If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:53:14 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
Alan Minyard wrote in : On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:25:08 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote: The Grippens are a gift. When something is completely "free" it rather skews the "cost/benefit" equation. This was simply a PR stunt on the part of the Swedes. Al Minyard On the other hand it shows that it is possible to produce an advanced and effective weapons system at a manageble cost. In the words of Colonel Per-Olof Eldh: http://www.gripen.com/gripen_news/gr...ws_2001_01.pdf “Compared to other fighter aircraft currently in service, Gripen is a totally superior product,” he boasts. “It is a perfect blend of simplicity and sophistication, and by far the best handling aircraft I have ever flown.“ “While its flyaway price is comparable to that of a new F-16 C/D, Gripen’s operating cost of less than US$2,500 / flying hour (including fuel and all levels of maintenance) is unrivalled. Regards... This has no relevance, as the Gripens are completely free. It's simply cost-effective. And quoting company web sites is not a good way to achieve credibility. Al Minyard It's a pilot with 3,500 hours in jets, and the statement is nothing spectacular, it simply emphasises the superiority of a 4ht generation fighter compared to older designs. Regards... It is still company propaganda. There is no standard for what generation an aircraft is. The F-22 or F-25, now, are most probably the only aircraft in the world that are "of their generation", stealth, super-cruise (F-22), really advanced avionics, etc. The Griped is simply not in that class. Al Minyard |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Minyard wrote in
: On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:53:14 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote: And quoting company web sites is not a good way to achieve credibility. Al Minyard It's a pilot with 3,500 hours in jets, and the statement is nothing spectacular, it simply emphasises the superiority of a 4ht generation fighter compared to older designs. Regards... It is still company propaganda. There is no standard for what generation an aircraft is. The F-22 or F-25, now, are most probably the only aircraft in the world that are "of their generation", stealth, super-cruise (F-22), really advanced avionics, etc. The Griped is simply not in that class. True and I did't claim it was. The F-35 (I presume you are refering to) is still years from service and by the time the F-22 is operatonal next year the Gripens will have logged 8-9 years of service and closer to 40,000 hours in the air, and started delivery of the improved C version. Regards... |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in
: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message ... On the other hand it shows that it is possible to produce an advanced and effective weapons system at a manageble cost. In the words of Colonel Per-Olof Eldh: http://www.gripen.com/gripen_news/gr...ws_2001_01.pdf "Compared to other fighter aircraft currently in service, Gripen is a totally superior product," he boasts. "It is a perfect blend of simplicity and sophistication, and by far the best handling aircraft I have ever flown." "While its flyaway price is comparable to that of a new F-16 C/D, Gripen's operating cost of less than US$2,500 / flying hour (including fuel and all levels of maintenance) is unrivalled. Regards... That cost is either amazing or unbelievable. Larger business jets can reasonably cost more than that per hour, even on an operating cost basis. It's hard to believe that a Gulfstream costs more per hour than a Gripen. I dunno. This exceeds my area of expertise. Maybe the weapon's radar never needs expensive parts. Flug Revue 12/2002 had some additional information: "The small, single-engined jet with delta wings and canards excels above all else in its easy handling, high reliability (7.5 flying hours between failures), low maintenance requirements (less than 10 man-hours per flying hour) and low operating costs ($2,500 per flying hour)." Regards... |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message ... "Charles Talleyrand" wrote in : "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message ... On the other hand it shows that it is possible to produce an advanced and effective weapons system at a manageble cost. In the words of Colonel Per-Olof Eldh: http://www.gripen.com/gripen_news/gr...ws_2001_01.pdf "Compared to other fighter aircraft currently in service, Gripen is a totally superior product," he boasts. "It is a perfect blend of simplicity and sophistication, and by far the best handling aircraft I have ever flown." "While its flyaway price is comparable to that of a new F-16 C/D, Gripen's operating cost of less than US$2,500 / flying hour (including fuel and all levels of maintenance) is unrivalled. Regards... That cost is either amazing or unbelievable. Larger business jets can reasonably cost more than that per hour, even on an operating cost basis. It's hard to believe that a Gulfstream costs more per hour than a Gripen. I dunno. This exceeds my area of expertise. Maybe the weapon's radar never needs expensive parts. Flug Revue 12/2002 had some additional information: "The small, single-engined jet with delta wings and canards excels above all else in its easy handling, high reliability (7.5 flying hours between failures), low maintenance requirements (less than 10 man-hours per flying hour) and low operating costs ($2,500 per flying hour)." Better watch out...with claims like that, Arndt is inevitably going to claim it was actually designed and flown by the Germans first, and is the subject of a massive Swedish cover-up of the "real story"... Brooks Regards... |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" writes:
Flug Revue 12/2002 had some additional information: "The small, single-engined jet with delta wings and canards excels above all else in its easy handling, high reliability (7.5 flying hours between failures), low maintenance requirements (less than 10 man-hours per flying hour) and low operating costs ($2,500 per flying hour)." I do not know if the $2500/h is correct but Saab has a long history of developing aircraft that are field servicable, easy to service and unexpensive to run. The royal swedish airforce has had it as a real requirement for a long time. We can simply not afford nearly unlimited expenses for maintainance as the US airforce can seen from a swedish point of view. Saab has also a 50 year tradition of building fighters with a fairly small design team that has kept its knowledge due to constant orders during the cold war and the near impossibility of quickly enlarging the team or for the team members to find another aircraft manufacturer. Thus they do not forget for instance Drakens problems with the mechanics needing 1,5 m long four jointed arms to do some service work. Has any US jet design workshop been kept together during more then 50 years and five generations of jet fighters? I find it reasonable that this tradition plus the reliability of modern electronics and a modern engine gives low service costs. This also means that you must be willing to give up the last 5% of performance in for instance your radars output. The US tradition is as far as I know to allways get those last 5% even if thet get very expensive. We try to make up for that with systems thinking. As far as I know we were among the first with a tactical fighter to fighter data-link, automatic tracking and aiming of the gun, affordable "awacs" radar, and we are currently concentrating on computer network based battle (should insert buzwords. ). I guess our superiors might be the israelis who has had to work with limited budgets and a constant threat of being attacked while having a highly educated and skilled population as the best resource. Best regards, -- Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min politiska sida. Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On 22 Dec 2003 01:38:11 +0100, Magnus Redin wrote:
I guess our superiors might be the israelis who has had to work with limited budgets and a constant threat of being attacked while having a highly educated and skilled population as the best resource. Dunno about that. The Israeli military budget is, I imagine, larger than the Swedish one (even if Sweden does have more people). Also the Gripen project was more successful than the Lavi project -- I'm not sure about how much money was spend on developing each plane, but I suspect the sums were similar. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On 22 Dec 2003 01:38:11 +0100, Magnus Redin wrote:
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" writes: Flug Revue 12/2002 had some additional information: "The small, single-engined jet with delta wings and canards excels above all else in its easy handling, high reliability (7.5 flying hours between failures), low maintenance requirements (less than 10 man-hours per flying hour) and low operating costs ($2,500 per flying hour)." I do not know if the $2500/h is correct but Saab has a long history of developing aircraft that are field servicable, easy to service and unexpensive to run. The royal swedish airforce has had it as a real requirement for a long time. We can simply not afford nearly unlimited expenses for maintainance as the US airforce can seen from a swedish point of view. Saab has also a 50 year tradition of building fighters with a fairly small design team that has kept its knowledge due to constant orders during the cold war and the near impossibility of quickly enlarging the team or for the team members to find another aircraft manufacturer. Thus they do not forget for instance Drakens problems with the mechanics needing 1,5 m long four jointed arms to do some service work. Has any US jet design workshop been kept together during more then 50 years and five generations of jet fighters? I find it reasonable that this tradition plus the reliability of modern electronics and a modern engine gives low service costs. This also means that you must be willing to give up the last 5% of performance in for instance your radars output. The US tradition is as far as I know to allways get those last 5% even if thet get very expensive. We try to make up for that with systems thinking. As far as I know we were among the first with a tactical fighter to fighter data-link, automatic tracking and aiming of the gun, affordable "awacs" radar, and we are currently concentrating on computer network based battle (should insert buzwords. ). I guess our superiors might be the israelis who has had to work with limited budgets and a constant threat of being attacked while having a highly educated and skilled population as the best resource. Best regards, The Israelis working on a "limited budget"?? Hardly. They wasted millions on the "Lavi" (money provided by the US) and ended up flying the far superior F-15. As for SAAB, if you want to build a third rate aircraft simply because you need to keep a bunch of old time designers employed, so be it. Al Minyard |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:53:14 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote: Alan Minyard wrote in : On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:25:08 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote: The Grippens are a gift. When something is completely "free" it rather skews the "cost/benefit" equation. This was simply a PR stunt on the part of the Swedes. Al Minyard On the other hand it shows that it is possible to produce an advanced and effective weapons system at a manageble cost. In the words of Colonel Per-Olof Eldh: http://www.gripen.com/gripen_news/gr...ws_2001_01.pdf ?Compared to other fighter aircraft currently in service, Gripen is a totally superior product,? he boasts. ?It is a perfect blend of simplicity and sophistication, and by far the best handling aircraft I have ever flown.? ?While its flyaway price is comparable to that of a new F-16 C/D, Gripen?s operating cost of less than US$2,500 / flying hour (including fuel and all levels of maintenance) is unrivalled. Regards... This has no relevance, as the Gripens are completely free. It's simply cost-effective. And quoting company web sites is not a good way to achieve credibility. Al Minyard It's a pilot with 3,500 hours in jets, and the statement is nothing spectacular, it simply emphasises the superiority of a 4ht generation fighter compared to older designs. Regards... It is still company propaganda. There is no standard for what generation an aircraft is. The F-22 or F-25, now, are most probably the only aircraft in the world that are "of their generation", stealth, super-cruise (F-22), really advanced avionics, etc. The Griped is simply not in that class. Al Minyard True... the Gripen is probably a couple of decades ahead (and as Al puts it, in another class) of anything Lockheed or Boeing can produce. At least I haven't seen any indication of Saab loosing their position as being far ahead of anyone else when it comes to most areas of military aircraft technology. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
15 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 15th 03 10:01 PM |
27 Nov 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | November 30th 03 05:57 PM |
11 Nov 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | November 11th 03 11:58 PM |
04 Oct 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 4th 03 07:51 PM |
18 Sep 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | September 19th 03 03:47 AM |