News: Czech Republic select European Fighterjets over F-16

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

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...

"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

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).

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

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.

(Marcus Andersson) wrote:

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.

Hey - don't ever let anyone tell you you don't have a sense of humor.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.