and there are 57 in inventory.

Of course if someone could post the total number of ASRAAM the RAAF purchased initially that would certainly clear matters up, but I suspect that information is classified.

-Cheers

[IPA35]

The best part is that we don't have the ASRAAM.
We have the Sidewinder, the Iris-T (that can me used on any Sidewinder capable aircraft am I right?) and the AMRAAM.
We should buy the METEOR though.

AFAIK the Swedes use license built versions of most current American weapon systems.
We use the same for the most part.

[Todjaeger]

The best part is that we don't have the ASRAAM.
We have the Sidewinder, the Iris-T (that can me used on any Sidewinder capable aircraft am I right?) and the AMRAAM.
We should buy the METEOR though.

AFAIK the Swedes use license built versions of most current American weapon systems.
We use the same for the most part.

With regards to Iris-T and Sidewinder being compatible, AFAIK that is not quite correct. They can both be integrated onto an aircraft, but again AFAIK having one missile type integrated does not mean the other missile type is also integrated.

Some of the DefPros could likely explain it better than I, but weapons integration includes work to make sure that an aircraft's avionics can communicate with a missile for guidance, queing, launch command etc. It also includes trials to ensure weapons launch and clearance from the hardpoint/rail and away from the aircraft. Different missile types, having different weights and aerodynamic properties can behave differently during launch and in flight even if they are otherwise similar.

-Cheers

[AndiPandi]

With regards to Iris-T and Sidewinder being compatible, AFAIK that is not quite correct. They can both be integrated onto an aircraft, but again AFAIK having one missile type integrated does not mean the other missile type is also integrated.

Some of the DefPros could likely explain it better than I, but weapons integration includes work to make sure that an aircraft's avionics can communicate with a missile for guidance, queing, launch command etc. It also includes trials to ensure weapons launch and clearance from the hardpoint/rail and away from the aircraft. Different missile types, having different weights and aerodynamic properties can behave differently during launch and in flight even if they are otherwise similar.

-Cheers

Yes, but the integration of an Iris-T on a pylon where sidewinders can be used does not cost €200 million!

[Grand Danois]

I'll readily admit that I haven't read all of your posts. I will support that a typical cost of integrating af weapon would be around the 150 mn USD mark. The more complex weapons are more expensive, the less complex a bit less.

Interesting here is that many weapons are not integrated on the Gripen. In the complex category would be: Brimstone, Harpoon, NSM/JSM, SDB and those types. ATA weapons are not an issue.

A nav/attack system (target designation pods) is about 2 mn USD apiece and an air force like the Dutch would typically acquire 24+ of these, so we're talking a addition to TCO of about 200 mn USD over 30 years. Naturally this is included in the JSF and is not extra.

Such systems would not, irrc, be part of a SAAB package, but is bought from the US Govt through FMS. I would suggest that this is one of extra costs the Norwegians added to make the Gripen NG "mulitrole."

Datalink may also have been an issue in this context. Link-16 is integrated but may not be produced by SAAB (it's NATO equipment) and would have to be bought outside of a package deal - though I not entirely certain on this one.

I would not consider the UV MAWS currently on the Gripen as adequate. There's an IR based system under development. If this is not included in a package, then it would be a later hardware upgrade at extra cost. Of course the JSF comes with this. This may also have been a couse of extra costs in the Norway calculations.

Lastly, an MLU is not the cyclic software patch/upgrades done to the Gripen fleet. It's more like when the Swedes will rebuild their A/B/C/D fleet to E/F standard sometime in the future with new radar, IR MAWS and other avionics and structural refurbs. This is really an expensive one and probably not included in either 20 or 30 year life cycle offers.

It all adds up...

[Todjaeger]

Yes, but the integration of an Iris-T on a pylon where sidewinders can be used does not cost €200 million!

Never said it was. If one looks back at the post where I was outlining what the approximate cost of integrating the AIM-132 ASRAAM onto RAAF F/A-18A/B Hornets, one will see my estimated cost was approximately A$150 million, not 200 million Euros for that one system.

As GD indicated, the more complex a system being integrated, the more expensive. The more weapons being integrated, again the more expensive since each weapon needs integration.

If the following weapons are integrated onto the Gripen, the integration costs could easily top the US$1 billion mark.
SDB
JASSM
JDAM
JSOW
Harpoon

Additional, it is questionable if all the current air to ground ordnance currently in service with the RNLAF would already be integrated with the Gripen. The Maverick AGM is, the others I doubt since Bofors makes their own equivalents.

-Cheers

[AndiPandi]

Never said it was. If one looks back at the post where I was outlining what the approximate cost of integrating the AIM-132 ASRAAM onto RAAF F/A-18A/B Hornets, one will see my estimated cost was approximately A$150 million, not 200 million Euros for that one system.

As GD indicated, the more complex a system being integrated, the more expensive. The more weapons being integrated, again the more expensive since each weapon needs integration.

If the following weapons are integrated onto the Gripen, the integration costs could easily top the US$1 billion mark.
SDB
JASSM
JDAM
JSOW
Harpoon

Additional, it is questionable if all the current air to ground ordnance currently in service with the RNLAF would already be integrated with the Gripen. The Maverick AGM is, the others I doubt since Bofors makes their own equivalents.

-Cheers

Thats the 200 million figure i was (or you were) reffering to, even if you changed euros to dollars now.

I dont know what youre thinking that weapons integration includes, but youre figures are way to high. The GBU-12 was just integrated on Gripen and the process was described as "quick and easy" by FMV. Most of the job was some minor modifications of pylons.

The Gripen comes with NATO pylons now and the hardware integration will be minimal. Also the Gripen has weapons of the same type integrated today (cruise missile, anti-ship, guided bomb).

And as I said before, why would SAAB lay all the cost on the dutch airforce on weapons integration that SAABs other customers can benefit from, they would be stupid to make the dutchmen pay it all.

What are the Bofors manufactured equivalents you are referring to?

[IPA35]

I think that we could get a very good deal with SAAB, since they are in the need of a larger client.

So how many planes would we need for 3 squadrons and a training SQ?



-------------------------------
Gripen can use RBS15 and the Taurus.

[Todjaeger]

Thats the 200 million figure i was (or you were) reffering to, even if you changed euros to dollars now.

I dont know what youre thinking that weapons integration includes, but youre figures are way to high. The GBU-12 was just integrated on Gripen and the process was described as "quick and easy" by FMV. Most of the job was some minor modifications of pylons.

The Gripen comes with NATO pylons now and the hardware integration will be minimal. Also the Gripen has weapons of the same type integrated today (cruise missile, anti-ship, guided bomb).

And as I said before, why would SAAB lay all the cost on the dutch airforce on weapons integration that SAABs other customers can benefit from, they would be stupid to make the dutchmen pay it all.

What are the Bofors manufactured equivalents you are referring to?

Please pay close attention to the portions of bolded from my prior post which I have posted below. This is the post where I suggested the possibility of the RNLAF facing €1 billion in weapons integration costs.

As one can see, even if the munitions are already owned and stocked by an air force, the integration costs onto a new aircraft can quickly raise programme costs. While I believe the air to air missiles might already be integrated (it is not entirely clear if this is the case though) the air to ground bombs and munitions are another story. A version of Maverick appears to be in service with Sweden so will likely be integrated with Gripen, however Sweden appears to use bombs manufactured by Bofors which would suggest that the JDAM and Paveway versions of the Mk 82 and Mk 84 bombs would need integration. If the RNLAF chose in the near future to also have newer munitions like the SDB, JSOW, JASSM enter service, I can see the programme cost rising by €1 billion just in weapon integration costs alone. Hence the previous question or concern about the Gripen NG offer being a 'complete' package.

To repeat myself, I was listing the possible costs in Euros, if the RNLAF needed to have the following integrated onto the Gripen NG

GBU-30 = JDAM version of Mk 82
GBU-32 = JDAM version of Mk 82
GBU-12* = Paveway II version of Mk 82
GBU-10/GBU-24/GBU-24E/B = Paveway II/ Paveway III version of Mk 84
GBU-39 = SDB
AGM-154 = JSOW
AGM-158= JASSM

*GBU-12 has been integrated with Gripen for use with some targeting pod, which I do not know.

Looking at the list above, it is a total of 9 different munitions which could potentially see deployment from RNLAF fighters. In addition, a targeting pod also needs to be integrated for use with PGMs. The offers shown so far do not make any mention of air to ground munitions capability or compatibility, not even to say that the Gripen NG will have the same air to ground munitions options as Swedish Air Force Gripens. Nor is there any mention in the 'complete' packages that Saab will pick up integration costs for the munitions currently in use with or desired by the RNLAF. To assume that Saab and/or the Swedish government will do so when the quoted price for the offering is supposed to be €4.79 billion for 85 aicraft, as of April 2008, does not sound reasonable to me. This also does not address who would pay for future weapons integration since there are other weapons and guidance systems in the works which likely will be emerging in the near future like GBU-40 SDB II, or Paveway IV.

As has been mentioned before, both by myself and other posters if one looks back at other threads on DT, one will see that weapons integration is not just about hardware or changing around pylons. Especially when one is trying to integrate a PGM which all of the munitions I listed are. Work is needed so that the targeting module or pod can communicate with the aircraft (and thus the pilot) so that a target can be selected and designated. Then work needs to be done so that a munition can be selected and informed that a target has been selected so that the munition's guidance package can locate the designated target. Only then does some of the hardware work come into play to make sure that a munition can safely be dropped or launched to clear the airframe without damaging the aircraft.

The Swedish FMV can say that the work was not difficult all it wants. That still does not mean that it was not expensive. If anyone doubts that, I recommend doing searches for weapons integration onto aircraft and see what results they get.

As for the equivalents made by Bofors, on going back through sources, I have come across (again) a 120kg M/71 HE bomb by Bofors. One of the others, the BK-90 was a CBU used from the Gripen which has been retired from service. Incidentally that was made by DaimlerChrysler Aerospace AG, now EADS Germany, not Bofors.

-Cheers

[AndiPandi]

...

GBU-30 = JDAM version of Mk 82
GBU-32 = JDAM version of Mk 82
GBU-12* = Paveway II version of Mk 82
GBU-10/GBU-24/GBU-24E/B = Paveway II/ Paveway III version of Mk 84
GBU-39 = SDB
AGM-154 = JSOW
AGM-158= JASSM

*GBU-12 has been integrated with Gripen for use with some targeting pod, which I do not know.

Looking at the list above, it is a total of 9 different munitions which could potentially see deployment from RNLAF fighters. In addition, a targeting pod also needs to be integrated for use with PGMs.

...


Not only the GBU-12 is integrated. The Hungarians are using GBU-10 and GBU-16 as well.
If you have integrated for example the GBU-12, much of the work for the other Paveways is already done. No way it costed SAAB 3 x €100 M to accomplish that.

Assuming your proposed cost for weapons integration is true for all weapons, that cost makes up for about 10% of the total program cost (swedish Gripens) which is just impossible.

[IPA35]

Weapons systems:
Wiki says:
Armament


1 × 27 mm Mauser BK-27 cannon 120 rounds
6 × Rb.74 (AIM-9) or Rb 98 (IRIS-T)
4 × Rb.99 (AIM-120) or MICA
4 x Rb.71 (Skyflash) or Meteor
4 x Rb.75
2 x KEPD.350
4 x GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
4 x rocket pods 13.5 cm rockets
2 x Rbs.15F anti-ship missile
2 x Bk.90 cluster bomb
8 x Mark 82 bombs
1 x ALQ-TLS ECM pod

Their source?
http://www.saairforce.co.za/seed/public/files/aircraft_files/20/Gripen%20-%20Packing%20Iron.pdf

[Todjaeger]

Not only the GBU-12 is integrated. The Hungarians are using GBU-10 and GBU-16 as well.
If you have integrated for example the GBU-12, much of the work for the other Paveways is already done. No way it costed SAAB 3 x €100 M to accomplish that.

Assuming your proposed cost for weapons integration is true for all weapons, that cost makes up for about 10% of the total program cost (swedish Gripens) which is just impossible.

And the fact that the two linked offerings made no mention of what weapons will be available for air to ground missions and what targeting pod is required is either a very glaring omission or an indication that the 'complete' package is not in fact complete.

Either there are items and capabilities which the Gripen NG will have which were not included with the offer, or there are items and capabilities which will need to be chosen and added by the customer in order to make their Gripen NG's multi-role. There is no other way to look at it.

I personally have my doubts about the veracity of the information and assumptions made regarding the Gripen NG. If Saab is correct in the quoted claim below:

Gripen NG fulfills all Dutch requirements and will keep the RNLAF at the leading edge of military capabilities through 2050.

from the last paragraph on this page (http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/080901_Gripen_Netherlands.htm).

Then the Gripen NG mission systems should be significantly more advanced than those aboard even a Gripen C/D, making the Gripen NG something more than just a spiral development of legacy Gripen. Additional, in order to maintain the 'cutting edge' for even the next few years, either Gripen NG requires mission systems more advanced than MOTS, or within ten years from now the selected mission systems will require significant upgrades.

If the Gripen NG mission systems are significantly more advanced than a legacy Gripen, I would then expect that weapon integration work done on prior Gripen variants would have no relevance since the mission systems would be completely different.

Ultimately, something is missing from the proposals listed so far. Either the Gripen NG will come with some air to ground weapons already integrated or it will not. At present nothing is clearly stated that it will be able to operate all the same munitions as prior Gripens. Until that changes I will continue to question the value of the Gripen NG offer.

-Cheers

[Wardog13]

Well, the F-35 is a great plane, so the trade off isn't to bad, quality is better than quanity after all.

[IPA35]

I prefer 85 good and affordable planes over 44 planes at a higher cost that are only a little bit better in... In what exactly?
SEAD, range, payload, 'stealth'?

IMO it is not that much better to justify the huge costs.

Therefore IMO we should raise the budget a bit and aquire 2 squadrons of F-35A's.
These would be stationed at Leeuwarden AB.
And 3 squadrons of a more cost efficient plane at Volkel AB.
Now what would be the better choice? NG or block 60? But let's not make this a VS thread...

What we should know is the price of the latter though.

[Wardog13]

I prefer 85 good and affordable planes over 44 planes at a higher cost that are only a little bit better in... In what exactly?
SEAD, range, payload, 'stealth'?


What we should know is the price of the latter though.


I personally think the Stealth and Vertical Takeoff capabilities of the F-35 make it worth the trade off, can't hurt what you can't see after all. But I agree with just raising the budget.

[vengence]

To me i think that the Royal Netherlands Air Force has no thearts or enemy (if i am wrong please correct me) and the only plane they will need is to only deploy planes to Afghanistan as the need air support,so and air superioty fighter is not needed but i still think it needs some of them to intecep other plane (such as the Tu95 bombers who frequently violate other nation airspace and Russia claims its an excisice and there plane never enter other nations airspace without permisson).
The Eurofighter is an brriliant air supiroty fighter so that would be a really wise choice. The Saab Gripien is and excilant multirole fighter and a great advantage is they can land in normal roads. The F35 is an a great multirole stealth fighter but you do not need an stealth fighter in Afghanistan as they do not face a threat in the air.

The Eurofighter is an air supiroty fighter and again you do not need a such a plane in Afghanistan.

But i still want them to buy the Eurofighter for a stable air supiroty and F35 for ground bombing and for its stealth uses in an defense act.

[Todjaeger]

I prefer 85 good and affordable planes over 44 planes at a higher cost that are only a little bit better in... In what exactly?
SEAD, range, payload, 'stealth'?

IMO it is not that much better to justify the huge costs.

Therefore IMO we should raise the budget a bit and aquire 2 squadrons of F-35A's.
These would be stationed at Leeuwarden AB.
And 3 squadrons of a more cost efficient plane at Volkel AB.
Now what would be the better choice? NG or block 60? But let's not make this a VS thread...

What we should know is the price of the latter though.

Personally I disagree with the notion tha the F-35 will not be significantly better (for some missions at least) than existing 4th and 4.5 gen fighters. There will be synergy from the improved Situational Awareness of the F-35 as well as the LO characteristics. This will potentially enable an F-35 to avoid ground-based threats (GBAD), as well as avoiding or controlling air-to-air engagements.

Having said that, having the RNLAF operate a two-tiered air force is certainly an option. In fact, it is likely that will be occuring for a period of time while the aircraft which get ordered are brought up to FOC. If the expectation is for the RNLAF to operate a two-tiered air force for a prolonged period of time though, some thought is required in terms of doctrine and mission roles. Given the current and emerging threats, I would expect the F-35 would be used to initially achieve (or maintain) air superiority as well as to carry out strikes in contested areas. The lower tiered aircraft would be used more for deliver of standoff strike packages, or strike delivery in relatively uncontested areas. A bomb truck in other words.

As for what my preference would be... Honestly, I would stick with some version of the F-16. The RNLAF already has experience operating, maintaining and modifying it. Integrated weapons and pods are already owned and in inventory. Why choose an entirely new aircraft (and all the associated costs involved) when the end result does not appear to be significantly better than what one already has, is familiar with, or needs?

-Cheers

[vengence]

As for what my preference would be... Honestly, I would stick with some version of the F-16. The RNLAF already has experience operating, maintaining and modifying it. Integrated weapons and pods are already owned and in inventory. Why choose an entirely new aircraft (and all the associated costs involved) when the end result does not appear to be significantly better than what one already has, is familiar with, or needs?

-Cheers

Yes but you need to compete with other nations and you still have to have a better plane than other nation to maintain your army strong and big.;)

[Todjaeger]

As for what my preference would be... Honestly, I would stick with some version of the F-16. The RNLAF already has experience operating, maintaining and modifying it. Integrated weapons and pods are already owned and in inventory. Why choose an entirely new aircraft (and all the associated costs involved) when the end result does not appear to be significantly better than what one already has, is familiar with, or needs?

-Cheers

Yes but you need to compete with other nations and you still have to have a better plane than other nation to maintain your army strong and big.;)

The premise behind my comment of remaining with some version of the F-16 was that the RNLAF would be operating as a two-tiered air force. The 1st/Hi tier would operate ~24 F-35 Lightning II's, with the 2nd/Lo tier would operate ~3 sqd of either another version of F-16 or Gripen NG. My choice in this situation would be for the 2nd tier to remain with the F-16 for the reasons I outlined.

-Cheers

[IPA35]

The block 60 is said to be both inferior too and more costly (to operate) then the NG.
To make a good conclusion we need to compare the costs.

And isn't the block 60 a very different plane then our block 20 MLU's??

Last but not least, 24 is too few to equip two squadrons, but around 30 would be enough, including 2 or 3 planes for the test unit.
But IDK if we should have planes in the US for training or that one active squadron should have a secondary training role?
This is the case today for one F-16 SQ at Leeuwarden.
And then the pure training squadron (now in the USA) should train the pilots for the larger fleet of second tier planes.

Although these 'second' tier planes are still usefull in combat ofcourse, especcialy with long range weapons like the METEOR and some air launced cruisemissle.
On of the reasons why I might prefer the NG is because op the optional weapon systems and the STOL capabilities.

IMO we should purchase small numbers of METEOR's, cruise missle (depends on what plane we would use) and the Brimstone missle.
And some anti-ship missle like the NSM (use on both the F-35 and Gripen).

Here are the active squadrons, what would we equip them with?
And would the training squadron need fighters or just jettrainers?
http://www.f-16.net/units_airforce176.html

[vengence]

The premise behind my comment of remaining with some version of the F-16 was that the RNLAF would be operating as a two-tiered air force. The 1st/Hi tier would operate ~24 F-35 Lightning II's, with the 2nd/Lo tier would operate ~3 sqd of either another version of F-16 or Gripen NG. My choice in this situation would be for the 2nd tier to remain with the F-16 for the reasons I outlined.

-Cheers

But thats why Netherlands it replacing there aircraft because its old and they need new boys to replace them. But i am sure that they will keep some of the planes and the others in reserve.

Cheers

[vengence]

IMO we should purchase small numbers of METEOR's, cruise missle (depends on what plane we would use) and the Brimstone missle.
And some anti-ship missle like the NSM (use on both the F-35 and Gripen).


Was'nt the Meteor missle was built for the Eurofighter?

[IPA35]

It is possible to use it on the Gripen and the RN want to use it on it's F-35B's, am I right?
http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/56CA9928-D8A1-4AFC-A89D-B971CE7E8AC0/8463/Whatever_weaponboard.pdf
File:F35ctolstores.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F35ctolstores.jpg)


The missle gives you less coleteral damage and you can carry more of them, compared to the Maverick, right?

[vengence]

It is possible to use it on the Gripen and the RN want to use it on it's F-35B's, am I right?


No, the Meteor missile is not possible in use with F35 but they are going the adjust the normal Meteor to be used on the F35. They can be used with the SAAB Gripien and the Rafele.

Heres the full deatails:Meteor Missile Will Make Changes to Accommodate F-35 (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/meteor-missile-will-make-changes-to-accommodate-f35-0599/)

But the Meteor is yet to be complted.