The Saab Gripen Farnborough briefing below goes with this Aviation Week, Ares blog post which will explain more.
Showing posts with label Gripen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gripen. Show all posts
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Easy way to destroy NATO air power
The desperation of the F-35 cheer-leading squad continues:
Given the lack of money everywhere, the "joint" solution calls for the Gripen. Or, just sign up for the F-35 so it can destroy a shrinking defense budget situation by gobbling up any money available for less than half the aircraft planned. As a "combat" force, it will be mostly defective.
One of smartest examples of the practical pooling of assets is the international program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. A number of NATO allies including Great Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Turkey are not only acquiring the Joint Strike Fighter but are participating in the development and production of the aircraft. At least for now, Great Britain is the only other country besides the United States that is acquiring the STOVL variant, the F-35B.----
Not only does the international program reduce the cost of acquiring fifth-generation fighters for all participants, but there will be tremendous advantages to be gained by virtue of the global supply chain, availability of shared facilities and standardized procedures. When it comes to conducting actual combat operations, the “pool” of F-35s in NATO will be one of the smartest defense investments the alliance has ever made.
—-
Daniel Goure, Ph.D.
Early Warning Blog, Lexington Institute
Given the lack of money everywhere, the "joint" solution calls for the Gripen. Or, just sign up for the F-35 so it can destroy a shrinking defense budget situation by gobbling up any money available for less than half the aircraft planned. As a "combat" force, it will be mostly defective.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Saving $37B on reality
Have a look at one of the men that wants to take your money and waste it on Operation: BARKING MAD.
It is an unfortunate fact that the Australian Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy (EDB) has to live within a realistic budget.
The assumptions that the rent-seekers make about an off-the-shelf sub not being suitable for Australian waters is a non-sense. If the same guy was hawking batteries in Euro-land guess what he would say?
The following is a comparison of savings that can be had in future procurements for fighter aircraft and subs. Realism vs. what the rent-seekers want.
Note that, since air policing is now the only option for Australia for its air power roadmap until budgets and the mental-health of Defence senior leadership improves (I know. Grossly optimistic. That's me.), best to get something one can actually afford; the Gripen. And I am talking about the C/D and not the future one.
Rent-seekers: $36B for subs that might not work; $16B for fighter aircraft that certainly will not work. Total waste: $52B.
Reality: $6B For 6 subs that will work. The dumbassery of the 2009 Defence White Paper with 12 subs was an imaginary number. Good. I will throw one out too: 6. More; but only if it is proven that we can crew and operate 6.
$9B for 72 C/D Gripens and 10 years of flying costs. I even pumped up the cost per flying hour significantly to make up for DMO goof ups. 10 years of flying costs is good enough because that is about as far as one can predict for labor, fuel and anything else.
Total capability: $15B
Savings of Reality vs. The Rent-seekers: $37B, if not more that doesn't have to be wasted on the low-productivity EDB.
It is an unfortunate fact that the Australian Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy (EDB) has to live within a realistic budget.
The assumptions that the rent-seekers make about an off-the-shelf sub not being suitable for Australian waters is a non-sense. If the same guy was hawking batteries in Euro-land guess what he would say?
The following is a comparison of savings that can be had in future procurements for fighter aircraft and subs. Realism vs. what the rent-seekers want.
Note that, since air policing is now the only option for Australia for its air power roadmap until budgets and the mental-health of Defence senior leadership improves (I know. Grossly optimistic. That's me.), best to get something one can actually afford; the Gripen. And I am talking about the C/D and not the future one.
Rent-seekers: $36B for subs that might not work; $16B for fighter aircraft that certainly will not work. Total waste: $52B.
Reality: $6B For 6 subs that will work. The dumbassery of the 2009 Defence White Paper with 12 subs was an imaginary number. Good. I will throw one out too: 6. More; but only if it is proven that we can crew and operate 6.
$9B for 72 C/D Gripens and 10 years of flying costs. I even pumped up the cost per flying hour significantly to make up for DMO goof ups. 10 years of flying costs is good enough because that is about as far as one can predict for labor, fuel and anything else.
Total capability: $15B
Savings of Reality vs. The Rent-seekers: $37B, if not more that doesn't have to be wasted on the low-productivity EDB.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Exploring another option for Canada's CF-18 replacement
There are options for Canada's air defence even if some do not want to admit it.
If it was possible to ignore the need for a two engine fighter for the requirement, a faulty and unproven F-35 is not the only game.
The exercise of replacing the CF-18 does not have to cost an arm and a leg.
So the question is, after the F-35 program falls on its face, will Canada consider the Gripen?
It is a fair question. The origins of the aircraft are from a cold northern place. The design has enough proof to show they have not been falling out of the sky over the wilderness. It is deployable, good with short runways or suitable roads, and since the F-35 was never able to stand up to high-end extreme threats, it has no other real show-stopping legacy-threat weakness.
Below are some numbers that I have inflated simply because it is the government that will be attempting to procure and sustain the aircraft. I have again assumed that one can put 300 flight hours on the aircraft per year.
Unfortunately, Canada has a problem in that area: pilots. I am still hoping that Canada can someday have twice as many pilots as fighter aircraft. This is needed as a minimum for sustained operations. Unfortunately the DND is having a difficult time with pilot numbers. And, each pilot they have may see about 180-some hours per year.
So my cost per flying hour on the Gripen (or anything else) may be high because there aren't enough pilots to sustain optimum readiness. Add to that, I would prefer 72 Gripens, not 65, but for this exercise, I will go with 65.
Finally, for this requirement, I don't really care if it is the basic Gripen or the NG. Either will do.
Gripen cost per flight hour- $10,000 (double the claims of the maker)
Gripen cost per flight hour for
65 aircraft for 30 years (300 hours
per airframe per year):
$5.85B
Acquisition cost for each Gripen $100M
Total Acquistion cost, 65 Gripens:
$6.5B
--
Total appoximate acuisition and operating cost,
65 Gripens for 30 years:
$12.35B
--
If it was possible to ignore the need for a two engine fighter for the requirement, a faulty and unproven F-35 is not the only game.
The exercise of replacing the CF-18 does not have to cost an arm and a leg.
So the question is, after the F-35 program falls on its face, will Canada consider the Gripen?
It is a fair question. The origins of the aircraft are from a cold northern place. The design has enough proof to show they have not been falling out of the sky over the wilderness. It is deployable, good with short runways or suitable roads, and since the F-35 was never able to stand up to high-end extreme threats, it has no other real show-stopping legacy-threat weakness.
Below are some numbers that I have inflated simply because it is the government that will be attempting to procure and sustain the aircraft. I have again assumed that one can put 300 flight hours on the aircraft per year.
Unfortunately, Canada has a problem in that area: pilots. I am still hoping that Canada can someday have twice as many pilots as fighter aircraft. This is needed as a minimum for sustained operations. Unfortunately the DND is having a difficult time with pilot numbers. And, each pilot they have may see about 180-some hours per year.
So my cost per flying hour on the Gripen (or anything else) may be high because there aren't enough pilots to sustain optimum readiness. Add to that, I would prefer 72 Gripens, not 65, but for this exercise, I will go with 65.
Finally, for this requirement, I don't really care if it is the basic Gripen or the NG. Either will do.
Gripen cost per flight hour- $10,000 (double the claims of the maker)
Gripen cost per flight hour for
65 aircraft for 30 years (300 hours
per airframe per year):
$5.85B
Acquisition cost for each Gripen $100M
Total Acquistion cost, 65 Gripens:
$6.5B
--
Total appoximate acuisition and operating cost,
65 Gripens for 30 years:
$12.35B
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)