Gripen NG

[AndiPandi]

Sweden may have 200 cheap personnel and Norway may have 300 expensive personnel per squadron - changing aircraft does not change this.

The F-16 needs 3 times as many people to operate, so the type of aircraft you are using will surely affect your costs.

I have only seen this in a SAAB pres release, so I may have missed the original source, i.e. the documents I've seen says 10 attrition jets are needed.

"Half of the aircrafts" is a quote from SAAB, i've seen the numbers in some slides as well. The figure is high IMO but if we assume they hade the same figure for JSF its nothing to argue about really.

But the offer was twice as expensive per unit at acquisition and more expensive per flight hour !!!

Where is the flight hour cost stated? Every info I read from SAAB say the figure is lower for NG compared with C/D assuming you use them in the same way (for sweden its $2000 instead of $2500 for the C/D). I have seen different figures for different countries though, India $3500 for example. Different countries are asking for different things as well. The India NG can be different from the Norway NG.

In theory it may be cheaper, but the actual real world execution makes it more expensive, e.g. if you establish a seperate assembly line for the F414G in Norway or Sweden instead of leverageing it directly off the GE production line, the former was part of SAABs offset plan. It makes a cheap product expensive! Or if there will only be the GNGs that Norway had ordered - then an otherwise potentially cheap modified product made from cots/mots parts becomes as expensive as if it was custom built.

Now you are speculating again. If SAAB sais the GE-F414 will be 20% cheaper than the RM12 I guess we have to believe them? Remember that the engine is used in a bunch of SHs as well. Even if Norway is the sole user of NG the engine wont be the expensive part. The NG engine wont be modified like the GE-F404, just some small adaptions for single engine usage.


Here is a link with a bird strike:
Jas-plan kolliderade med fågel - tvingades nödlanda - Nyheter - Expressen.se

 

[Vivendi]

AFAIK the F-16s did have some issues with bird strikes in "the early days"; I don't know if this was fixed before Norway got her planes?

Anyway (modern) F-16 and Gripen should have fairly bird-resistant engines, however there are limits of course.

I wonder if Gripen may have some advantages when it comes to the air intakes and the positioning of those -- the bird needs to move at a specific angle to actually enter the air intake, if it is "off" it may bounce off the fuselage instead.

Also the much smaller size of the Gripen air intake will make it harder to hit, in addition the really big birds will have a much lower probability of entering a small air intake than a big. The air intake of the F-16 looks like nice "bird catcher" to me...

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the size of the bird can be quite important for the outcome of a bird strike. Whereas small birds will not cause that much damage big birds will. And a big bird will have a higher probability of reaching the engine of an F-16 than a Gripen due to the above-mentioned factors.


V

 

[Vivendi]

OK, 22 incidents, 18 in which the aircraft was destroyed.

How many of them had anything to do with the high mountains of norway? 4 of the incidents took place in other countries than Norway, 6 where birdstrikes or engine failures, two where collisions with power cables (we have them in sweden as well you know...) 3 were collisions with other aircraft...

Flying low over sea is nothing unique for Norway either.

I have the impression that Norwegians are flying more "aggressive" than the air force of some countries, and that this can in part account for the higher attrition rates.

Hopefully power cable hits will be a thing of the past; a Norwegian company has developed a cheap warning system and I hope it will be installed.

One may wonder if some of the losses could have been avoided with a more modern system with a better MMI and better "situational awareness", ie. the colissions with other a/c. Hard to tell; I think a Norwegian study on the use of bicycle helmets showed that the number and severity of injuries increased not decreased; the most likely explanation was that wearing a helmet made people feel more secure and they therefore increased speed and took more chances when biking.

In general Swedes tend to be more careful --- or Norwegians are more "daring" (or careless as some would describe us )

I also wonder how the stealth of F-35 will affect it's attrition rates. If two F-35s are both flying in "stealth mode" (with no radar reflector and radar turned off or in LPI mode) in the same area, perhaps the chances of collision may increase not decrease compared to F-16, in spite of the dramatic increase in situational awarenes. The MMI and situational awareness of Gripen NG would presumably be somewhere between the Norwegian F16As and the F-35 ?

V

 

[AndiPandi]

I have the impression that Norwegians are flying more "aggressive" than the air force of some countries, and that this can in part account for the higher attrition rates.

In general Swedes tend to be more careful --- or Norwegians are more "daring" (or careless as some would describe us )

...

I think its more of a "cold war" vs "post cold war" behaviour among the pilots, dangerous stunts made by pilots was more accepted in the 80's since it was viewed as training for the coming war and fighter pilots were supposed to be "cowboys". Now its more about saving money and lives and keeping a good safety record. Today you dont hear as many stories about tree branches in the landing gear and wheel marks on snow-covered hangar roofs as you did in the Viggen era...

 

[Vivendi]

Today you dont hear as many stories about tree branches in the landing gear and wheel marks on snow-covered hangar roofs as you did in the Viggen era...

Surely you must be joking!?

V

 

[AndiPandi]

Surely you must be joking!?

V

The tree branch story was from a friend who was a firefighter in the air force, the other is not from someone I know. True or not, you just dont here these kind of stories nowadays....

 

[Grand Danois]

The F-16 needs 3 times as many people to operate, so the type of aircraft you are using will surely affect your costs.

Again (3rd 4thg or 5th time?) - it's not for SAAB to decide how Norway opreates its jets

"Half of the aircrafts" is a quote from SAAB, i've seen the numbers in some slides as well. The figure is high IMO but if we assume they hade the same figure for JSF its nothing to argue about really.

I've only heard it from SAAB.

Where is the flight hour cost stated? Every info I read from SAAB say the figure is lower for NG compared with C/D assuming you use them in the same way (for sweden its $2000 instead of $2500 for the C/D). I have seen different figures for different countries though, India $3500 for example. Different countries are asking for different things as well. The India NG can be different from the Norway NG.

Bob K or some other guy is on record on the 3k usd on spares and acq.

´

Now you are speculating again. If SAAB sais the GE-F414 will be 20% cheaper than the RM12 I guess we have to believe them? Remember that the engine is used in a bunch of SHs as well. Even if Norway is the sole user of NG the engine wont be the expensive part. The NG engine wont be modified like the GE-F404, just some small adaptions for single engine usage.

Not speculation, the work was offered as an offset and it owuld not have been cheaper. Period.

20% cheaper in support over lifetime, agree.

´

Here is a link with a bird strike:
Jas-plan kolliderade med fågel - tvingades nödlanda - Nyheter - Expressen.se

thx for link, will check it out later this evening.

 

[AndiPandi]

Again (3rd 4thg or 5th time?) - it's not for SAAB to decide how Norway opreates its jets

Of course not, but why on earth would they use more people for maintenance than needed? Do you think they will hire people for doing nothing? Setting up service stations that never will be used? Buying spares they dont need?

This link even states that its almost four times as many people needed for the F-16 compared to the Gripen C:

F-16 vs. Gripen - Croatian Air Force To Spend 800 Million $ For New Wings – Nacional.hr

Not speculation, the work was offered as an offset and it owuld not have been cheaper. Period.

But would it be more expensive? Thats were you are speculating.
Remember that GE is one of the investor in the NG project, they could be willing to take some extra cost if it helps the NG projects getting a few orders. And Volvo Aero in Norway are already manufacturing engine components.

 

[Grand Danois]

Of course not, but why on earth would they use more people for maintenance than needed? Do you think they will hire people for doing nothing? Setting up service stations that never will be used? Buying spares they dont need?

This link even states that its almost four times as many people needed for the F-16 compared to the Gripen C:

F-16 vs. Gripen - Croatian Air Force To Spend 800 Million $ For New Wings – Nacional.hr


But would it be more expensive? Thats were you are speculating.
Remember that GE is one of the investor in the NG project, they could be willing to take some extra cost if it helps the NG projects getting a few orders. And Volvo Aero in Norway are already manufacturing engine components.

I'm not "speculating - it's the way things work. Labor costs are higher, you need to train redundant people (to the GE line), etc., seriously !

You're focusing on direct cost and using the Gripen the Swedish way to Swedish needs - using it differently cost MORE money and MORE manpower. And you're not including overhead and much more.

E.g. flying more hours per year than SWAF require more maintenance and spares, if the maintenance personnel has a higher percentage of specialists they cost even more and a higher level of salary compounds this.

All of a sudden it doesn't matter that SAAB uses SWAF numbers to tell Norway what it'll cost. They can give their numbers to Norway and they'll adjust them to their own circumstancess.

Btw, wrt your link, note that this is the C/D. I agree with these numbers:

In consideration then are concrete and available data on the price of flying per hour. According to the available official data, the cost of an hour of airtime on a Swedish Gripen is 2,500 dollars, while an airborne hour on the F-16 Block 52 comes to 3,700 dollars.

Now it cost Denmark, Holland and Norway around 10-12k usd an FH for a F-16MLU... These numbers above are vendor costs: supplies, spares and services from SAAB and LM.

 

[AndiPandi]

Norway made their own assumptions and recalculated the price for different numbers of aircrafts and different life cycles ( 35 years instead of 25). There is no way they can say those are the correct prices since SAAB could have given them a fixed price for different life cycle lengths and numbers of aircraft. You cant just assume that 20% more aircrafts cost 20% more since there could be equipment, personel etc. that dont need to be increased as much. There are fixed costs included in he total price that doesnt change if you order more or fewer aircrafts.

And applying the F-16s fuel consumption on the Gripen NG just like that doesnt make me convinced that the Norwegian assumptions were properly made, if they really wanted correct numbers they could have asked SAAB and GE...

 

[Grand Danois]

Norway made their own assumptions and recalculated the price for different numbers of aircrafts and different life cycles ( 35 years instead of 25). There is no way they can say those are the correct prices since SAAB could have given them a fixed price for different life cycle lengths and numbers of aircraft. You cant just assume that 20% more aircrafts cost 20% more since there could be equipment, personel etc. that dont need to be increased as much. There are fixed costs included in he total price that doesnt change if you order more or fewer aircrafts.

I haven't even touched upon this yet. I'm talking about how Norway intends to use and operate an aircraft in a Norwegian context.

And applying the F-16s fuel consumption on the Gripen NG just like that doesnt make me convinced that the Norwegian assumptions were properly made, if they really wanted correct numbers they could have asked SAAB and GE...

I'm not sure I've seen that Norway used F-16 fuel consumption numbers. The GNG fuel consumption figures from SAAB would of course be the correct ones to model on.

 

[AndiPandi]

...
Now it cost Denmark, Holland and Norway around 10-12k usd an FH for a F-16MLU... These numbers above are vendor costs: supplies, spares and services from SAAB and LM.

True, but adding labour costs etc. would probably make the Gripen come out even better...

 

[AndiPandi]

I haven't even touched upon this yet. I'm talking about how Norway intends to use and operate an aircraft in a Norwegian context.

OK, then show me the information about how Norway are gonna use their aircrafts. Show me where the Norweigan government states the difference between the SWAF way of using the Gripen and the RNoAF way explaining the different cost estimates.

What is a "Norweigan context" and how is it different from the Swedish?

 

[Grand Danois]

OK, then show me the information about how Norway are gonna use their aircrafts. Show me where the Norweigan government states the difference between the SWAF way of using the Gripen and the RNoAF way explaining the different cost estimates.

You can't have that, I can only tell you the mechanics of the calculation.

Edit: let's get some data points: RoNAF flew 10k hours last year on 57 active jets and DK flew 8k hrs on 48 active jet (both have in reality fewer jets, but hey). That's 175.5 and 167.7.

What does an avg Gripen fly per year?

 

[AndiPandi]

You can't have that, I can only tell you the mechanics of the calculation.

Edit: let's get some data points: RoNAF flew 10k hours last year on 57 active jets and DK flew 8k hrs on 48 active jet (both have in reality fewer jets, but hey). That's 175.5 and 167.7.

What does an avg Gripen fly per year?

No idea, probably much less.

 

[Grand Danois]

No idea, probably much less.

Okay, iirc, but not sure, it's something like 130-140 hrs a year. If anyone knows, corrections are most welcome. But it's an indication that the F-16s fly roughly 25% more. Assuming everything else is equal, a Gripen in Nor service will cost 25% more in maintenance than in Sweden per year, not per FH. It should also be possible to find an index of labor cost difference between N & S. And if they maintain overhead costs, then fewer savings are realized. Thus examples of how it is very possible that Norways estimates are not ludicrous.

There are debateable items like what are those 4 bn NOK for and what should an "MLU" cost... But the bulk of the costs are legit, imv.

 

[AndiPandi]

Okay, iirc, but not sure, it's something like 130-140 hrs a year. If anyone knows, corrections are most welcome. But it's an indication that the F-16s fly roughly 25% more. Assuming everything else is equal, a Gripen in Nor service will cost 25% more in maintenance than in Sweden per year, not per FH. It should also be possible to find an index of labor cost difference between N & S. And if they maintain overhead costs, then fewer savings are realized. Thus examples of how it is very possible that Norways estimates are not ludicrous.

There are debateable items like what are those 4 bn NOK for and what should an "MLU" cost... But the bulk of the costs are legit, imv.

Well SAAB could be lying, but if the Norweigan cost estimates could be explained somehow, why havent they done it? SAAB claims that there are tens of billions the cant understand. If there were som hard facts to back the figures up, why havent the Norweigans published them???

 

[Grand Danois]

Well SAAB could be lying, but if the Norweigan cost estimates could be explained somehow, why havent they done it? SAAB claims that there are tens of billions the cant understand. If there were som hard facts to back the figures up, why havent the Norweigans published them???

I'm not saying they're lying.

The Norwegians can't really respond as they're not in a position to disclose at such a detailed level (and perhaps they prefer to leave the issue behind - it's poor form to antagonise SAAB further, the thing is over), but it leaves the field open for SAAB if they feel they have an issue.

That's why interviews with the involved seem so silly and makes them look as if they are hiding something.

 

[longbow]

Well SAAB could be lying, but if the Norweigan cost estimates could be explained somehow, why havent they done it? SAAB claims that there are tens of billions the cant understand. If there were som hard facts to back the figures up, why havent the Norweigans published them???

The armed forces are usually tight-lipped about almost everything, so I doubt they will say anything unless they are instructed to. The RNoAF has a very good relationship with the SWAF and conduct loads of tranings with their Swedish counterparts. I don't think they would like to find themselves in a slagging-match with the Swedes. The government does not sell any aircraft, so unless they start loosing votes, there really is no need for them to start angering the Swedes even more. Saab is pitching the Gripen in Denmark right now, and as far as I can see, they are using the same approach as in Norway - focus on costs, groundswell support and industrial cooperation. If the Danish electorate is going to favour the Gripen, then it makes sense attacking the Norwegian "findings".

But, to answer your question, I think the norsemen are staying silent simply because they don't need to say anything. Its frustrating!!!:lul

 

[AndiPandi]

I'm not saying they're lying.

The Norwegians can't really respond as they're not in a position to disclose at such a detailed level (and perhaps they prefer to leave the issue behind - it's poor form to antagonise SAAB further, the thing is over), but it leaves the field open for SAAB if they feel they have an issue.

That's why interviews with the involved seem so silly and makes them look as if they are hiding something.

Well I dont think it would be a problem to say "We fly more" or "We fly more with heavy payload" etc if that really was the reason for the higher cost estimate.