Royal Norwegian Air Force news and discussion

[Grand Danois]

Well you may not count me as a credible source but there are reports of a huge 'risk' cost that was attached to the Gripen bid by the Norwegians.

This additional cost is in the order of 3x the total purchase price, and I don't think that the JSF attracted anywhere near that amount.

From these reports (if proved true) it does seem there were some 'creative' applications of risk assessment were made in favour of one jet.

Cheers

The confusion comes from a mixup* of TCO (165 billion kroner) and LCC (55 billion kroner) by a Norwegian reporter. This has then been used at various webfora to alledge that the Norwegian calculations were 3 x those of SAAB. They are not.

* Let's assume it was an error, though apparently the JSF makes that particular journo fume with anger.
http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentarer/article2788757.ece

The Norwegians calculated that
TCO Gripen 165-175 billion NOK
TCO JSF 145 billion NOK

 

[Grand Danois]

My translation, with a little help from a systran.

- Sweden did not offer a complete aircraft

- There is only one way to do the math: add up all the costs. This is not what SAAB has done, says Eilif Holthe og Jan Høegh, The Norwegian governments number-crunchers in the fighter competition.

- The Swedes has not offered a complete aircraft. They have not included some components that are necessary for it to be a complete fighter. And then they said that some components needed to Norway had to be bought elsewhere. It is difficult to price an item you can not buy, "said Eilif Holthe from Holthe Consulting and Jan Høegh from Econ Poyri.

They are the independent experts who have quality-assured fighter project. They reject criticism from the Swedes.

The requirements followed
- The requirements set out in January, are followed. No one has changed the competition rules after people began to run, "said Holthe.

- The Swedes have no reason to complain. The conclusions are rock solid: Gripen is generally significantly more expensive than the JSF. Operationally JSF is not only better, but the only one that can meet our requirements, "said the two based on a complex set of variables and risk analyzes.

They reject allegations that favored Gripen:

* Gripen is a finished product and already in the air while the JSF is only on the drawing board.

Answer: Gripen has flown for years, but not the model we should have.

* The Swedish government guarantees the price:

Answer: Items must be in place for the aircraft to perform the missions are not included in the price. Other elements, Norway must buy themselves from others.

Uncertainty.
- What kind of aircraft have the Swedes actually offered?

- An aircraft, but not an aircraft that can do the tasks Norway has specified that we need. It is not complete.

- Can the United States guarantee the price?

No, not 100 percent. In the analysis, we considered that there is uncertainty with respect to currency, oil prices, labor costs, etc. Remember also that the JSF can share development costs for 2,500 aircraft, while Sweden has guaranteed to buy 8 aircraft if Norway buys 48. It is the only thing that is certain. So is the question of India and Brazil buying the plane. But it is a very modest number you can expect to cover the development of - and this is a very high cost.

- But there is also no guarantee of 2,500 JSF?

- No, but based on the Americans to buy a certain number of aircraft. Whether there will be a few hundred less, there will still be many thousands.

- Have the Swedes had the opportunity to clarify ambiguities?

- They have had every opportunity they could to answer questions. Everything is on protocol. And both parties equally treated.

- We've created this for the Norwegian Parliament to know the consequences of the decision they make.

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2790259.ece

 

[JWCook]

The flyaway price quoted to the Norwegians for the JSF is lower than any other LRIP price thats been quoted!.



I have it that the 55bn Kroner for the 48/58 Gripen's was made up of

24 Bn Kroner firm price for the aircraft
plus an amount for 20 yrs of service, upgrades, spares.
2 x ten year lease deals which include support costs.

There was then a further amount (bigger than the support element) to cover "estimates of MoD markups/changes in definition" - this basically gave the extra costs in the event of Norway taking 58 aircraft for 30 years, extra Fuel, and the cost of Upgrades, an MLU, and "Uncertainties".

Total 55 Bn Kroner.

Then:-
The Norwegians added ~ 140 Bn for 'risk'

Is that right?

 

[Grand Danois]

The flyaway price quoted to the Norwegians for the JSF is lower than any other LRIP price thats been quoted!.



I have it that the 55bn Kroner for the 48/58 Gripen's was made up of

20 Bn Kroner firm price for the aircraft
plus an amount for 20 yrs of service, upgrades, spares.
2 x ten year lease deals which include support costs.

There was then a further amount (bigger than the support element) to cover "estimates of MoD markups/changes in definition" - this basically gave the extra costs in the event of Norway taking 58 aircraft for 30 years, extra Fuel, and the cost of Upgrades, an MLU, and "Uncertainties".

Total 55 Bn Kroner.

Then:-
The Norwegians added ~ 140 Bn for 'risk'

Is that right?

The Norwegians added 4 Bn for making the Gripen NG "multirole" as they put it, then there are personnel costs and infrastructure over a 30 year period. My impression is also that the "MLU" is different in Swedish and Norwegian parleance. The rest is the "potential orphan premium" or "for risk." However, they have added nearly as much to the TCO of the JSF as to the GNG.

Do I agree with this? No. The Gripen classic is cheaper and the NG will probably also be. But Gripen wasn't when e.g. Finland ran it's competition in 89-92. At that time so few Gripens had been ordered, that the RM12 cost nearly twice as much as the original 404. Later, when the parent nation had completed its own production run and had some exports, the RM12 came down to planned cost (afaik).

So if built in numbers the GNG has the potential for being the cheapest "4.5 gen" and the best bang for the buck. You just need those numbers...

If the Norwegians, as the interview I posted suggest, have considered the GNG to the Gripen as the SH to the Hornet, then there is no production run in the parent nation and Norway would have to rely on SAAB being succesful on the export market for numbers.

Low technological risk doesn't automatically translate into low economical risk. I gather there is a very generous charge on that count - particularly if needed items were not priced or included in the offer.

Some of my perplexion about this, is that the Norwegian Govt would have defendable position even if the JSF had come out slightly more expensive - that was the expectation anyway!

 

[JWCook]

So if built in numbers the GNG has the potential for being the cheapest "4.5 gen" and the best bang for the buck. You just need those numbers...

Well the Flyaway price of the GNG is more than a Tranche 2 Typhoon!!!. and the added costs are by any standard pretty heavy for risk.

Its more than the entire research and development of the Typhoon and Rafale combined.. Now thats a lot of risk.

Now there is supposed to be a briefing on the 4th Dec I hope some of the figures can be clarified, because it looks like some risks have a very high price tag, higher than the cost of - R&D, designing, testing and producing a whole new aircraft.

 

[Grand Danois]

Well the Flyaway price of the GNG is more than a Tranche 2 Typhoon!!!. and the added costs are by any standard pretty heavy for risk.

Its more than the entire research and development of the Typhoon and Rafale combined.. Now thats a lot of risk.

Now there is supposed to be a briefing on the 4th Dec I hope some of the figures can be clarified, because it looks like some risks have a very high price tag, higher than the cost of - R&D, designing, testing and producing a whole new aircraft.

TCO includes all costs of running the entire fighter arm of the RNoAF for 30 years. Not just developing and buying jets.

 

[JWCook]

i understand what the LCC vs TCO are.

I was alluding to the sheer size of them. ~£13b - US$20b.

lets wait a few days

 

[gf0012-aust]

i understand what the LCC vs TCO are.

I was alluding to the sheer size of them. ~£13b - US$20b.

lets wait a few days

If the Norwegian debrief follows convention, then actual price separation will not be discussed.

We are not allowed to make a determination solely on price as the initial vector. ie its done on capability, development risk, through life support issues etc... If platforms are comparable then you can start considering the cost deltas - but you cannot make it the primary assessment point.

The actual debriefs will not come out in public as there are other commercial in confidence issues that will be binding.

So don't expect to see "real" price deltas in the public arena

 

[Vivendi]

The confusion comes from a mixup* of TCO (165 billion kroner) and LCC (55 billion kroner) by a Norwegian reporter. This has then been used at various webfora to alledge that the Norwegian calculations were 3 x those of SAAB. They are not.

* Let's assume it was an error, though apparently the JSF makes that particular journo fume with anger.
http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kommentarer/article2788757.ece

GD, I have wondered about this "mixup", I suspect it could actually be a language thing.
The point is, in Norway the word "livsløpskostnader" was used by the Norwegiand DoD. If I, as a layman, were to translate that into English, I would without hesitation translate that into "life cycle costs", because that would be the literal translation.

Now, Swedish and Norwegian are very similar languages -- A Swede can easily read Norwegian. Could it be that the word "livsløpskostnader" is very similar to a Swedish word, and that this Swedish word actually means LCC? So if a Norwegian reporter would ask the Swedes about the "livsløpskostnader" the Swedes would understand this as LCC and not TCO?

I am curious: What are LCC and TCO in Danish and Swedish?


V

 

[Grand Danois]

I am curious: What are LCC and TCO in Danish and Swedish?

In Danish: LCC - levetidsomkostning. TCO - samlet levetidsomkostning / total levetidsomkostning.

 

[Vivendi]

In Danish: LCC - levetidsomkostning. TCO - samlet levetidsomkostning / total levetidsomkostning.

I was revisiting some of the original documents. Actually they use both "levetidskostnader" and "livsløpskostnader", and it is not always clear that this is "totale levetidskostnader", although sometimes it does seem clear.

What is really confusing however is the document from the external consultants:

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Temadokumenter/Kampfly_Ekstern-kvalitetssikring_KS2_141108.pdf

Look at figure 5.4 on page 27 in the PDF file (page 23 in the document). In the figure legend it says "S-kurve LCC JSF". This must be an error? Or can LCC also mean different things to different people?

V

 

[B3LA]

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish !

Sorry, I could not stop my self to comment on this...

Today in Verldens Gang (a highly esteemed source of inside information :-O ),
there's the daily article about the JSF where they refer to an article that
John Young, the DoD's undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics
has written in the "Inside the Air Force" .

In his article, John complains that the price for the JSF still is inconclusive.

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=541016


- Why don't they just ask the Norwegian government :-D


Oh...That was soo funny, but you can ban me now. It was worth it...

Cheers,

 

[JWCook]

I have seen one serious commentator suggest a solution the the USAF financial problems - the USAF buys all its JSF's via the Norwegian offer, it would save the Americans billions in acquisition costs and TCO.nfloorl:

Well I thought it was funny.

 

[Grand Danois]

I have seen one serious commentator suggest a solution the the USAF financial problems - the USAF buys all its JSF's via the Norwegian offer, it would save the Americans billions in acquisition costs and TCO.nfloorl:

Well I thought it was funny.

Might not be such a bad idea. But it would take the fun out of anticipating cost overruns and schedule slips.

Is this really what you want?

:

 

[Grand Danois]

I was revisiting some of the original documents. Actually they use both "levetidskostnader" and "livsløpskostnader", and it is not always clear that this is "totale levetidskostnader", although sometimes it does seem clear.

What is really confusing however is the document from the external consultants:

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Temadokumenter/Kampfly_Ekstern-kvalitetssikring_KS2_141108.pdf

Look at figure 5.4 on page 27 in the PDF file (page 23 in the document). In the figure legend it says "S-kurve LCC JSF". This must be an error? Or can LCC also mean different things to different people?

V

The accompanying text says "program total lifecycle". I can't read that in any other way than TCO.

But yes, it could be that SAAB and Norway are really talking about two different things.

If they are talking about the same thing I'd think that either SAABs is too low or Norways is too high.

There may be put a transcript out in English which could clear things up.

 

[B3LA]

Guys...

I do need some help here:

I remember that I read somewhere that the F-22 needs to
be repainted with that special radar absorbent super
expensive paint after every X flight hour.
I don't remember if it was the air friction or the exposure of
probing radar waves that made the paint loose its "stealthiness".

Anyway, the costs for this repainting was so high that
officials considered to stop doing the repainting unless
there were a real combat situation coming up ahead.

Will the JSF have the same type of
problem or has it been solved now?

Admin: This is really borderline as an off topic subject. Please open another thread or we will get every man and his son making distracted comments about JSF, F-22, Stealth. PAK-FA and Gripen NG

 

[Todjaeger]

Guys...

I do need some help here:

I remember that I read somewhere that the F-22 needs to
be repainted with that special radar absorbent super
expensive paint after every X flight hour.
I don't remember if it was the air friction or the exposure of
probing radar waves that made the paint loose its "stealthiness".

Anyway, the costs for this repainting was so high that
officials considered to stop doing the repainting unless
there were a real combat situation coming up ahead.

Will the JSF have the same type of
problem or has it been solved now?

Admin: This is really borderline as an off topic subject. Please open another thread or we will get every man and his son making distracted comments about JSF, F-22, Stealth. PAK-FA and Gripen NG

Are you sure about that, or can you locate a source? Some of the earlier LO aircraft (F-117 Nighthawk in particular) had some very high maintenance requirements to remain LO. That IIRC was one of the design considerations for the F-22 and F-35, they have lower relative maintenance requirements.

It also might have been that the relative difference the 'paint' you refer to might have not been of great overall difference in performance. Something like 90% of RCS reduction measures has to do with shaping of the aircraft and placement of features. RAM IIRC accounts for something like 10%...

-Cheers

 

[RA1911]

The Norwegian government has now asked the parlament for approval to go ahead with negotiations for buying 56 F-35s for the RNoAF. According to the article this is 52 operational fighters and 4 "for training". The budget is at 42 mrd. NOK including weapons and logistics.

Source (In Norwegian):http://www.dn.no/forsiden/politikkSamfunn/article1569175.ece

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are you sure about that, or can you locate a source? Some of the earlier LO aircraft (F-117 Nighthawk in particular) had some very high maintenance requirements to remain LO. That IIRC was one of the design considerations for the F-22 and F-35, they have lower relative maintenance requirements.

It also might have been that the relative difference the 'paint' you refer to might have not been of great overall difference in performance. Something like 90% of RCS reduction measures has to do with shaping of the aircraft and placement of features. RAM IIRC accounts for something like 10%...

-Cheers

Earlier generations of unmanned and manned LO aircraft used higher ratio's of RAM "coating" (application). I think the last significant user was the B2 - and the maint issues for the B2 were changed about 18months ago due to changes in technology.

RAM application was never more than 20% (again, IIRC on the B2). On the earlier generation unmanned combat platforms, RAM was actually applied in mats (much like tiles).

There is no such thing as an entire aircraft being "painted" in RAM application.
It's applied on selective areas.

 

[yoron]

Here is Saabs view of the procurement of aircrafts.
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/saab_comments_on_norwegian_evalution.htm