News: Czech Republic select European Fighterjets over F-16

"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.

"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...

"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...

"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

Alan Minyard 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.

If this goes through, the Czechs will pay $806,000,000 for this free gift.

"Glenn P." wrote in message
...
Alan Minyard 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.

If this goes through, the Czechs will pay $806,000,000 for this free gift.

There is some debate about that; Saab's own earlier relaease stated that the
Swedish government had agreed to absorb ALL costs for this lease.

Brooks

In article ,
Kevin Brooks wrote:

There is some debate about that; Saab's own earlier relaease stated that the
Swedish government had agreed to absorb ALL costs for this lease.

That must be an misunderstanding. The deal is that the Swedish government
will lease, to the Czech Republic, aircraft it has ordered from Saab, but
no longer needs, and that the lease should cover all costs that the Swedish
government have had for the leased aircrafts, i.e. the lease deal is cost
neutral for the Swedish government.

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

"Goran Larsson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kevin Brooks wrote:

There is some debate about that; Saab's own earlier relaease stated that
the
Swedish government had agreed to absorb ALL costs for this lease.

That must be an misunderstanding. The deal is that the Swedish government
will lease, to the Czech Republic, aircraft it has ordered from Saab, but
no longer needs, and that the lease should cover all costs that the
Swedish
government have had for the leased aircrafts, i.e. the lease deal is cost
neutral for the Swedish government.

All I can say is that this is the exact wording from Saab's press release on
Dec 1, 2003:

"Sweden is offering to loan the Czech Republic 14 new Gripen fighter
aircraft for five or 10 years...If the Czech Republic chooses the Gripen the
Swedish state will fully cover any costs associated with the loan."

Source: http://www.saab.se/node3299.asp?id=2003120101310

The only thing I deleted from that excerpt was an explanatory bit about the
JAS-39 NATO compatibility.

Brooks



--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

The financing will be coming from a third party. Sweden will be helping
with getting financing--that is, the credit rates will be Sweden's
rates, not those of the Czech Republic. This will save the Czechs tons
of money, and will be only a slight risk (but not a cost) to the Swedes.
Sweden isn't giving away any fighters, and those who earlier clearly
believed in this $806 million would be a gift should question why they
would believe such a ridiculous thing could ever occur.


Glenn P.

"Glenn P." wrote in message
...
The financing will be coming from a third party. Sweden will be helping
with getting financing--that is, the credit rates will be Sweden's
rates, not those of the Czech Republic. This will save the Czechs tons
of money, and will be only a slight risk (but not a cost) to the Swedes.
Sweden isn't giving away any fighters, and those who earlier clearly
believed in this $806 million would be a gift should question why they
would believe such a ridiculous thing could ever occur.

Because we live in a world where offset agreements exceeding 100% are not
uncommon? Maybe because of the continued success of the F-16 in the export
arena versus their "fourth generation" Gripen? Because, rightly or wrongly,
that allegation was what was released by Saab, the prime contractor
involved? Or maybe because government-to-government transfers of new
military equipment, at no cost to the receiving party, are not unheard of?

Brooks



Glenn P.