The F-16 replacement of the Royal Netherlands Airforce.

[Grand Danois]

I'll readily admit that I haven't read all of your posts. I will support that a typical cost of integrating af weapon would be around the 150 mn USD mark. The more complex weapons are more expensive, the less complex a bit less.

Interesting here is that many weapons are not integrated on the Gripen. In the complex category would be: Brimstone, Harpoon, NSM/JSM, SDB and those types. ATA weapons are not an issue.

A nav/attack system (target designation pods) is about 2 mn USD apiece and an air force like the Dutch would typically acquire 24+ of these, so we're talking a addition to TCO of about 200 mn USD over 30 years. Naturally this is included in the JSF and is not extra.

Such systems would not, irrc, be part of a SAAB package, but is bought from the US Govt through FMS. I would suggest that this is one of extra costs the Norwegians added to make the Gripen NG "mulitrole."

Datalink may also have been an issue in this context. Link-16 is integrated but may not be produced by SAAB (it's NATO equipment) and would have to be bought outside of a package deal - though I not entirely certain on this one.

I would not consider the UV MAWS currently on the Gripen as adequate. There's an IR based system under development. If this is not included in a package, then it would be a later hardware upgrade at extra cost. Of course the JSF comes with this. This may also have been a couse of extra costs in the Norway calculations.

Lastly, an MLU is not the cyclic software patch/upgrades done to the Gripen fleet. It's more like when the Swedes will rebuild their A/B/C/D fleet to E/F standard sometime in the future with new radar, IR MAWS and other avionics and structural refurbs. This is really an expensive one and probably not included in either 20 or 30 year life cycle offers.

It all adds up...

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes, but the integration of an Iris-T on a pylon where sidewinders can be used does not cost €200 million!

Never said it was. If one looks back at the post where I was outlining what the approximate cost of integrating the AIM-132 ASRAAM onto RAAF F/A-18A/B Hornets, one will see my estimated cost was approximately A$150 million, not 200 million Euros for that one system.

As GD indicated, the more complex a system being integrated, the more expensive. The more weapons being integrated, again the more expensive since each weapon needs integration.

If the following weapons are integrated onto the Gripen, the integration costs could easily top the US$1 billion mark.
SDB
JASSM
JDAM
JSOW
Harpoon

Additional, it is questionable if all the current air to ground ordnance currently in service with the RNLAF would already be integrated with the Gripen. The Maverick AGM is, the others I doubt since Bofors makes their own equivalents.

-Cheers

 

[AndiPandi]

Never said it was. If one looks back at the post where I was outlining what the approximate cost of integrating the AIM-132 ASRAAM onto RAAF F/A-18A/B Hornets, one will see my estimated cost was approximately A$150 million, not 200 million Euros for that one system.

As GD indicated, the more complex a system being integrated, the more expensive. The more weapons being integrated, again the more expensive since each weapon needs integration.

If the following weapons are integrated onto the Gripen, the integration costs could easily top the US$1 billion mark.
SDB
JASSM
JDAM
JSOW
Harpoon

Additional, it is questionable if all the current air to ground ordnance currently in service with the RNLAF would already be integrated with the Gripen. The Maverick AGM is, the others I doubt since Bofors makes their own equivalents.

-Cheers

Thats the 200 million figure i was (or you were) reffering to, even if you changed euros to dollars now.

I dont know what youre thinking that weapons integration includes, but youre figures are way to high. The GBU-12 was just integrated on Gripen and the process was described as "quick and easy" by FMV. Most of the job was some minor modifications of pylons.

The Gripen comes with NATO pylons now and the hardware integration will be minimal. Also the Gripen has weapons of the same type integrated today (cruise missile, anti-ship, guided bomb).

And as I said before, why would SAAB lay all the cost on the dutch airforce on weapons integration that SAABs other customers can benefit from, they would be stupid to make the dutchmen pay it all.

What are the Bofors manufactured equivalents you are referring to?

 

[IPA35]

I think that we could get a very good deal with SAAB, since they are in the need of a larger client.

So how many planes would we need for 3 squadrons and a training SQ?



-------------------------------
Gripen can use RBS15 and the Taurus.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thats the 200 million figure i was (or you were) reffering to, even if you changed euros to dollars now.

I dont know what youre thinking that weapons integration includes, but youre figures are way to high. The GBU-12 was just integrated on Gripen and the process was described as "quick and easy" by FMV. Most of the job was some minor modifications of pylons.

The Gripen comes with NATO pylons now and the hardware integration will be minimal. Also the Gripen has weapons of the same type integrated today (cruise missile, anti-ship, guided bomb).

And as I said before, why would SAAB lay all the cost on the dutch airforce on weapons integration that SAABs other customers can benefit from, they would be stupid to make the dutchmen pay it all.

What are the Bofors manufactured equivalents you are referring to?

Please pay close attention to the portions of bolded from my prior post which I have posted below. This is the post where I suggested the possibility of the RNLAF facing €1 billion in weapons integration costs.

As one can see, even if the munitions are already owned and stocked by an air force, the integration costs onto a new aircraft can quickly raise programme costs. While I believe the air to air missiles might already be integrated (it is not entirely clear if this is the case though) the air to ground bombs and munitions are another story. A version of Maverick appears to be in service with Sweden so will likely be integrated with Gripen, however Sweden appears to use bombs manufactured by Bofors which would suggest that the JDAM and Paveway versions of the Mk 82 and Mk 84 bombs would need integration. If the RNLAF chose in the near future to also have newer munitions like the SDB, JSOW, JASSM enter service, I can see the programme cost rising by €1 billion just in weapon integration costs alone. Hence the previous question or concern about the Gripen NG offer being a 'complete' package.

To repeat myself, I was listing the possible costs in Euros, if the RNLAF needed to have the following integrated onto the Gripen NG

GBU-30 = JDAM version of Mk 82
GBU-32 = JDAM version of Mk 82
GBU-12* = Paveway II version of Mk 82
GBU-10/GBU-24/GBU-24E/B = Paveway II/ Paveway III version of Mk 84
GBU-39 = SDB
AGM-154 = JSOW
AGM-158= JASSM

*GBU-12 has been integrated with Gripen for use with some targeting pod, which I do not know.

Looking at the list above, it is a total of 9 different munitions which could potentially see deployment from RNLAF fighters. In addition, a targeting pod also needs to be integrated for use with PGMs. The offers shown so far do not make any mention of air to ground munitions capability or compatibility, not even to say that the Gripen NG will have the same air to ground munitions options as Swedish Air Force Gripens. Nor is there any mention in the 'complete' packages that Saab will pick up integration costs for the munitions currently in use with or desired by the RNLAF. To assume that Saab and/or the Swedish government will do so when the quoted price for the offering is supposed to be €4.79 billion for 85 aicraft, as of April 2008, does not sound reasonable to me. This also does not address who would pay for future weapons integration since there are other weapons and guidance systems in the works which likely will be emerging in the near future like GBU-40 SDB II, or Paveway IV.

As has been mentioned before, both by myself and other posters if one looks back at other threads on DT, one will see that weapons integration is not just about hardware or changing around pylons. Especially when one is trying to integrate a PGM which all of the munitions I listed are. Work is needed so that the targeting module or pod can communicate with the aircraft (and thus the pilot) so that a target can be selected and designated. Then work needs to be done so that a munition can be selected and informed that a target has been selected so that the munition's guidance package can locate the designated target. Only then does some of the hardware work come into play to make sure that a munition can safely be dropped or launched to clear the airframe without damaging the aircraft.

The Swedish FMV can say that the work was not difficult all it wants. That still does not mean that it was not expensive. If anyone doubts that, I recommend doing searches for weapons integration onto aircraft and see what results they get.

As for the equivalents made by Bofors, on going back through sources, I have come across (again) a 120kg M/71 HE bomb by Bofors. One of the others, the BK-90 was a CBU used from the Gripen which has been retired from service. Incidentally that was made by DaimlerChrysler Aerospace AG, now EADS Germany, not Bofors.

-Cheers

 

[AndiPandi]

...

GBU-30 = JDAM version of Mk 82
GBU-32 = JDAM version of Mk 82
GBU-12* = Paveway II version of Mk 82
GBU-10/GBU-24/GBU-24E/B = Paveway II/ Paveway III version of Mk 84
GBU-39 = SDB
AGM-154 = JSOW
AGM-158= JASSM

*GBU-12 has been integrated with Gripen for use with some targeting pod, which I do not know.

Looking at the list above, it is a total of 9 different munitions which could potentially see deployment from RNLAF fighters. In addition, a targeting pod also needs to be integrated for use with PGMs.

...

Not only the GBU-12 is integrated. The Hungarians are using GBU-10 and GBU-16 as well.
If you have integrated for example the GBU-12, much of the work for the other Paveways is already done. No way it costed SAAB 3 x €100 M to accomplish that.

Assuming your proposed cost for weapons integration is true for all weapons, that cost makes up for about 10% of the total program cost (swedish Gripens) which is just impossible.

 

[IPA35]

Weapons systems:
Wiki says:

Armament


1 × 27 mm Mauser BK-27 cannon 120 rounds
6 × Rb.74 (AIM-9) or Rb 98 (IRIS-T)
4 × Rb.99 (AIM-120) or MICA
4 x Rb.71 (Skyflash) or Meteor
4 x Rb.75
2 x KEPD.350
4 x GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb
4 x rocket pods 13.5 cm rockets
2 x Rbs.15F anti-ship missile
2 x Bk.90 cluster bomb
8 x Mark 82 bombs
1 x ALQ-TLS ECM pod

Their source?
http://www.saairforce.co.za/seed/public/files/aircraft_files/20/Gripen - Packing Iron.pdf

 

[Todjaeger]

Not only the GBU-12 is integrated. The Hungarians are using GBU-10 and GBU-16 as well.
If you have integrated for example the GBU-12, much of the work for the other Paveways is already done. No way it costed SAAB 3 x €100 M to accomplish that.

Assuming your proposed cost for weapons integration is true for all weapons, that cost makes up for about 10% of the total program cost (swedish Gripens) which is just impossible.

And the fact that the two linked offerings made no mention of what weapons will be available for air to ground missions and what targeting pod is required is either a very glaring omission or an indication that the 'complete' package is not in fact complete.

Either there are items and capabilities which the Gripen NG will have which were not included with the offer, or there are items and capabilities which will need to be chosen and added by the customer in order to make their Gripen NG's multi-role. There is no other way to look at it.

I personally have my doubts about the veracity of the information and assumptions made regarding the Gripen NG. If Saab is correct in the quoted claim below:

Gripen NG fulfills all Dutch requirements and will keep the RNLAF at the leading edge of military capabilities through 2050.

from the last paragraph on this page.

Then the Gripen NG mission systems should be significantly more advanced than those aboard even a Gripen C/D, making the Gripen NG something more than just a spiral development of legacy Gripen. Additional, in order to maintain the 'cutting edge' for even the next few years, either Gripen NG requires mission systems more advanced than MOTS, or within ten years from now the selected mission systems will require significant upgrades.

If the Gripen NG mission systems are significantly more advanced than a legacy Gripen, I would then expect that weapon integration work done on prior Gripen variants would have no relevance since the mission systems would be completely different.

Ultimately, something is missing from the proposals listed so far. Either the Gripen NG will come with some air to ground weapons already integrated or it will not. At present nothing is clearly stated that it will be able to operate all the same munitions as prior Gripens. Until that changes I will continue to question the value of the Gripen NG offer.

-Cheers

 

[Wardog13]

Well, the F-35 is a great plane, so the trade off isn't to bad, quality is better than quanity after all.

 

[IPA35]

I prefer 85 good and affordable planes over 44 planes at a higher cost that are only a little bit better in... In what exactly?
SEAD, range, payload, 'stealth'?

IMO it is not that much better to justify the huge costs.

Therefore IMO we should raise the budget a bit and aquire 2 squadrons of F-35A's.
These would be stationed at Leeuwarden AB.
And 3 squadrons of a more cost efficient plane at Volkel AB.
Now what would be the better choice? NG or block 60? But let's not make this a VS thread...

What we should know is the price of the latter though.

 

[Wardog13]

I prefer 85 good and affordable planes over 44 planes at a higher cost that are only a little bit better in... In what exactly?
SEAD, range, payload, 'stealth'?


What we should know is the price of the latter though.

I personally think the Stealth and Vertical Takeoff capabilities of the F-35 make it worth the trade off, can't hurt what you can't see after all. But I agree with just raising the budget.

 

[vengence]

To me i think that the Royal Netherlands Air Force has no thearts or enemy (if i am wrong please correct me) and the only plane they will need is to only deploy planes to Afghanistan as the need air support,so and air superioty fighter is not needed but i still think it needs some of them to intecep other plane (such as the Tu95 bombers who frequently violate other nation airspace and Russia claims its an excisice and there plane never enter other nations airspace without permisson).
The Eurofighter is an brriliant air supiroty fighter so that would be a really wise choice. The Saab Gripien is and excilant multirole fighter and a great advantage is they can land in normal roads. The F35 is an a great multirole stealth fighter but you do not need an stealth fighter in Afghanistan as they do not face a threat in the air.

The Eurofighter is an air supiroty fighter and again you do not need a such a plane in Afghanistan.

But i still want them to buy the Eurofighter for a stable air supiroty and F35 for ground bombing and for its stealth uses in an defense act.

 

[Todjaeger]

I prefer 85 good and affordable planes over 44 planes at a higher cost that are only a little bit better in... In what exactly?
SEAD, range, payload, 'stealth'?

IMO it is not that much better to justify the huge costs.

Therefore IMO we should raise the budget a bit and aquire 2 squadrons of F-35A's.
These would be stationed at Leeuwarden AB.
And 3 squadrons of a more cost efficient plane at Volkel AB.
Now what would be the better choice? NG or block 60? But let's not make this a VS thread...

What we should know is the price of the latter though.

Personally I disagree with the notion tha the F-35 will not be significantly better (for some missions at least) than existing 4th and 4.5 gen fighters. There will be synergy from the improved Situational Awareness of the F-35 as well as the LO characteristics. This will potentially enable an F-35 to avoid ground-based threats (GBAD), as well as avoiding or controlling air-to-air engagements.

Having said that, having the RNLAF operate a two-tiered air force is certainly an option. In fact, it is likely that will be occuring for a period of time while the aircraft which get ordered are brought up to FOC. If the expectation is for the RNLAF to operate a two-tiered air force for a prolonged period of time though, some thought is required in terms of doctrine and mission roles. Given the current and emerging threats, I would expect the F-35 would be used to initially achieve (or maintain) air superiority as well as to carry out strikes in contested areas. The lower tiered aircraft would be used more for deliver of standoff strike packages, or strike delivery in relatively uncontested areas. A bomb truck in other words.

As for what my preference would be... Honestly, I would stick with some version of the F-16. The RNLAF already has experience operating, maintaining and modifying it. Integrated weapons and pods are already owned and in inventory. Why choose an entirely new aircraft (and all the associated costs involved) when the end result does not appear to be significantly better than what one already has, is familiar with, or needs?

-Cheers

 

[vengence]

As for what my preference would be... Honestly, I would stick with some version of the F-16. The RNLAF already has experience operating, maintaining and modifying it. Integrated weapons and pods are already owned and in inventory. Why choose an entirely new aircraft (and all the associated costs involved) when the end result does not appear to be significantly better than what one already has, is familiar with, or needs?

-Cheers

Yes but you need to compete with other nations and you still have to have a better plane than other nation to maintain your army strong and big.

 

[Todjaeger]

As for what my preference would be... Honestly, I would stick with some version of the F-16. The RNLAF already has experience operating, maintaining and modifying it. Integrated weapons and pods are already owned and in inventory. Why choose an entirely new aircraft (and all the associated costs involved) when the end result does not appear to be significantly better than what one already has, is familiar with, or needs?

-Cheers

Yes but you need to compete with other nations and you still have to have a better plane than other nation to maintain your army strong and big.

The premise behind my comment of remaining with some version of the F-16 was that the RNLAF would be operating as a two-tiered air force. The 1st/Hi tier would operate ~24 F-35 Lightning II's, with the 2nd/Lo tier would operate ~3 sqd of either another version of F-16 or Gripen NG. My choice in this situation would be for the 2nd tier to remain with the F-16 for the reasons I outlined.

-Cheers

 

[IPA35]

The block 60 is said to be both inferior too and more costly (to operate) then the NG.
To make a good conclusion we need to compare the costs.

And isn't the block 60 a very different plane then our block 20 MLU's??

Last but not least, 24 is too few to equip two squadrons, but around 30 would be enough, including 2 or 3 planes for the test unit.
But IDK if we should have planes in the US for training or that one active squadron should have a secondary training role?
This is the case today for one F-16 SQ at Leeuwarden.
And then the pure training squadron (now in the USA) should train the pilots for the larger fleet of second tier planes.

Although these 'second' tier planes are still usefull in combat ofcourse, especcialy with long range weapons like the METEOR and some air launced cruisemissle.
On of the reasons why I might prefer the NG is because op the optional weapon systems and the STOL capabilities.

IMO we should purchase small numbers of METEOR's, cruise missle (depends on what plane we would use) and the Brimstone missle.
And some anti-ship missle like the NSM (use on both the F-35 and Gripen).

Here are the active squadrons, what would we equip them with?
And would the training squadron need fighters or just jettrainers?
http://www.f-16.net/units_airforce176.html

 

[vengence]

The premise behind my comment of remaining with some version of the F-16 was that the RNLAF would be operating as a two-tiered air force. The 1st/Hi tier would operate ~24 F-35 Lightning II's, with the 2nd/Lo tier would operate ~3 sqd of either another version of F-16 or Gripen NG. My choice in this situation would be for the 2nd tier to remain with the F-16 for the reasons I outlined.

-Cheers

But thats why Netherlands it replacing there aircraft because its old and they need new boys to replace them. But i am sure that they will keep some of the planes and the others in reserve.

Cheers

 

[vengence]

IMO we should purchase small numbers of METEOR's, cruise missle (depends on what plane we would use) and the Brimstone missle.
And some anti-ship missle like the NSM (use on both the F-35 and Gripen).


Was'nt the Meteor missle was built for the Eurofighter?

 

[IPA35]

It is possible to use it on the Gripen and the RN want to use it on it's F-35B's, am I right?
http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/...9D-B971CE7E8AC0/8463/Whatever_weaponboard.pdf
File:F35ctolstores.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The missle gives you less coleteral damage and you can carry more of them, compared to the Maverick, right?

 

[vengence]

It is possible to use it on the Gripen and the RN want to use it on it's F-35B's, am I right?


No, the Meteor missile is not possible in use with F35 but they are going the adjust the normal Meteor to be used on the F35. They can be used with the SAAB Gripien and the Rafele.

Heres the full deatails:Meteor Missile Will Make Changes to Accommodate F-35

But the Meteor is yet to be complted.