Grand Danois
Entertainer
No, the SINTEF report of Dec last year, which the newspaper is referring to. Not the report from Eglin.
Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?
- Thread starter Falstaff
- Start date
- Status
More info here, also with link to the SINTEF report: http://www.fosna-folket.no/incoming/article998334.ece
I may be wrong but perhaps the 9.2 billion NOK from Dagsavisen is a kind of "worst case scenario" that most likely will not happen. The reason is that one or two of the military airports will probably be shut down. So we would need to evacuate/insulate houses around one or two airports, and most likely not all three.
Still, it would add somewhat to the costs of F-35 compared to Gripen...
I still suspect that that the main differentiator would be capabilities and offsets -- costs would probably not be the main differentiator when all things are considered (purchasing costs, maintainance, upgrades, fuel costs, etc.) although I may be wrong -- GD convinced me on the low costs for F-35, but has not (yet) convinced me on the high hidden costs for Gripen
V
Dalregementet
New Member
Read section 7.3.1.2 at page 13 and onwards.
http://www.eglin.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-081016-061.pdf
Table 7-8 lists noise levels for various aircraft at an altitude of 1,000 feet while the aircraft are in several different flight configurations that would be commonly used in the airfield vicinity. In a common takeoff configuration, the JSF would be 9 dB louder than the F-15. This difference would be perceived as being almost twice as loud (10 dB difference is perceived as being twice as loud). In cruise configuration, the JSF would be 18 dB louder than the F-15. In common airfield approach configuration, the JSF would be 10 dB louder than the F-15. These differences in sound exposure level (SEL) correspond to the JSF being perceived as two to three times louder than the F-15.
Also, look at table 7.10 at page 18.
Should, for example, a receiver be directly underneath an F-35 that is flying on an MTR at 500 feet AGL, the receiver would be expected to experience an sound exposure level of approximately 129 dB.
Also, the F-35 engine may also generate significant low-frequency engine noise, which may adversely affect ground crews working in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft.
http://www.eglin.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-081016-061.pdf
Table 7-8 lists noise levels for various aircraft at an altitude of 1,000 feet while the aircraft are in several different flight configurations that would be commonly used in the airfield vicinity. In a common takeoff configuration, the JSF would be 9 dB louder than the F-15. This difference would be perceived as being almost twice as loud (10 dB difference is perceived as being twice as loud). In cruise configuration, the JSF would be 18 dB louder than the F-15. In common airfield approach configuration, the JSF would be 10 dB louder than the F-15. These differences in sound exposure level (SEL) correspond to the JSF being perceived as two to three times louder than the F-15.
Also, look at table 7.10 at page 18.
Should, for example, a receiver be directly underneath an F-35 that is flying on an MTR at 500 feet AGL, the receiver would be expected to experience an sound exposure level of approximately 129 dB.
Also, the F-35 engine may also generate significant low-frequency engine noise, which may adversely affect ground crews working in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft.
Dalregementet
New Member
GD, can you present how you think regarding presumed high hidden costs for Gripen?More info here, also with link to the SINTEF report: http://www.fosna-folket.no/incoming/article998334.ece
I may be wrong but perhaps the 9.2 billion NOK from Dagsavisen is a kind of "worst case scenario" that most likely will not happen. The reason is that one or two of the military airports will probably be shut down. So we would need to evacuate/insulate houses around one or two airports, and most likely not all three.
Still, it would add somewhat to the costs of F-35 compared to Gripen...
I still suspect that that the main differentiator would be capabilities and offsets -- costs would probably not be the main differentiator when all things are considered (purchasing costs, maintainance, upgrades, fuel costs, etc.) although I may be wrong -- GD convinced me on the low costs for F-35, but has not (yet) convinced me on the high hidden costs for Gripen
V
From Saab:
http://www.dagsavisen.no/meninger/article377511.ece
Rought translation:
"Nobody knows exactly what fuel costs will be the next 40 years, but it is not unreasonable to assume that Norway will save up to 10 billion NOK on fuel costs using Gripen, compared to our competitor".
V
http://www.dagsavisen.no/meninger/article377511.ece
Rought translation:
"Nobody knows exactly what fuel costs will be the next 40 years, but it is not unreasonable to assume that Norway will save up to 10 billion NOK on fuel costs using Gripen, compared to our competitor".
V
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Grand Danois
Entertainer
RDAF use 100 mn USD/yr for EVERYTHING, including fuel, when running 48 F-16s....
Now think about SAABs estimate once again...
Boeing also did a humorous estimate on the KC-45s fuel cost.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Yes. For every one shot down, there is a loss of the fly-away cost - not to speak of the 2 mn USD value of the pilot training. :devil
Dalregementet
New Member
Ha ha ha! Sure!
If you look at the gripen, most components are off the shelf so the continued development is mostly systems integration - this represents of course a large share of the cost, but it´s still quite limited. What about Denmark - you have such a small area, Greenland not counted for - will you yourself be living next door to an airbase crowded with F35s :daz
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Danish fighter ABs are situated in the Danish equiv of the outback.Ha ha ha! Sure!
If you look at the gripen, most components are off the shelf so the continued development is mostly systems integration - this represents of course a large share of the cost, but it´s still quite limited. What about Denmark - you have such a small area, Greenland not counted for - will you yourself be living next door to an airbase crowded with F35s :daz
US$100 million x 40 years =4.000.000.000, US$ 4 billion, times 6.6 = 26.4 billion NOK
Thats with an F-16 with half the thrust.
So lets say 53 billion NOK for F-35 With todays fuel cost.*
Gripen has around half the thrust, same as F-16.
So it differ 26.4 Billion NOK with todays fuel cost
Does anyone know how big a percentage of total cost is fuel cost ?
* Not quite correct, maintenance cost too, its more to highlight that F-35 will consume twice as much fuel, OTOH maintenance is where Gripen really shines.
I'm of the view that fuel will double within 20 years at least, and double again after another 20 years, not least due to China and Indias increasing demand.
Probably a gross understatement...
Last edited:
http://www.mil.no/start/article.jhtml?articleID=89414
In 2004 10250 hours with F-16 cost NOK 135 million. At that time the fuel price was much lower than in recent years (approx. 55 dollars pr barrel).
More recent prices have been in the 140-180 dollar range -- right now lower than that due to the current crisis however things will return to normal and fuel prices will rice again.
So with "modern" prices 10250 hours would have cost more like NOK 350 million. 48 airplanes flying 8000 hours each will give a total of 48*8000*(350/10250) = 13,1 billion NOK w. F-16.
Question 1: How much more fuel do you expect F-35 to use pr hour, compared to an F-16?
Question 2: How much less fuel do you expect Gripen to use, compared to F-16?
If F-35 uses 30% more than F-16 that would cost 17.03 billion
If Gripen uses 20% less than F-16 that would cost 10.4 billion. Difference: approx. 7 billion.
The 350 million figure above may be considered a "conservative estimate" by Saab salespeople... they probably assume a much higher future fuel price than I did. The difference in fuel consumption between F-35 and Gripen NG is the other big unknown of course. Most of these hours will be training and QRA -- in both cases one would fly with a minimum of externals -- the increased internal fuel of NG (2500 km ferry range on internal only) would mean that in many cases one can drop the drop tank, and dramatically reduce fuel consumption.
V
Maybe they should look at running two aircraft.
Mix of Gripen and F-35. Gripens become warable trainers, take most of the flight hours, cost less, basically control airspace in and around norway. F-35 are the real war birds that get sent places and eye ball the russians or who ever Norway is at war with.
I know going into a full scale conflict which one I would rather be flying in. The one that uses more fuel. Which would you fly?
Mix of Gripen and F-35. Gripens become warable trainers, take most of the flight hours, cost less, basically control airspace in and around norway. F-35 are the real war birds that get sent places and eye ball the russians or who ever Norway is at war with.
I know going into a full scale conflict which one I would rather be flying in. The one that uses more fuel. Which would you fly?
I doubt Norway will have any resources left to launch strikes against Russia proper in the unfortunate event of a full scale conflict.
They will probably have their hands full defending their airspace against cruise missiles until the yanks arrive, and will probably be destroyed 1st day, mostly on the ground.
They will probably have their hands full defending their airspace against cruise missiles until the yanks arrive, and will probably be destroyed 1st day, mostly on the ground.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Average avfuel prices this year: 3.20 $/gallon (7 lbs/gallon)
RDAF is expected to produce 8000 flight hours on the F-16s in 2008 at a cost per flight hour of 10-12k USD.
Problem with the fuel consumption comparisons are really that the two jets probably also have different flight profiles used in peacetime...
Fuel tanks cost money as well... Having thought it over and done some back of the envelope calcs, I'd say that the SAAB people could be in the ballpark, but there are way too many unknowns for it to be of actual use.The 350 million figure above may be considered a "conservative estimate" by Saab salespeople... they probably assume a much higher future fuel price than I did. The difference in fuel consumption between F-35 and Gripen NG is the other big unknown of course. Most of these hours will be training and QRA -- in both cases one would fly with a minimum of externals -- the increased internal fuel of NG (2500 km ferry range on internal only) would mean that in many cases one can drop the drop tank, and dramatically reduce fuel consumption.
V
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Then whats the use of buying jets at all?
Want to save money on acquisition?
Want to save money on maintenance, spares & fuel?
Want to have as little environmental impact as possible?
Solution:
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
In order to defend against cruise missiles you want the following from your jet:
Persistence: lots of loiter time. This means lots of internal fuel.
Acceleration: In order to get to operational to speed as quickly as possible for intercept. Fuel is also a factor here. More fuel more tactical flexibility.
Sensors: The largest AESA possible, 360 dg IIR and a built-in IRST (to avoid a podded IRST which will induce drag and reduce loiter and acceleration).
You cannot shoot down what you do not detect. This means you have to be there and have the sensors footprint.
Agree with everything GD, and would like to add
AWAC: with a really good low altitude coverage, as forward positioned as can be safely done
Speed: with the kind of missiles russia favor, it will be a challenge to intercept a missile swarm that i'm not already right in between their flight path
:Large missile loadout
AWAC: with a really good low altitude coverage, as forward positioned as can be safely done
Speed: with the kind of missiles russia favor, it will be a challenge to intercept a missile swarm that i'm not already right in between their flight path
:Large missile loadout
Last edited:
and this puts F-35 in favor?
F-35 have a lot of advantages but Range aint one of them.
pods have their advantages too. and it does not increase drag as so much to make a serious difference.
and when we are talking about defend your country from missiles. check this out
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0dWvKLHj-k"]YouTube - Network Enabled Capability[/ame]
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Range is one of them. High internal fuel fraction, clean and efficient airframe, optimized for subsonic cruise & with good acceleration. Oh, yes.
Advantages of podded IRST. Just curious, what do you have in mind?
Btw, nice video - point defence and netted sensors is part of the solution, of course.
- Status