FX impact on the MMRCA?

[Feanor]

Those aren't the only factorbs in the decision making process. ToT is an issue. So is maintenance which would have to be set up from scratch. And the SH is a fairly expensive platform (relatively). There are also the political implications of the decision. The process is not that simple.

 

[Haavarla]

That is your opinion :roll2

Clearly, the Super Hornet is by far the most mature of the contenders by far. While, still offering State of the Art Technology. (i.e. APG-79, HMD, AIM-9X, AIM-120's, JDAMs, SDB's, etc. etc.) Its also reasonably price and has low cost of ownership. All back by the American Military Complex and is in use by the USN in great numbers. Which, will fund many upgrades for decades to come.

And yet there is no evidence that the JAS cannot perform in acordance to the FX2 requirements.
I find it hard to answer your posts crusader. Your many claims are relative and speculative.



Thanks

 

[zeven]

That is your opinion :roll2



Personally, I find it hard to believe that you never express an opinion. Without knowing all the specifics. I was of course just talking in general terms. Clearly, the Super Hornet is by far the most mature of the contenders by far. While, still offering State of the Art Technology. (i.e. APG-79, HMD, AIM-9X, AIM-120's, JDAMs, SDB's, etc. etc.) Its also reasonably price and has low cost of ownership. All back by the American Military Complex and is in use by the USN in great numbers. Which, will fund many upgrades for decades to come.

Its not easy to answer someone who build their argumentation on "own opinions" its like trying to convince a christian God does not exist! but ok i'll give it a shot.

First, platforms are designed from different outsets for diffirent needs. so you can't look at fancy stats and say this is the best platfrom! you need to look at the different requirements the specific country has. all the platforms might look the same for you but thats just a mirage.

things needed to be taken in the evalution process. (depending the country's requirements / location / politaclly stands / region / economy / industry / future threats / and so on

1 performance
2 LCC / maintaince (economy)
3 ToT and offsets
3 weapon systems
4 primary objective and role in your future air-force. (what will be your air-force role)
5 politics
6 economy / budget
8 infra structure / docttrine
9 program funds / upgrade path / cost estimations
10 possibltiy for domestic systems / domestic industry / custome made platfoms possibilities

I can continue. but i dont believe you toke all this into account when you shaped your personal opinion. then i really dont believe you have enough information about the platforms in question and what their advantages and disadvantates are! and even less what Brasil needs are!

if it was simple and only one was right! everyone would have had the same platform and everyone would have purchased new platforms as soon as them enter service.

cheers

 

[zeven]

That is your opinion :roll2

Personally, I find it hard to believe that you never express an opinion.[/QUOTE
I never give personal opnions in debates like this, because personal opinions are worthless as long as there exist requirements and proven stats.

] Without knowing all the specifics. I was of course just talking in general terms. Clearly, the Super Hornet is by far the most mature of the contenders by far. While, still offering State of the Art Technology

i would have been rather suprised if a mature platform did not offered state of the art technology!


.

(i.e. APG-79, HMD, AIM-9X, AIM-120's, JDAMs, SDB's, etc. etc.

)
Please tell me which other platform does not offer a huge weaponpackage? similar to this? oh yes Rafale mainly french stuff Gripen? offer the most independent choice when it comes to weapon and systems, SH? hmm mainly american made systems and weapons. guess your personal opinion showed lack of knowledge again.

Its also reasonably price and has low cost of ownership. All back by the American Military Complex and is in use by the USN in great numbers. Which, will fund many upgrades for decades to come.

so how is SH future upgrade capability compered to the other options? not quite as good is it?? when did american made systems become relative sheap to operate? do you know the MTBF stats for the platforms in question? if not you might wanna check it out before you base your argumentation on it. True US operates great number TODAY! but how many numbers will US operate 2035? how many major upgrades are the US willing to do now when F-35 soon enter service??

PS.
you might be right! SH may just be the best choice! i personally don't know and therefor i don't speculate, But i do know one thing. Brasil will chose the platform that theybelieve suits their agenda/needs best and thats th only thing that counts!

 

[B3LA]

May the best plane win, but...

I have to add a sad reminder to the numbered list above.

11 Bribes

Unfortunately there is also the matter of corruption in many or most arm deals.
This factor may vary considerable between a mature western democratic nation and a young fledgling state in the third world, but as westerners we should not be too overconfident in the moral supremancy of our leaders. Most leaders of nations have the power for a brief span of their life, either to the next election or to the next revolution.
Time is of essence and you better grab what you can from where you can as fast as you can...

 

[zeven]

I have to add a sad reminder to the numbered list above.

11 Bribes

Unfortunately there is also the matter of corruption in many or most arm deals.
This factor may vary considerable between a mature western democratic nation and a young fledgling state in the third world, but as westerners we should not be too overconfident in the moral supremancy of our leaders. Most leaders of nations have the power for a brief span of their life, either to the next election or to the next revolution.
Time is of essence and you better grab what you can from where you can as fast as you can...

Indeed you're right!.

 

[Salty Dog]

In the case of cost vs capability. I think its going to be hard to beat the Super Hornet in both contests. Yet, how is the Brazilian President going to explain the loss of the Rafale. If, in fact the Super Hornet would wins???

Whatever explanation President Lula gives, it will be pretty much accepted as most folks do not know any better and they don't really care. The (4) Scorpenes + SSN package Brazil signed with the French was far more costly than going back to buy more HDW SSKs. Alarms initially went up with the high costs of the French package which was quickly justified by the President's office and Brazilian Navy. Brazil is one place where yesterday's news is long forgotten.

 

[Bonza]

Please tell me which other platform does not offer a huge weaponpackage? similar to this? oh yes Rafale mainly french stuff Gripen? offer the most independent choice when it comes to weapon and systems, SH? hmm mainly american made systems and weapons. guess your personal opinion showed lack of knowledge again.

when did american made systems become relative sheap to operate?

Quite a fan of the Gripen, are we? So because the Super Hornet's weapon package is American in origin, and "less independent" as you imply, it's somehow less capable? Don't know if that's what you meant to say, but you're talking as if the Super Hornet's weapon package is some kind of limiting factor...

 

[Crusader2000]

Those aren't the only factorbs in the decision making process. ToT is an issue. So is maintenance which would have to be set up from scratch. And the SH is a fairly expensive platform (relatively). There are also the political implications of the decision. The process is not that simple.

How very true......


Yet, all in all I believe the Super Hornet makes the best case. If, some members like we can start another thread to debate the MMRCA / FX Contest in detail??? (Again)

 

[zeven]

Quite a fan of the Gripen, are we? So because the Super Hornet's weapon package is American in origin, and "less independent" as you imply, it's somehow less capable? Don't know if that's what you meant to say, but you're talking as if the Super Hornet's weapon package is some kind of limiting factor...

Actually you way wrong! That was not what i said! i said Gripen offer a more independent choice when it comes to weapon, I DID NOT SAY THEY OFFER MORE OR BETTER OR WORSE .

do you deni the fact that its better options from a MTBF/maintaince point of view than SH/F-16/F-15? are do you believe US platforms are superior in all catagories? if you do, then we know who's the fanboy in here don't we cheers

I'm not a fan of any specific platform, because all have advantages / disadvantages so it comes down to the customer in question which platform i woud think is the best choice.

You have to excuse me, but i get offended when ppl use the "fanboy card" especially when it comes to obvious things like stated above..

 

[zeven]

How very true......


Yet, all in all I believe the Super Hornet makes the best case. If, some members like we can start another thread to debate the MMRCA / FX Contest in detail??? (Again)

You're entitled to your opinion. i'll not argue, because you seems to have inside knowledge.
But i want to ask you where the euro/canards comes short to SH. except politically. ( i will make it clear, that i dont think SH is a worse option, but we dont know what Brasil believe is the most important. yet) thats why this circus going on between diffirent departments and industry

 

[Bonza]

Actually you way wrong! That was not what i said! i said Gripen offer a more independent choice when it comes to weapon, I DID NOT SAY THEY OFFER MORE OR BETTER OR WORSE .

do you deni the fact that its better options from a MTBF/maintaince point of view than SH/F-16/F-15? are do you believe US platforms are superior in all catagories? if you do, then we know who's the fanboy in here don't we cheers

I'm not a fan of any specific platform, because all have advantages / disadvantages so it comes down to the customer in question which platform i woud think is the best choice.

That's why I said "I don't know if that's what you meant to say". I wanted clarification. But thankyou for taking the time to tell me how wrong I am and what a fanboy I am. What reason you have for bringing up the MTBF of the F-15/16 when they're not even in the competition is beyond me.

Whether there are maintenance issues for the Super Hornet depends on the logistics and support capability of the Brazilians. I've not heard anything to indicate the Super is a maintenance hog (I know it's supposed to be a lot easier on the maintenance side than the F-14 it replaced), but that's going by the US Navy's operational and maintenance tempo. Whether this is different for Brazil remains to be seen, as I know nothing of their requirements or capabilities in that field.

For the record, I do think the Super Hornet is a good choice in the context of strengthening military ties with the United States. If Brazil is looking to develop or modify their air doctrine based on the FX acquisition, there's worse people to learn from. Whether you like it or not, the United States knows more about the application of airpower than any other nation on earth.

But I guess that makes me a fanboy, right?

 

[zeven]

You were the one who brought the "fanboy" card up in the first place! and like i said, i toke it as an offence. thats why i "over" reacted.
Which platform that would be the best for Brazil i don't know. may primary point was: all platforms in question have advantages and disadvantages. and from the operational cost /maintaince point of view SH is far from the best choice, When it comes to weapon system: all three platforms offer a huge variarity of weapons. but in Rafales case there is mainly French systems, SH mainly US made systems, Gripen however can offer a customer a more independent choice. it does not mean better or worse / more or less. just diffirennces between the platforms in question..

this was what i tried to point out, when someone called me a fanboy and therefor i reacted on the same level. but im mature enough to apologize for my reactions too. cheers and good night

 

[Bonza]

You were the one who brought the "fanboy" card up in the first place! and like i said, i toke it as an offence. thats why i "over" reacted.
Which platform that would be the best for Brazil i don't know. may primary point was: all platforms in question have advantages and disadvantages. and from the operational cost /maintaince point of view SH is far from the best choice, When it comes to weapon system: all three platforms offer a huge variarity of weapons. but in Rafales case there is mainly French systems, SH mainly US made systems, Gripen however can offer a customer a more independent choice. it does not mean better or worse / more or less. just diffirennces between the platforms in question..

this was what i tried to point out, when someone called me a fanboy and therefor i reacted on the same level. but im mature enough to apologize for my reactions too. cheers and good night

Ah, now I see - when I said "Quite a fan of the Gripen, are we?" I meant in the context of the FX competition. Your post seemed to indicate you thought operating cost was an important factor, and you mentioned the weapons package of the Gripen specifically.

I wasn't implying you were some frothing Gripen devotee with a shrine etc.

Thus I used the word "fan", not the word "fanboy".

 

[zeven]

i stand corrected and i apologize again. I totally missunderstood you.

 

[Bonza]

All good mate

 

[the road runner]

Actually you way wrong! That was not what i said! i said Gripen offer a more independent choice when it comes to weapon, I DID NOT SAY THEY OFFER MORE OR BETTER OR WORSE .

More independent Eh?Please explain what you mean by this?

and from the operational cost /maintaince point of view SH is far from the best choice,.

Really?care to explain your point of view on this with some links?Just the APG-79 ASEA has a mean time between Failures of some 2000 hours approx.(info from Defence Today Mag)

But i want to ask you where the euro/canards comes short to SH..

I would argue that if Brazil (and INDIA)wants to use Aircraft of a Carrier,they can with the F18EF as its a Carrier capable Aircraft.I myself see the EF as a very capable plane,but so is the F18 and Gripen..

NO one can MATCH what the USA spends on Research and development,this is a point that alot of people just dis regard.The USA will constantley Upgrade all there systems,with astranomical amounts of $$$$ going into R&D.

Regards..

 

[zeven]

More independent Eh?Please explain what you mean by this?




Really?care to explain your point of view on this with some links?Just the APG-79 ASEA has a mean time between Failures of some 2000 hours approx.(info from Defence Today Mag)



I would argue that if Brazil (and INDIA)wants to use Aircraft of a Carrier,they can with the F18EF as its a Carrier capable Aircraft.I myself see the EF as a very capable plane,but so is the F18 and Gripen..

NO one can MATCH what the USA spends on Research and development,this is a point that alot of people just dis regard.The USA will constantley Upgrade all there systems,with astranomical amounts of $$$$ going into R&D.

Regards..

With independet i mean: you are less dependent on the country where the platform origin from. you can choose avionics/weaponry from a wider variarity of countries.

Gripen is a more cost effective choice from an operational and LCC point of view, its desgined to be in a greater extend than the other two, its a singel egine configuration too
and the MTBF / MTBM is supreme

something that LM have worked hard to increase for F-35 for an axample.

LM and US in general have not always been best at cost management. its not the amount that is important but how you use the money! (Yes i Know US is in the frontier thanks for the huge amount of money they spend) so no need to repeat that. but because of that does not mean other platforms may suit a specific country better or worse. Rafale's upgrade program is 100 per cent funded too. i just want to point out, that SH does not score highest on all important stats.

 

[the road runner]

With independet i mean: you are less dependent on the country where the platform origin from. you can choose avionics/weaponry from a wider variarity of countries. .

But you do realise that if you try and intergrate a US Missle/bombs ect onto a non US platform,you will be paying for intergration costs?The US/EU may not even let the weapon be intergrated onto other countrys platforms......This ADDS to the COST,and i wont even go into intergrating avionics.

Gripen is a more cost effective choice from an operational and LCC point of view, its desgined to be in a greater extend than the other two, its a singel egine configuration too
and the MTBF / MTBM is supreme

So you keep saying,but supreme how so?I am under the impression that the Gripen uses a US developed engine too.

something that LM have worked hard to increase for F-35 for an axample.

Your comparing Gripen program with the JSF program???hwell

i just want to point out, that SH does not score highest on all important stats.

Scores pretty high for the US Navy,they seem to think the Aircraft is a goer,and what are these IMPORTANT stats your refering to?

Regards.

 

[swerve]

But you do realise that if you try and intergrate a US Missle/bombs ect onto a non US platform,you will be paying for intergration costs?The US/EU may not even let the weapon be intergrated onto other countrys platforms......This ADDS to the COST,and i wont even go into intergrating avionics....

Ah! You mean like Tornado, Typhoon, Viggen, Draken, Harrier, AMX, Hawk, L159, and of course, Gripen, all of which have or had a variety of US weapons integrated, before a single export customer even expressed an interest. Even Rafale has some US weapons integrated, & in use by France.

The EU has nothing to do with what weapons are integrated on anything. There is no such thing as an EU weapon. The USA does object sometimes to the integration of particular weapons, but then one can always buy a non-US alternative. For example, JASSM is quite restricted, but one can always buy Taurus or Scalp. Both are available in range-limited versions for countries where MTCR is an issue. The USA seems to have few worries about integration of lower-end PGMs, though, & both Typhoon & Gripen have AIM-120 & AIM-9 in addition to European AAMs.

It's actually pretty normal for everyone except the French, Russians & Chinese to integrate a selection of US weapons on their aircraft.