Royal Norwegian Air Force news and discussion

[Grand Danois]

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

I find it amusing that SAAB believe the Swedish experience with single engine jets to be applicable to the Norwegians.

The Norwegians have a different geographical and topographical setting just as there is way more flying faunae to collide with.

Which is why, of course, that the attrition rates are higher for Norwegian F-16 than Swedish Gripen...

Yet the F-16 experience should be the relevant one to apply in prediction of losses unless special circumstances apply.

 

[yoron]

Really GD?


The Swedish magazine 'new technology' reported the 27 of February 2009 that Saab gave Denmark a set 'Full Life Cycle' price guarantee if they would buy Gripen. Michael Olofsson frpm Gripen Denmark explains that this is Saab's way of showing that Norway's calculations were in the wrong.

"the only way we can prove it is by giving this price guarantee" He says. The total price is esteemed to be 917 million Danish kronas per aircraft and full 'life cycle'., (165 002194. US Dollars) That is somewhere around half what the JSF is expected to cost over a life cycle, according to the magazine.

(In Swedish unfortunately)
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/flygplan/article526850.ece

 

[Grand Danois]

Really GD?


The Swedish magazine 'new technology' reported the 27 of February 2009 that Saab gave Denmark a set 'Full Life Cycle' price guarantee if they would buy Gripen. Michael Olofsson frpm Gripen Denmark explains that this is Saab's way of showing that Norway's calculations were in the wrong.

"the only way we can prove it is by giving this price guarantee" He says. The total price is esteemed to be 917 million Danish kronas per aircraft and full 'life cycle'., (165 002194. US Dollars) That is somewhere around half what the JSF is expected to cost over a life cycle, according to the magazine.

(In Swedish unfortunately)
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/flygplan/article526850.ece

1. Read what I wrote.
2. At the 27. Feb SEK/DKK/USD exchange rate? Nice little trick there.

It's getting tiresome when the used car salesman keeps telling your wife one cost of a car, when you know there's more to it.

 

[yoron]

1.?
2.??
Sorry GD, don't get what you mean?
I did read what you wrote.

It's ah, confusing may be a word?
Those not getting my drift here, take a look in a atlas.

For those of you who want to read that Swedish article for yourselves?
Just open the link I gave in my former post. Then 'copy' the text.
Go to http://translate.google.com/ .

There you just need to 'paste' in the text and read the translation.
It won't be perfect, but it will be understandable

---

Ah, pidgin English I'm afraid (tested it)
But understandable?
Just look at it as that Japanese brainteaser 'Sudoko' and you will be fine.

Ok, I see DB, the exchange rate for one month ago, you mean.
Look it up and correct the 'dollar setting' if you like,
I converted it just as a service to those not knowing the worth of the Danish krona.

 

[Grand Danois]

1. I pointed out the most obvious, 'internet provable' and illustrative example on how SAABs assumptions are wrong.

2. The Swedish SEK isn't going to stay where it is in purchasing power... I haven't seen any offer in DKK only SEK, and what journos then transfer into DKK - it's a media stunt. And what SAAB defines as life cycle is not what customers define as life cycle.

There is plenty around on DT on that topic or you can read it in rhe reports themselves.

SAAB is not making a rebuttal, they're making a face saving exercise.

 

[yoron]

Sorry GD, if you don't find giving you a guaranteed fixed prize, probably 'locked' to what exchange rate there was or will be at that time (discounting inflation) this sale may go through, for the full operational time of those aircrafts lifes. Then I don't see what Saab can do to prove their certainty of the value of what they are selling.

And if that Price is guaranteed then Saab have to uphold it. And yes, they did out of a need to prove Norway calculations wrong. It's a huge risk taking, if they are wrong, but, they're not. Instead of complaining you should see the offer for what it is. One of the best defensive 'state of the art' aircrafts in the world, and now with a 'life time' guarantee. You have to be pretty sure on your self to back such an offer

 

[Grand Danois]

Sorry GD, if you don't find giving you a guaranteed fixed prize, probably 'locked' to what exchange rate there was or will be at that time (discounting inflation) this sale may go through, for the full operational time of those aircrafts lifes. Then I don't see what Saab can do to prove their certainty of the value of what they are selling.

And if that Price is guaranteed then Saab have to uphold it. And yes, they did out of a need to prove Norway calculations wrong. It's a huge risk taking, if they are wrong, but, they're not. Instead of complaining you should see the offer for what it is. One of the best defensive 'state of the art' aircrafts in the world, and now with a 'life time' guarantee. You have to be pretty sure on your self to back such an offer

A handful of wrongful assumptions aside, SAAB can't do any more to prove the certainty to what their product will cost: and it is thus left to the customer to determine the remaining financial risk - which is considerable in the case of the GNG. SAAB 'guaranteed' cost is only for a fraction of the product. It's just not representative full life cycle costs.

They're pretty sure because they don't have to deliver much. The financial risk will be borne by the customer 15 years from now...

That SAAB then disagree with the customer estimates, when they couldn't determine the costs themselves and only guarantee the cost for a fraction of their product?

That they also think that the F-35A will be a 330 mn USD jet...

 

[Vivendi]

SAAB 'guaranteed' cost is only for a fraction of the product. It's just not representative full life cycle costs.

They're pretty sure because they don't have to deliver much. The financial risk will be borne by the customer 15 years from now...

GD, do you have any description of what Saab includes in their "guaranteed, full life cycle costs" in their offer to Denmark? Or are you merely speculating?

V

 

[karan583]

That SAAB then disagree with the customer estimates, when they couldn't determine the costs themselves and only guarantee the cost for a fraction of their product?

IFAIK, Denmark was offered a similar deal as the Netherlands:
http://i40.tinypic.com/2ev6e03.jpg
Looking at their offer, I can't see what's left for Saab to offer.

Should Saab take responsibility for any changes in oil-prices? Or the fact that e.g. Norway plan to crash 50% of the fleet over 35 years?

That they also think that the F-35A will be a 330 mn USD jet...

I have never heard Saab publicly criticizing capabilities or price claims made by the a competitor. Nor have I heard them making claims of what the real capabilities or price would be.

 

[longbow]

IFAIK, Denmark was offered a similar deal as the Netherlands:
http://i40.tinypic.com/2ev6e03.jpg
Looking at their offer, I can't see what's left for Saab to offer.

The offer is vague on spares and says nothing about upgrades - Low build numbers and few users makes the upgrades expensive.

 

[freethinker]

"If the claimed estimates are correct it would be cheaper for Norway to obtain JSF, even if Sweden would have developed and given 48 Gripen Next Generation (NG) as a gift to Norway. It should be unreasonable. "

The Norweigan estimate is a joke. JSF is probably going to be a great plane but it sure as hell isnt going to be a cheap one.

 

[Palnatoke]

Lets be real.

The Gripen vs F35 contest in scandinavia has nothing to do with the airplanes themselves, but to do with whom produces them.

In both DK and NO it would be a popular choise to go swedish, but (relevant) realities are the following:

Norway got a common border with Russia.

Denmark has a foreign policy/ defense policy closely aimed at being able to coorperate with the UK/US on the battle field. As seen f.ex. in Iraq and afgh.

While the Norwegian situation is quite clear (they need the US), Denmark's situation needs further elaboration: While Danish forces are coorperating with british and not US forces (which is an argument for the Euro fighter), Denmark is a country with an "interesting" geographical situation not only does "Denmark proper" control the mouth of the baltic, the kingdom includes Greenland. And those two things demands a bigger friend than the UK - namely the US.

Now the french understood this from the beginning, and refused to offer the Raf for sale. Eurofighter probably hoped that particulary Denmark's coorperation with the UK would work in favour for the Eurofighter, but -no. And they left the procurement process accussing - particulary denmark - for being biased (which undoubtably is true).

What's left s the airplane that both will buy - the american be that F18 or F35 and then the swedish, which lives only because of a sense of "Scandinavianismn". We would really like to buy a swedish plane... but...

And we buy buy american because in the worst scenario, the US is the conerstone of Norwegian and danish "survival strategy".

 

[longbow]

Lets be real.

The Gripen vs F35 contest in scandinavia has nothing to do with the airplanes themselves, but to do with whom produces them.

You are right about one thing - The US is THE cornerstone in Norwegian defence policy, and rightly so. However, if you want to "be real" then you need to provide some facts to support your claims. The Norwegian MOD stated that it would be "politically acceptable" to buy either European(ie. Gripen) or American. The type of aircraft operated by the RNoAF will not be a deciding factor regarding if the US(or other NATO-countries) would uphold their NATO-commitments should the worst happen. The Norwegian MOD have also stated that the choice would be based upon the capabilities of the aircraft(not price, nor country of origin).

I know that you and your fellow Sweden strong-crew would like to think otherwise, but please, it is getting tiresome.

Would you not agree that the F-35 is a far more capable aircraft than GNG(if ever built)?

To say that Norway had to buy American equipment is pure BS, and just about Gripen fanboys saving face. The Norwegian armed forces are using or planning on using lots of excellent Swedish stuff like CV90 and the Archer artillery-system.

 

[Aussie Digger]

"If the claimed estimates are correct it would be cheaper for Norway to obtain JSF, even if Sweden would have developed and given 48 Gripen Next Generation (NG) as a gift to Norway. It should be unreasonable. "

The Norweigan estimate is a joke. JSF is probably going to be a great plane but it sure as hell isnt going to be a cheap one.

Economies of scale my friend. The F-35 production run is going to dwarf any other modern fighter bar the F-16, by a factor of 3 to 1 or more.

If this weren't true, Ferraris would be the same price as Toyotas...

 

[yoron]

Here is GAO:s preliminary report on the cost development for F35 JSF (March 2008) http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09303.pdf with the projected costs for the JSF

And here you find a blog discussing the JFS and the Rand pdf. where Dr Stillion in his pre-briefing report for the US Pacific Vision war games exercise held in August, assessed the controversial JSF as being "double inferior". "Inferior acceleration, inferior climb, inferior sustained turn capability," he wrote. "Can't turn, can't climb, can't run." http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/
It's interesting.

And the Rand report only, if that is what you want to see
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf
But the blog above is a recommended read before you read it.

 

[yoron]

So the Swedish government ain't to happy either
This is a pdf descrining what the embassy's policy should be considering Gripen and Norway. In Swedish.. http://www.nyteknik.se/multimedia/archive/00044/Regeringens_missiv_o_44940a.pdf

What it states is in short

--------

1. Norway asked for an offer on 48 aircrafts but made its calculations afterward on the price of 57 without checking for what a new price for those together would be by the Swedish FMV.

2. Norway also made their calculations based on thirty years operative use instead of as they speccified to Sweden twenty years, again without checking with FMV.

3. Norway included on their own an increased cost of four Billion (Norwegian?) Kronas for diverse needed 'upgrades(?)' that we only had some price estimates about. The rest of the price calculations were their own.

They have also counted on Gripen E/F getting produced in some tens of exemplars while expecting the JSF to be produced in the thousands?

-------

(Norway seems also to have made their cost estimation based on the opinion that in thirty five years expecting every other Gripen to crash(?)) (Since 1988 we have had five crashes, two from the preliminary test flights and three afterwards)

Reading those numbers, including the 'prototypes' nota bene, we get approximately one crash per, ah, five years, as a friendly guess. That, as Norway is counting on half its Airforce crashing in thirty five years, will give us a Norwegian planned Airforce of fourteen planes, right? Whereof seven still would be fly-able in thirty five years. Rather small Air Force, don't you think. Ah well.

The result used as a cost calculation (each plane) and then of the 'overall life cycle' costs as a whole, created a Norwegian price estimate ..double.. the estimate made from Swedish FMV.

------------END-----------------

 

[ASFC]

And? Who cares? it is like Honda complaining about me in my local newspaper because I bought Volvo car instead of a Honda car.

The customer is king-making noises about it just puts the customer of from returning in the future to have a look at what you have to sell.

Norway has decided to buy F-35. Move on. Stop trying to fight battles you have already lost, as it is a waste of time and effort. All this whinging makes it sound like Norway was Gripen's last chance of an export sale-which it isn't.

 

[yoron]

I care

Not that much, but when it comes to 'rumor mangling' of our character or technology I react, just as you would. Let me see, if somebody tells you that Gripen is sh**, then it's ok? If someone tells you why its not, giving you links as to why then...It doesn't matter?

Impressive.

 

[Palnatoke]

Longbow

I don't have any proof.

Though In my line of work, we are (thankfully; "sometimes", we also do something that I think is decent... ) hired by a politician in the shape of a high level civil servant/official to present facts and figures concerning some area. And if they wanted a throughly scientific examination, objective and all that, don't you think they would have called some university proffesor for a 1/100 of the price? We know what they want and we present the facts and figures in that light.

That's how you do politics: You have a political idea, and then you hire people (or have your own civil servants, think tank etc - depends on the nature of the politics) to make up some good valid arguments to surport your political idea.

And with zero knowledge of the norwegian "estimations" vis a vis the gripen, I am perfectly sure that that is what is/has been going on.

Believe me on this: When Denmark or Norway decides to spend such huge amounts of money on something, the call is not made by some Engineer (Engineer in the scandinavien meaning of the word) or Officer of the defense, the call is made in the inner most circle of power, and that is the goverment and selected officials/Civil servants from the ministries that matter, and those are not technicians.

Our engineer(a technical academic, not a construction worker) in the airforce with the technical expertise or our officer in the airforce with the operative expertise are meerly interessents to the process. Abeit through their superiors (like the chief of defense) they have direct acess to the ministry of defense and as such are important, but in a way not different than the arms surpliers, or other non-state groups.

To buy these planes are highly political (look up how many "questions" have been possed in the respective parliaments) that means that technicians are not "asked", but "used".

 

[Aussie Digger]

And here you find a blog discussing the JFS and the Rand pdf. where Dr Stillion in his pre-briefing report for the US Pacific Vision war games exercise held in August, assessed the controversial JSF as being "double inferior". "Inferior acceleration, inferior climb, inferior sustained turn capability," he wrote. "Can't turn, can't climb, can't run." http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/
It's interesting.

Is it interesting? Where were the figures in that report obtained from? The classified USAF figures that RAND has access to?

No?

Air Power Australia provided the figures for the SU-30, F-22 and F-35 for that report.

Why is that I wonder? Why wouldn't RAND use the USAF figures they DO have access to?

I think you should also Google Falconview and find out what exactly it does.

One thing it does not do, is measure the relative air combat performance of various fighters...