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

[gf0012-aust]

Next_Generation: My impression are that lesson are learned from F-117 and F-22 when it comes to "stealth and maintains". So F-35 should be better in the aspect of maintain cost. But its is possible that it still bring up the maintain cost compared to "4+gen aircraft".

both the f-22 and the b2 have gone through significant maint changes on vlo material in the last 18 months. (and they use different vlo concepts)

jsf doesn't use the same degree of vlo "materiele" - so it's a different issue in a number of areas.

 

[Fritz]

Proven at what? where and when? by who (not SAAB marketing)

what are the MTBF for the F-22? where is it, what were the breakdowns? where is the comparative data?

what scares you to death when nothing is available in the PD?

"A few years ago, SWAF made an interesting comparison among JAS-39A, F-16C/D Block40/42, F/A-18C/D, and M2000-5:


* The MTBF for JAS-39A is 7.6 flight hours, and the SAAB declared that the MTBF for the USAF?s frontline fighters (except F/A-22 perhaps) is no more than 4.1 flight hours.

* The charge for each flight-hour: 2,500 USD initially, than reduced to 2,000 USD."

As of 2007, the F22 where still flying less then 1 hour between maintenance actions* (GAO-07-406SP). Primarily because of all the problems with maintaining the stealth characteristics (GAO-01-310).
*Note, not the same as MTBF, but a Gripen won't need constant maintenance.
Historically, every aircraft with special coating to reduce RCS require significantly more maintenance then conventional aircraft. Until F-35 suddenly and unsuspectidly change that fact, it is reasonable to expect F-35 to suffer from the same problem.

If VLO is a big risk why is it that every modern military and aviation entity is developing VLO solutions.

Europe isnt developing a fighter with VLO solutions, it is developing unmanned attack aircraft with VLO solutions, and subsonic speed. Probably with the view that speed is more important for a fighter, while stealth is more important for attack aircraft.

 

[Sea Toby]

You can't shoot down an aircraft that can't be seen by your sensors. So stealth is also an important factor as as figher too. And if your enemy locks on to your aircraft, and yours don't in return, guess who gets shot down?

 

[Grand Danois]

"A few years ago, SWAF made an interesting comparison among JAS-39A, F-16C/D Block40/42, F/A-18C/D, and M2000-5:


* The MTBF for JAS-39A is 7.6 flight hours, and the SAAB declared that the MTBF for the USAF?s frontline fighters (except F/A-22 perhaps) is no more than 4.1 flight hours.

* The charge for each flight-hour: 2,500 USD initially, than reduced to 2,000 USD."

As of 2007, the F22 where still flying less then 1 hour between maintenance actions* (GAO-07-406SP). Primarily because of all the problems with maintaining the stealth characteristics (GAO-01-310).
*Note, not the same as MTBF, but a Gripen won't need constant maintenance.

Those numbers have been disseminated elsewhere here on DT. They essentially lack a breakdown to be of use. Particularly as they compare brand new Gripens with few flight hours to the airframe with an aging US jet inventory which also include twin-engined jets.

This may be the third or fourth time these MTBF numbers pop up - they really don't indicate anything. I would point out at the Gripen NG is going to use the same engines as the F-18E/F - which SAAB says wil improve on the Gripen NG's maintenance regime - what does this say about the maintenance intensity of newer US jets? (rethorical).

-> Next_Generation. The JSF is a very hot topic and posters tend to continue the discussion from where it left off - which makes it seem hostile. The same nature of the topic also requires one to be careful about how and what to post. But welcome to DT.

 

[Fritz]

You can't shoot down an aircraft that can't be seen by your sensors. So stealth is also an important factor as as figher too.

Very true, but speed is arguably even more important in intercept role.

The JSF is a very hot topic and posters tend to continue the discussion from where it left off - which makes it seem hostile. The same nature of the topic also requires one to be careful about how and what to post. But welcome to DT.

This is the essence of DT

 

[Fritz]

I'm still keenly interested in the question:"The final production Gripen NG is likely to use a F414EDE or "Step B" derivate at a higher thrust rating, possibly 25000lbs A/B."

Can anyone verify this ? it would be a significant 13% increase in thrust, -allowing the Gripen to supercruise M1.2 even when increased drag are accounted for.

 

[energo]

I'm still keenly interested in the question:"The final production Gripen NG is likely to use a F414EDE or "Step B" derivate at a higher thrust rating, possibly 25000lbs A/B."

Can anyone verify this ? it would be a significant 13% increase in thrust, -allowing the Gripen to supercruise M1.2 even when increased drag are accounted for.

No decision yet as far as the publicized information goes.


Regards,
Bjørnar

 

[gf0012-aust]

Europe isnt developing a fighter with VLO solutions, it is developing unmanned attack aircraft with VLO solutions, and subsonic speed. Probably with the view that speed is more important for a fighter, while stealth is more important for attack aircraft.

Read my statement again. I said VLO solutions. that = manned and unmanned. there have been 3 european VLO platforms under test in australia for close to 4 years.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I'm still keenly interested in the question:"The final production Gripen NG is likely to use a F414EDE or "Step B" derivate at a higher thrust rating, possibly 25000lbs A/B."

Can anyone verify this ? it would be a significant 13% increase in thrust, -allowing the Gripen to supercruise M1.2 even when increased drag are accounted for.

IIRC Boeing was working on a new engine for the Rhino, which would be useedin their SH BIII or upgraded BII. Its probably the same powerplant.

 

[gf0012-aust]

IIRC Boeing was working on a new engine for the Rhino, which would be useedin their SH BIII or upgraded BII. Its probably the same powerplant.

It may well be the base powerplant, but I seriously doubt that it will be the same engine. The US would not be releasing the full capability (ie licensed) into an export environment.

 

[swerve]

It may well be the base powerplant, but I seriously doubt that it will be the same engine. The US would not be releasing the full capability (ie licensed) into an export environment.

AFAIK, Volvo Aero will not be building the F414. Engines for Gripen NG will be imported from the USA. But Volvo manufactures parts for all F414s, & has some design responsibility for those parts. It also produces much the same parts for F404, F100, F110 & F135.

BTW, the RM12 is mostly US-made. Volvo only makes a few more parts for it than the other GE & P&W engines above, but carries out final assembly, & provides support.

Volvo is officially described as a "partner" of GE on the F404 & F414, but is just a subcontractor on the other US fighter engines it makes parts for.

In those circumstances, I can't see any reason why Sweden wouldn't be able to get the full capability engine.

 

[gf0012-aust]

In those circumstances, I can't see any reason why Sweden wouldn't be able to get the full capability engine.

My clear understanding is that elements of the engine management capability are withheld under ITARS caveats.

they're "box floggers" (is the US/4I local irreverant terminology)

 

[Fritz]

Those numbers have been disseminated elsewhere here on DT. They essentially lack a breakdown to be of use Particularly as they compare brand new Gripens with few flight hours to the airframe with an aging US jet inventory which also include twin-engined jets.

Not true-7.6 Hours for JAS-39A by SWAF report and less then 1 hour for F-22A by GAO report is a breakdown in specific aircraft model to be of use as a detailed comparison. As i read SAABs report,-none of USAF fighters can stay away from the service depot for more then 4.1 hour on average.
Your argument with brand-new-gripen doesnt work either, F-22A is at least 5 years younger, and still can only fly 1/8 of the time vs Gripen before needing to be nursed at the hanger.

 

[Grand Danois]

Not true-7.6 Hours for JAS-39A by SWAF report and less then 1 hour for F-22A by GAO report is a breakdown in specific aircraft model to be of use as a detailed comparison. As i read SAABs report,-none of USAF fighters can stay away from the service depot for more then 4.1 hour on average.
Your argument with brand-new-gripen doesnt work either, F-22A is at least 5 years younger, and still can only fly 1/8 of the time vs Gripen before needing to be nursed at the hanger.

1) read the post you respond to & the post I responded to; 2) read what you're commenting on; 3) understand how i qualified it.

edit: i'll explain later when i have the time.

 

[Grand Danois]

Gripen vs USAF/USN MTBF. Those numbers that circulate on the net suffer from lack of qualification. By having a general idea of the composition and condition of the US jet inventory it is noted that:

As opposed to the Gripens, the US numbers are fleetwide or frontline, the higher average age means more maintenance. The Gripen is quite new. This has to be taken into account.

The US inventory includes twin-engined jets, which require much more maintenance. Engines account for a large part of the maintenance of a jet. The Gripen is single engined. This has to be taken into account.

The US fighter fleet is worked much harder, accumulating flight hours to the airframe faster than any other air force. Gripens generally fly less (30% less?) than the average NATO jet, and the US fly their jets more than NATO does. The 186 Gripens that have been built only reached 100,000 flight hours this year. This has to be taken into account.

As no group of jets in the US inventory can be filtered out from these one-dimensional figures, in order to meet appropriate conditions for comparison, they're of little use (the numbers).

Further, the Gripen has also been compared to the F-18E/F; this is also in circulation on the net, usually together with the MTBF comparison:

* The man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour: 12 man-hours initially, than reduced to 10 man-hours (F/A-18 E/F: 15 man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour).

Somewhat more reasonable: both are 4th gens and are of similar age. However, the SH is twin-engined. If say, maintenance on the engines make up for half the manhours per flight hour of a jet on a single-engined jet, then they're on par, design-wise. Include the corrosion from sea spray, the heavy handed treatment the SH is subject to from catapulted launches and arrested landings and the more intense use - it suddenly becomes clear that the design and technology of the SH is superior to the Gripen as far as maintenance goes (if one accepts the premise of this metric ).

Also, the GAO report speaks of MTBM (action); a different concept than MTBF. If one wishes to get a metric of maintenance cost on Western jets, maintenance man-hours per flight hour (MMH:FH) would seem a more appropriate metric. A maintenance action can be many things small and big. And I suspect (but do not know) that the bad MTBM for the F-22A is associated with many small actions wrt to the VLO properties.

Add to that that the diagnostics and logistics system of the F-22A (and F-35) will require the operator to replace items that have not failed and outside of scheduled maintenance, in order to maximise mission effectiveness (to minimize critical failures that cause mission abort), which means more realized combat missions per jet or lower cost per combat mission, i.e. optimised for a nation that expects to use the jet in combat and wants cost-effectiveness in this regard (which also means better C-E overall, if the operator actually uses them in combat) and not peace time beancounter numbers.

Lastly, GAO only criticise. IIRC, they don't mention MTBM or MMH:FH - so they must meet their targets... either that or GAO just don't have access to those numbers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Also, the GAO report speaks of MTBM (action); a different concept than MTBF. If one wishes to get a metric of maintenance cost on Western jets, maintenance man-hours per flight hour (MMH:FH) would seem a more appropriate metric. A maintenance action can be many things small and big. And I suspect (but do not know) that the bad MTBM for the F-22A is associated with many small actions wrt to the VLO properties.

Add to that that the diagnostics and logistics system of the F-22A (and F-35) will require the operator to replace items that have not failed and outside of scheduled maintenance, in order to maximise mission effectiveness (to minimize critical failures that cause mission abort), which means more combat missions per jet or lower cost per combat mission, i.e. optimised for a nation that expects to use the jet in combat and wants cost-effectiveness in this regard (which also means better CE overall, because the owner will actually use them in combat) and not peace time bean counter numbers.

actually the GAO report has been comprehensively dismissed because it completely ignores real time imperatives, and it also lacks relevance as it was prior to revision of the VLO maintenance procedures which have developed new technologies in the last 18 months. There is a substantial body of thought which reinforces the fact that AO assessments done in absentia of operational understanding are always prism events.

we suffer the same problems with ANAO and ADF. Basically ANAO have a disjointed and unappreciative insight into whats military costs are - its not a literal accounting event.

Apart from the fact that trying to risk and cost comparisons on a single engine 4th gen (4.5 if you accept marketing) to a twin VLO with a very different usage doctrine is like comparing a vanilla CLK mercedes with a twin turbo Brabus. there is a relative similarity, but it finishes once the detail is focussed on.

 

[Fritz]

Actually i have been wondering for quite some time why airforces put two engines on an aircraft if it increases maintenance so much, while at the same time increase fuel consumption and reduce range.
On top of that, you may not even get increased speed, Gripen and F-18 uses the same engine, F-18 has two of them, and still is significantly slower.

 

[Scorpion82]

Actually i have been wondering for quite some time why airforces put two engines on an aircraft if it increases maintenance so much, while at the same time increase fuel consumption and reduce range.
On top of that, you may not even get increased speed, Gripen and F-18 uses the same engine, F-18 has two of them, and still is significantly slower.

That's a mood comparison. Two engines most oftenly offer a better TWR and higher flight safety. That the F-18 isn't that fast is mainly caused by its aerodynamical design rather than the engines. Therefore if you require best possible performance and highest flight safety go for twin engine. If you require low cost of ownership go for single engine.

 

[AegisFC]

Actually i have been wondering for quite some time why airforces put two engines on an aircraft if it increases maintenance so much, while at the same time increase fuel consumption and reduce range.
On top of that, you may not even get increased speed, Gripen and F-18 uses the same engine, F-18 has two of them, and still is significantly slower.

With 2 engines you have increased reliability, if one goes out you can limp home while in a single engine you'll probably crash unless you are very close to an air field.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Actually i have been wondering for quite some time why airforces put two engines on an aircraft if it increases maintenance so much, while at the same time increase fuel consumption and reduce range.
On top of that, you may not even get increased speed, Gripen and F-18 uses the same engine, F-18 has two of them, and still is significantly slower.

It's about thrust - not absolute speed. The 90's saw a shift away from speed as an empirical benefit in fixed wing combat design - the focus is on manouvre and thrust. as a bad analogy, think of 2wd and 4wd as a comparison of torque and handling rather than an issue of speed .....