Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?

[Ryttare]

If you can provide it, I would be very interested in a reference to this particular SAAB information.

"Major undertaking" in this respect would be in terms of the avionics, not the Gripen system as a whole. But it's quite possible you are correct, I don't have sufficient details on the Gripens' SC to claim as much. It's possible that some kind of omnibus solution - which supports several bus standards - is used that will ease the migration, but I've seen no evidence of this myself.

However I do know that a systems bus is the most integral part of any integrated computer hardware and thus the most comprehensive part to change. I also know that this has previously forced avionics designs to comprimise and provide proprietary solutions, the Gripens 5-bus design is an example. This is no less true for the F-22 and F-35 - or any system - of course, the only difference being that these developed from scratch with newer technology.

I gave you a link that showed that Saab will upgrade computers and buses.

I would reconsider using insults towards your like-minded forum participants.

However, I was (obviously?) refering to a possible upgrade path in the 2020-2025 timeframe for existing Gripen customers. A major (but clearly not the only) argument for the tail-less design is to provide better stealth characteristics, in which it would approach the F-35. Though purely speculation, I also think it's reasonable to expect an avionics upgrade that would be on par with the F-35.

The major point of the matter is that the Gripen is often portrayed as the cheaper candidate of the "three" wheras the big picture is much more complex. Such a comprehensive upgrade or rebuild would have to be factored into the life cycle cost at this point. One could of curse choose not to upgrade, but then be left with a less capable fighter which has already reached its conventional design limits.

It's not necessarily a good deal for a weapons system which is expected to be operational until the year 2050 with relatively incremental upgrades.


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy

If your feelings are hurt I would advise you to back up your claims with some kind of reference, preferably a link.

The F-35s Norway are offered will not have thrust vectoring.

 

[Ryttare]

Elaborate, please.


Regards
Bjørnar

To police norwegian air space by intercepting foreign aircraft, identify and escort them out is not a major undertaking. The similar task for foreign ships isn't very demanding either. In the extremely unlikely event of a full blown war 48 fighters wont make much difference anyway.

 

[Ryttare]

Given you are European, I will tolerate your bias. Gripen and Eurofighter and Rafale have HMD, but they are not close to how good F-35's HMD is. F-35 is the first fighter to have no HUD! The new generation of European jets were built to be conventional, with external weapons pylons and few if any radar absorbent paint. Heck, Rafale can't even replace Mirage 2000 due to its high cost. French air force only ordered around 60 Rafales if I'm not mistaken. Also, F-35's integrated display just blows every other cockpit away, even F-22's.

And you believe your bias isn't visible? :smooth Gripen has a HMD available already today, Eurofighter has a quite progressed development in the area but Rafales seems a bit uncertain right now. F-35 is not operational for many years and I would like to see how can be so sure that it's HMD will be so much better than other fighters at the time of induction.

That JSF wont have a HUD does not impress me, and the single screen is something I don't see as an advantage, rather the other way around.

 

[energo]

I gave you a link that showed that Saab will upgrade computers and buses.

It didn't provide much information.


Regards
Bjørnar

 

[sunjerem]

And you believe your bias isn't visible? :smooth Gripen has a HMD available already today, Eurofighter has a quite progressed development in the area but Rafales seems a bit uncertain right now. F-35 is not operational for many years and I would like to see how can be so sure that it's HMD will be so much better than other fighters at the time of induction.

That JSF wont have a HUD does not impress me, and the single screen is something I don't see as an advantage, rather the other way around.

F-15 and the more advanced F-16 achieved IOC in 1975 and 1979 respectively. F-22 (F-15's replacement) achieved IOC in 2005, and we can expect F-35 (F-16's replacement) to achieve IOC in 2009, which is its intended IOC date.

Also, Gripen can be compared to late F-16 at best, though it lacks engine power. F-35 is waaaaaaaaaaay ahead of it, whether it gets "upgraded" or not.

 

[energo]

To police norwegian air space by intercepting foreign aircraft, identify and escort them out is not a major undertaking. The similar task for foreign ships isn't very demanding either. In the extremely unlikely event of a full blown war 48 fighters wont make much difference anyway.

I think its probable that 48 F-35s or, in particular F-22s, would be capable of making a credible stance agains a fleet of new russian stealth and highly network centric 5th generation fighters, surface ships and supersonic cruise missles in the post 2020 timeframe. I don't have the same conviction regarding the Gripen or EF as they don't provide much beyond the current F-16 upgrade capability.


Regard,
Bjørnar

 

[Ryttare]

It didn't provide much information.


Regards
Bjørnar

It provided much more information than you have. To spell it out, you compared the processors and buses of the future F-35 with todays Gripens. I showed you that computers and buses of Gripen will be upgraded and your comparison don't work. Now it's up to you to provide more information if you want to take it further.

 

[Ryttare]

I think its probable that 48 F-35s or, in particular F-22s, would be capable of making a credible stance agains a fleet of new russian stealth and highly network centric 5th generation fighters, surface ships and supersonic cruise missles in the post 2020 timeframe. I don't have the same conviction regarding the Gripen or EF as they don't provide much beyond the current F-16 upgrade capability.


Regard,
Bjørnar

The norwegian aquisition budget is not close to enough for 48 F-22s, even if it would be for sale to Norway. It's probably not even enough for 48 JSF.

And even for 48 F-35s I don't share your optimism.

 

[Ryttare]

F-15 and the more advanced F-16 achieved IOC in 1975 and 1979 respectively. F-22 (F-15's replacement) achieved IOC in 2005, and we can expect F-35 (F-16's replacement) to achieve IOC in 2009, which is its intended IOC date.

Also, Gripen can be compared to late F-16 at best, though it lacks engine power. F-35 is waaaaaaaaaaay ahead of it, whether it gets "upgraded" or not.

F-35 IOC in 2009? That is a bold claim, can you back it up because that is not what I've heard. And when can we expect it to be fully operational in both A2G and A2A?

 

[swerve]

F-35 IOC in 2009? That is a bold claim, can you back it up because that is not what I've heard. And when can we expect it to be fully operational in both A2G and A2A?

Indeed. According to Congressional report RL30563 (see link), updated 25-10-2007, IOC for F-35A (the simplest variant) is scheduled for 2013, having slipped from 2011 - see page 9. The STOVL F-35B is planned to reach IOC about a year earlier. Development & test is so far running later than that schedule calls for.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

 

[energo]

It provided much more information than you have. To spell it out, you compared the processors and buses of the future F-35 with todays Gripens. I showed you that computers and buses of Gripen will be upgraded and your comparison don't work. Now it's up to you to provide more information if you want to take it further.

Well, you specifically indicated that you have detailed information on the future Gripens avionics upgrades. If I can remind you: the context of the argument is which computer/bus architecture will be available in the Gripen N and whether or not this will be a simple plug-in upgrade, as you are suggesting.

The presentation you linked does not mention these factors.


Regards,
Bjørnar

 

[energo]

The norwegian aquisition budget is not close to enough for 48 F-22s, even if it would be for sale to Norway. It's probably not even enough for 48 JSF.

Both are within the current budget estimates providing the currency exhange rates don't change radically. The Chief of the General Staffs 2003 report establishes a variable cost budget between 26 to 38 billion NOK, though the inflation ajusted general consensus today is a 40-50 BNOK estimate after 2012. Assuming a current unit cost of 135 million USD 48 F-22s is roughly 37 BNOK and 48 JFSs at around 100 million USD roughly 27 BNOK.

And even for 48 F-35s I don't share your optimism.

Granted, it's a tough job, but it would seem certain that 48 Gripens will be an even less optimistic approach.


Regards,
Bjørnar

 

[Grand Danois]

Assuming a current unit cost of 135 million USD 48 F-22s is roughly 37 BNOK and 48 JFSs at around 100 million USD roughly 27 BNOK.

135 m USD is flyaway cost. To get the UPC (unit procurement cost) you can add roughly 60% plus a 3.75% FMS fee on top. That's 224 m USD a pop or 10.8 billion USD for the acquisition of 48 Raptors.

That's 2007 prices, not 2012.

Edit: Checked up on the numbers. UFC is 116 m USD, (A)UPC (2006) is 177.6 m USD. Add FMS fee and you get 184.3 m USD (2006). That makes the UFC/UPC diff 52.6% for the Raptor and, IIRC, it is 58% for the F-35.

 

[energo]

135 m USD is flyaway cost. To get the UPC (unit procurement cost) you can add roughly 60% plus a 3.75% FMS fee on top. That's 224 m USD a pop or 10.8 billion USD for the acquisition of 48 Raptors.

That's 2007 prices, not 2012.

Perhaps, estimating FMS is a complex task added by the fact that there is no way of knowing for certain what the US DoD would factor in. However, what would the 60% consist of? Granted, projected upgrades is one of several uncertain factors, but if I remember correctly the FY 08 budget estimates priced the lot 7 weapons systems/procurement at about $150 million per. unit which includes PALS/PSAS related cost, subjected contract modifications etc.
I might have to check up on that, though.


Regards,
Bjørnar

 

[Grand Danois]

You'll notice I added extra numbers for my prev post, from lot 8 iirc. The added cost from UFC to UPC comes from making the basic aircraft operational, i.e maintenance
tools, documentation, initial spares, whatnot - i.e. cannot be avoided. And not uncertain or diffuse at all.

The FMS is a fixed fee on top of that. It's the US govts way of recouping R&D costs as foreign entities are not allowed to pay for US R&D including export hardware. There is no FMS fee on the F-35, as Norway is a partner and has ownership, i.e. it is not technically exported.

Perhaps, estimating FMS is a complex task added by the fact that there is no way of knowing for certain what the US DoD would factor in. However, what would the 60% consist of? Granted, projected upgrades is one of several uncertain factors, but if I remember correctly the FY 08 budget estimates priced the lot 7 weapons systems/procurement at about $150 million per. unit which includes PALS/PSAS related cost, subjected contract modifications etc.
I might have to check up on that, though.


Regards,
Bjørnar

 

[Ryttare]

Both are within the current budget estimates providing the currency exhange rates don't change radically. The Chief of the General Staffs 2003 report establishes a variable cost budget between 26 to 38 billion NOK, though the inflation ajusted general consensus today is a 40-50 BNOK estimate after 2012. Assuming a current unit cost of 135 million USD 48 F-22s is roughly 37 BNOK and 48 JFSs at around 100 million USD roughly 27 BNOK.
Regards,
Bjørnar

F-35 is without R&D and some other costs is at the moment projected to be 104.4 Mn USD at 2,458 aircraft, total program cost including R&D 121.9 Mn USD per plane in 2006 dollars.

Then you also need a supply of spares, tools and other maintenance equipment, simulators, traing of crews and pilots and other equipment. Total costs will be much higher and for a hint look at the sale of F-16 to Morocco. 24 planes for 2.4 Bn USD equals 100 Mn dollars each and don't believe you'll get F-35 for same price.

 

[Grand Danois]

F-35 is without R&D and some other costs is at the moment projected to be 104.4 Mn USD at 2,458 aircraft, total program cost including R&D 121.9 Mn USD per plane in 2006 dollars.

Then you also need a supply of spares, tools and other maintenance equipment, simulators, traing of crews and pilots and other equipment. Total costs will be much higher and for a hint look at the sale of F-16 to Morocco. 24 planes for 2.4 Bn USD equals 100 Mn dollars each and don't believe you'll get F-35 for same price.

Re the F-16. It is not useful for a direct comparison, e.g. the Aussies paid 6 billion AUD for 24 Super Hs.

Re the F-35. That's program acquisition unit cost (PAUC), which does in fact include everything like training aids, tools etc. It is also only applicable to the US - not the partner nations. AND it is also the unit cost averaged over the A/B/C versions of which Norway and Denmark will buy the cheapest variant - the A.

The PAUC for the F-22 is 350+ m USD as comparison.

 

[Ryttare]

Re the F-16. It is not useful for a direct comparison, e.g. the Aussies paid 6 billion AUD for 24 Super Hs.

Why isn't the Morocco F-16 purchase useful and what has the Australian purchase has to do with it?

Re the F-35. That's program acquisition unit cost (PAUC), which does in fact include everything like training aids, tools etc. It is also only applicable to the US - not the partner nations. AND it is also the unit cost averaged over the A/B/C versions of which Norway and Denmark will buy the cheapest variant - the A.

The PAUC for the F-22 is 350+ m USD as comparison.

Yes, those initial costs are supposed to be included, but in reality it usually costs more, especially for small air forces. And if you want more than the baseline model it will cost more. Integration of Kongsberg NSM is probably not included for example.

 

[Ryttare]

Both are within the current budget estimates providing the currency exhange rates don't change radically. The Chief of the General Staffs 2003 report establishes a variable cost budget between 26 to 38 billion NOK, though the inflation ajusted general consensus today is a 40-50 BNOK estimate after 2012. Assuming a current unit cost of 135 million USD 48 F-22s is roughly 37 BNOK and 48 JFSs at around 100 million USD roughly 27 BNOK.

Regards,
Bjørnar

By the way, this Chief of general staffs report, is that really the budget for the aquisition from the government? I would like to see a link about the government budget, in norwegian is no problem, because what I've seen so far says 24 Bn NOK.

 

[Grand Danois]

Why isn't the Morocco F-16 purchase useful and what has the Australian purchase has to do with it?

Because they are different packages and are accounted for in different ways. Which is why cost of entire packages is *not* an indicator of unit cost unless you're able to make a breakdown.

The Aussie example was provided to highlight how absurd such a number of jets vs package cost is as a stand-alone comparison.

Yes, those initial costs are supposed to be included, but in reality it usually costs more, especially for small air forces.

Please elaborate.

And if you want more than the baseline model it will cost more. Integration of Kongsberg NSM is probably not included for example.

Just as it isn't on Gripen. Hmmm. Let's see. Integrate NSM on F-35 and you have a potential market of 3,500++ airframes for the NSM. Integration on Gripen N gives a market of, if everything goes Gripens way, 250 airframes. How do you sell more missiles?