Imported Single Engine Fighter Jet Contest

Galaxy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,086
Likes
3,934
Country flag
Swiss opt for Saab's Gripen fighter jets


Nov 30 (Reuters) - Switzerland has chosen to replace its fighter jet fleet with Swedish defence and aerospace group Saab's JAS-39 Gripen, Swiss newspaper Tagesanzeiger reported on Wednesday, citing unnamed sources close to the government.

Neutral Switzerland has wrangled for the past three years over whether to replace its ageing Northrop F-5E/F Tiger fighters, purchased in 1976 and 1981, with up to 33 new aircraft.

Saab shares were up 8.5 percent to 117.10 Swedish crowns by 1345 GMT after the newspaper report.

The newspaper said the cost of purchasing 22 jets would be about 3 billion Swiss francs ($3.3 billion), 1 billion less than the same number of rival models would cost.

In September, the Swiss lower house of parliament approved a 5 billion francs defence budget for 2013 to finance a 100,000 strong army and the purchase of new fighter jets.

Other bidders included the Rafale built by french company Dassault Aviation and EADS's Anglo-German-Italian Eurofighter Typhoon.


RPT-Swiss opt for Saab's Gripen fighter jets - paper | Reuters
 

SpArK

SORCERER
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
2,093
Likes
1,112
This helps the gripen program to extend its life.

A move that was much expected in swiss competition.

Another loss for Rafale.
 

indian_sukhoi

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
957
Likes
230
A Billion dollars got saved for country which has threats at all.

Choosing SAAB Gripen makes it a lot more sensible. It does deliver lower acquisition and maintenance costs, Than other Competing Aircraft.

Has Expected, Seems at end of day France will be the only Customer of Rafale.

Rafale team fights back after Swiss Gripen

France's Dassault-led Rafale International team has announced its surprise at being eliminated from a Swiss fighter contest

"The Rafale's capacities would enable the Swiss confederation to meet its operational requirements with a smaller number of aircraft at an equivalent or lower cost, as was demonstrated during the assessments by the Swiss air force," it said.
Rafale team fights back after Swiss Gripen win
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
The Swiss chose what may have been the lowest performer in the flight evaluations over the one which topped the Swiss evaluations, Rafale.

It's their choice though.

The price seems steep, but realistic. $150Million for the Gripens compared to what could have been $200million for Rafale. This will come with training, spares and support for 10 years IMO. Reduce by two times and this could be the unit costs of the birds.
 

indian_sukhoi

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
957
Likes
230
150$ million a piece with training and support??. What if they manufacture those aircrafts and spares in their own country, Like the MRCA deal.
Can Dassault come up with a discount, maybe like offering Offsets?. Sweden offered TOT for Gripen.
How will it be useful in our MRCA deal?


I wonder what this technical evaluation consists of, But has you said Price evaluation must been top priority. Swiss doesn't need an top class fighter to replace some Cold War era junk.


Girpen isnt that bad, When you comparing it with t/w ratio and maintenance.

JAS-39 Gripen could be a solid investment for Taiwan, as neither requires long runways and both could provide strike and air superiority capabilities under difficult conditions.
Since they wont gonna be offered Rafale or F-35s anyway.
 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
Evaluation of the three fighters in pictorial form

 

Daredevil

On Vacation!
Super Mod
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
11,615
Likes
5,772
A swiss newspaper summarized the details in an article

Here is the translation

This qu'Ueli Maurer hidden

Fighter

-
The new jet selected by the Federal Council has serious shortcomings. Documents show that the Swiss Air Force had found unfit. Even for the simplest tasks.


Gripen as the Federal Council wants to buy for 3.1 billion francs never reaches the "minimum requirements", according to the confidential report of the Swiss Air Force. To replace the old Tiger, the latter offering the Rafale or Eurofighter.
Image: Keystone

The document

Confidential reports of the Swiss Air Force
Reaction

Yvan Perrin, a member of the subcommittee charged with investigating the assessment, is stunned.

Were you surprised to find these documents?

Luckily I was ensconced in my armchair. I knew that the Gripen aircraft was the worst performer. But I had no idea it was to this point below. The most troublesome is that it does not even meet the conditions for the air policing. We lose our only valid argument for the defense in a popular vote.

However, Maurer said the Gripen filled by military necessity ...

I did not explain it. Either Maurer was aware of these reports, and it will not. Either it was not, and it will not either.

Another hypothesis is that the military requirements were lowered.

It would be embarrassing too. If they were set at a certain level at the beginning of the evaluation process, it is certainly no accident. I am now waiting for explanations from Ueli Maurer. Who has seen any report when? Is that the criteria were changed? For what purposes? Who did? I find it hard to understand. But one thing seems increasingly clear: we can make a cross on the Gripen.


The Gripen does not meet the minimum expectations of air policing. This is the conclusion reached by two confidential reports Swiss Air Force which we publish extensive excerpts on our website. They contradict the statements of the Defence Minister Ueli Maurer which ensures that the aircraft Swedish "Helvetic meets military requirements." On November 30, at the press conference presenting the choice of the Federal Council, Maurer had even repeated six times.

His whole argument was based on the idea that the Gripen, but not a Ferrari, was at least a good VW Golf which would greatly needs of Switzerland. But this is not true. For judgment in the Air Force documents obtained by "The Sunday Morning" is clear: the Gripen, even with the 98 elements that will be improved (engine, radar, tank, etc..), "Remains unable to achieve minimum capabilities for all types of missions examined. "

These assessment reports are dated November 2009. The first is based on flight test, the second gives notes from the improvements announced by the manufacturers. Both are signed by the Chief of the Air Force and Markus Gygax were written in English ("The only way to be certain that Romands, Alemanni and Ticino to understand," says a senior.). Their authenticity is not disputed by the Swiss Air Force.

Unfit for air policing

Gaps they highlight are particularly serious with regard to air policing. Serious because if Switzerland can give up to have a jet capable of going to drop a big bomb on a target distance of 5000 km, it has to be able to ensure the sovereignty of its airspace. This is the only mission that the Air Force are certain of having to take the next few years, for example to ensure the no-fly zone during the Davos Forum.

Against all odds, it is precisely for this air policing mission of the score of MS21 Gripen is the worst. The MS21 is the technical name of the Gripen E / F that the Federal Council intends to buy, as confirmed by the spokesman for the Air Force Jürg Nussbaum. It was only 5.33 points out of 10, well below the minimum limit of 6.0 determined at the beginning of the evaluation process. The Eurofighter and Rafale reached 6.48 6.98. Note the Gripen is mainly due to a reaction time for takeoff emergency too slow ("Quick Reaction Alert ': score 4.7), the flight performance inadequacy (5.5) and endurance largely insufficient ( 3.8).

For all these areas, the minimum score of 6.0 was set based on the capabilities of the F/A-18 Helvetic currently operated. In short: the new aircraft which intends to equip Switzerland from 2016 to 3.1 billion francs, and which must remain in service until at least 2035, will be less efficient than the F/A-18, which came service in 1997 and regularly updated.

In the documents in our possession, the Swiss Air Force explained that if the Gripen MS21 still had to be chosen, "it should at least make his flight evaluation in Switzerland [before deciding to buy it], to test its effectiveness real in this important mission. " Because during tests from Emmen in 2008, only the old model of the aircraft had been tested under real conditions. And the latter (the Gripen C / D) had a less powerful engine and much less equipment.

Capabilities of future Gripen in terms of offensive air defense missions, exclusion of airspace or direct attack are also considered "average" by the Air Force (5.62). Including the range, the survivability or detection, which remain "weak". "The estimated effectiveness of MS21 Gripen remains insufficient [to accomplish these missions] with a good probability of success," the report said. The Eurofighter was rated 6.54 and 7.41 Rafale.

For missions of defense against aircraft (DCA) as well as ground attack, the capabilities of the Gripen chosen by the Federal Council have again been deemed inadequate, with scores of 5.68 and 5.62. "The probability that the Gripen MS21 is unable to carry out missions DCA is significant, say the Swiss Air Force evaluators. And overall effectiveness of the Gripen MS21 is insufficient to win air superiority in the future threats, beyond 2015. "

Lying by omission?

In November, snippets of the report we cite were revealed by the Basler Zeitung, which had failed, however, to publish documents. Maurer was then scanned these reproaches the back of his hand, explaining that it was the other reports that had, for example those having evaluated other areas such as industrial holdings or military cooperation. "We circulated reports, added the minister of defense, but it's not really the prime cuts."

Maurer has simply failed to mention that these reports evaluating the air quality, and we produce today, alone account for 60% of the total score of the evaluation, as confirmed by the spokesman of the Department defense, Silvia Steidle. Maurer also forgot to say that for most other assessment modules, the other two manufacturers competing were deemed equivalent or superior to Saab (15,394 -0.52%) Gripen, as confirmed by several sources who had access to final report.

To top it off, the risk related to financial and technical modernization of the aircraft is described as "high" by the Air Force. Again, this assessment contradicts the statements of the DDPS, who remains confident that this risk was "manageable."

Feeling sick at the base

At Armasuisse and assessment teams Air Force, the disgust is sensitive since the choice of the Federal Council, based on financial criteria alone. Some even let go of the word "resignation". And is expected to be invited by parliamentarians to be explained. "If they ask me questions, I will answer them obviously very precisely," promises one of those people who wish to remain anonymous. How the Gripen was drafted for, ultimately, the stamp "meets the requirements of the company" and the overall score of 6.0 is still a mystery. "At the time of its delivery to the defense minister, the score of the military part of Gripen was insufficient, an official confirmed the assessment, also on condition of anonymity. Only the financial part allowed the Gripen to achieve the minimum score. "He too is eager to explain himself to MPs.

Christian Democrat Jean-Rene Fournier is shocked to read these documents: "This is serious. If there are no new elements, I do not see how one could buy the Gripen. "The Valais propose to the Committee on Security Policy of the Council of States, with which he sits tomorrow at 10 am at the parade of Bure, to join the subcommittee of the National to investigate how the assessment was conducted.

Environmentalist Vaud Luc Recordon is tougher still reading reports of the Air Force: "It feels qu'Ueli Maurer wants us around. He offers to buy 2 HP at the price of a Porsche. "In that case, he concludes, as many stick to F/A-18.

Faced with these criticisms, the DDPS refuses to comment on the findings of the evaluation. "Federal Councillor, he says in a written reply, informed on the results of the evaluation 30 November 2011, including notes and costs." He maintains that "the Gripen meets the military requirements ". (The Morning)
Original link

Avion de combat: Ce qu'Ueli Maurer a caché - Suisse - lematin.ch
 

methos

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
799
Likes
304
Country flag
Again a thread in "Americas" for no reason...

I think this is interessting:
Why Switzerland bought the Tiger (In German, so you should use Google Translator) - NZZ Online

Some points:
- originally 9 aircrafts from 8 companies were evaluated, among them were Saab (with two models), Fiat, Dassault and Ling-Temco-Vought.
- first evaluation: LTV A-7 Corsair was winner, followed by Fiat G.91Y. Then came (unordered) the Spectat Jaguar (British/French), the Dassault Mirage 5 in a version nicknamed "Milan" and the Saab 105XH. One of Saab's aircraift was last, second last was the Dassault Mirage 5 Milan.
- French government didn't want the Swiss people to buy a non-French aircraft and told them to reevalute
- In reevaluation some new aircraft were accepted for evaluation like an upgraded version of the Hunter. A Swiss official said that they would even evaluate upgraded Spitfires or Me 109s if someone would offer these to them.
- Crosair was again first, Mirage 5 was now third as some time could be used to improve it
- Real tests in 1972 showed that the Mirge 5 failed hard, while the Crosair achieved best results. France never accepted the tests results, instead increases politcal pressure on the Swiss people
- The Americans came with 16 technicians for 2 Crossair, the French with 120 for 2 Dassault Mirage 5 Milan
- Following continued political pressure the Swiss government declared not to buy any new aircraft
- As short-term solution 30 British Occasions-Hunters, originally from the 1950s, were bought
- Only one fabric new aircraft with was rather cheap could be bought as mid-term/long-term solution: the F-5E Tiger, which actually did not fullfill performance requirements
- the current backbone of the Swiss airforce is the F/A-18 Hornet, which also nearly was not bought because the French wanted to sell their Mirage 2000-5, which back then existed only on paper.
- from 1964 to 2003 the Swiss operated the Mirage-III as fighter, already having a political scandal, the so called Mirage afair (German wikipedia article, use Google Translator) - about 100 were ordered, but due to rising costs only 57 were finally delievered
- as fighter-bomber the 152 Hunter (some being model "Occasion") were operated from 1958 to 1994
 

Blackwater

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
21,157
Likes
12,211
Swiss opt for Saab's Gripen fighter jets


Nov 30 (Reuters) - Switzerland has chosen to replace its fighter jet fleet with Swedish defence and aerospace group Saab's JAS-39 Gripen, Swiss newspaper Tagesanzeiger reported on Wednesday, citing unnamed sources close to the government.

Neutral Switzerland has wrangled for the past three years over whether to replace its ageing Northrop F-5E/F Tiger fighters, purchased in 1976 and 1981, with up to 33 new aircraft.

Saab shares were up 8.5 percent to 117.10 Swedish crowns by 1345 GMT after the newspaper report.

The newspaper said the cost of purchasing 22 jets would be about 3 billion Swiss francs ($3.3 billion), 1 billion less than the same number of rival models would cost.

In September, the Swiss lower house of parliament approved a 5 billion francs defence budget for 2013 to finance a 100,000 strong army and the purchase of new fighter jets.

Other bidders included the Rafale built by french company Dassault Aviation and EADS's Anglo-German-Italian Eurofighter Typhoon.


RPT-Swiss opt for Saab's Gripen fighter jets - paper | Reuters


Well it doest not matter to Swiss whether they choose grippen or ancient mig 15.Nobody gonna attack them. They need air force for just for name sake..
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
DRDO Chief Takes A Spin In A Gripen



Dr Vijay Kumar Saraswat, chief of India's Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) took a spin in the backseat of a Saab Gripen-D on May 31 at Linköping, Sweden. Saraswat was in Sweden to attend Aerospace Forum Sweden, a seminar where he made a detailed presentation on India's unmanned programmes.

The Gripen was, until early last year, a contender in India's $12-billion medium multirole combat aircraft (MMRCA) competition. It was one of the four aircraft that were eliminated from the reckoning in the competition's first downselect. A week before his sortie, India's air force chief, Air Chief Marshal Norman Browne, did a sortie in a Rafale (the aircraft that emerged on top in the competition, and for which a final contract is currently being negotiated with maker Dassault) at the Saint-Dizier air force base in France.

The DRDO chief's sortie has less to do with the MMRCA competition and more, perhaps, to do with Saab's own interest in engaging with the DRDO in a variety of programmes, presumably the Tejas Mk.2, unmanned air vehicles (including UCAVs) and others.

Somehow, considering where the indigenous fighter programme is right now, it might have been a more impactful photo-op if Dr Saraswat had chosen to make his fighter debut in the Tejas Mk.1 trainer. The Gripen and Tejas are variously compared too. Who knows, maybe he'll do it now.

Incidentally, I did a sortie in a Gripen-D too (likely the very same aircraft) in October 2009, with Saab test pilot Robin Nordlander.

Stratpost editor Saurabh Joshi was at the flightline during the DRDO chief's flight and took these photos he's been kind enough to share with me.
Livefist: DRDO Chief Takes A Spin In A Gripen
 

Zebra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
6,060
Likes
2,303
Country flag
Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne took a flight in the French Dassault's Rafale aircraft on a visit to France. The Rafale has been selected the preferred bid for the IAF's tender for 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA).

DRDO head, Dr. V.K. Saraswat, took a backseat ride in the Swedish Saab's Gripen C/D aircraft on the sidelines of the Aerospace Forum held at Linköping, Sweden, last week.

June 7, 2012,

India's top defense scientist has finally discovered what it takes to be a fighter pilot. Dr. V.K. Saraswat, the Scientific Adviser to the defense minister took a backseat ride in the Swedish Saab's Gripen D aircraft on the sidelines of the Aerospace Forum held at Linköping, Sweden, last week.



Saraswat, who also heads the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO), which is developing the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), was visibly excited by the prospect of the flight when he walked down the tarmac to the aircraft in his flight suit.

Happily posing for photographers he gave them a thumbs up before he took off and when he landed around an hour later, seemed to have pushed himself hard pulling Gs. Grinning with a sense of accomplishment, he called the Gripen a 'very user friendly' aircraft and said he 'did 2.2Gs' and a vertical climb.

Interestingly, this flight took place a week after the head of the Indian Air Force (IAF),



During the course of the five-year long MMRCA contest, the six aircraft companies competing in the tender invited journalists, Members of Parliament, film stars, industrialists and other prominent people to take a backseat ride in their respective fighter aircraft. But until Browne, senior air force and defense officials had always refrained from accepting invitations to fly in any of the aircraft, lest the ride be considered an endorsement.

Presumably, such considerations are no longer in play four months after the selection of the Rafale, which was in competition against Lockheed Martin's F-16, Boeing's F/A-18, MiG-35, Eurofighter Typhoon and the Gripen.

The Gripen and the DRDO's LCA, both, run on the same engine, the GE F-404 for the earlier model and the F-414 for the later variants. In comparison to the development path from the Gripen A/B to the C/D and now Gripen E/F or NG, DRDO is attempting a development leap from the LCA to the Mk II and so the challenges are considerable. The DRDO has been facing problems integrating the new engine into the LCA for the Mk II and could possibly benefit from Saab's experience with the development of the Gripen. It is understood that the DRDO and Saab have discussed this idea in their ongoing dialogue.

Top Gun Saraswat | StratPost
 

Payeng

Daku Mongol Singh
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
2,522
Likes
777
The study conducted by IHS Jane's Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault's Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.

The operational cost of the Swedish Saab Gripen aircraft is the lowest among a flightline of modern fighters, confirmed a White Paper submitted by the respected international defense publishing group IHS Jane's, in response to a study commissioned by Saab.

The paper says that in terms of 'fuel used, pre-flight preparation and repair, and scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel costs', "The Saab Gripen is the least expensive of the aircraft under study in terms of cost per flight hour (CPFH)."

The study, conducted by Edward Hunt, Senior Consultant, at IHS Jane's Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault's Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.

"At an estimated $4,700 per hour (2012 USD), the Gripen compares very favorably with the Block 40 / 50 F-16s which are its closest competitor at an estimated $7,000 per hour," says the report, adding, "The F-35 and twin-engined designs are all significantly more expensive per flight hour owing to their larger size, heavier fuel usage and increased number of airframe and systems parts to be maintained and repaired. IHS Jane's believes that aircraft unit cost and size is therefore roughly indicative of comparative CPFH."

In comparison, the figure for the F/A-18 Super Hornet ranged from USD 11000 to USD 24000, depending on degree of operational capability. The figure for the Rafale was USD 16500 per flying hour and number for the Eurofighter Typhoon, derived from British Parliamentary figures and seeming to cover only fuel usage, was USD 8200. But Jane's estimate of the actual Cost Per Flying Hour for the Eurofighter, keeping in mind supplies and scheduled maintenance raised the figure up to USD 18000.

The cost of operation of the F-35 appears to be in a whole other league. Jane's cites Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) estimates for the conventional F-35 A, assuming operational service over 30 years with 200 hours per year for each aircraft, to amount to USD 21000 per hour of flight. The paper also sources US Navy projections of the cost of operation of the F-35 B & C variants until the year 2029, which come to USD 31000 per flight hour.

The report says the figures were based on data sourced from the respective operating militaries and governments, disclosed international fighter competition cost figures (Rafale, F-18 E / F, Gripen), manufacturer-stated figures (F-35, Rafale, F-18 E / F, Gripen) and IHS Jane's estimates for all aircraft.

There are several caveats to this assessment. "Owing to the differing methods of calculating aircraft operating cost per flight hour and the large number of interlinked factors that affect such a calculation, IHS Jane's believes that any flight hour cost figure can only be regarded as indicative and that there is no single correct answer to such a calculation," says the report, but adds, "However, we believe that our results are of considerable merit and provide a useful benchmark when considering the costs associated with operating contemporary high performance combat aircraft."

The report stresses that 'without access to comprehensive military data over a significant timeframe' the results 'can only be regarded as approximate' and 'are an average cost across an entire fleet'.

The report says it is most confident about the data and its conclusions on the Gripen, F-16 and the F/A-18 'with good primary and secondary source data supported by logical results from our deductive modeling.'

The numbers for the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale are less certain, in comparison, but the report submits that 'the comparative modeling output appears to confirm IHS Jane's estimates' for them.

The report is least sure about the operational cost of the F-35 costs 'owing to the absence of actual in-service data'. "IHS Jane's does not feel that the modeled fuel cost figure is representative of likely CPFH costs," it says.

Besides using primary and secondary sources and their own databases, IHS Jane's also considered data thrown up by a 'modelled assessment of relative cost based on fuel usage'. In the absence of a single global standard for calculating cost per flight hour IHS Jane's arrived upon a list of factors which would determine this cost.

The study took into account, what it called, Basic cost calculations to the exclusion of a set of factors it grouped under the term, Comprehensive cost calculations, to arrive at a figure determined only by the characteristics of individual aircraft rather than complexity of operations, weapons or support elements.

The study 'determined that the Basic CPFH was the more common value stated and that this was therefore regarded as a more accurate and useful indication of the cost of sortie generation for a particular aircraft'.

The other factors, under the Comprehensive cost calculations, were 'more usually considered as part of the platform's capital cost rather than the daily service cost of which the Basic CPFH was felt to be a more useful representation'.


For the purpose of modeling to create a standard or benchmark, the study arrived at the 'aircrafts' fuel usage, hence cost, based on a theoretical one hour sortie at max dry thrust', not 'necessarily reflective of actual fuel consumption and hence fuel cost of a one hour sortie'.

As is evident, the modeled cost pattern is closest to the derived cost pattern in the case of the Gripen, F-16, Rafale, and Eurofighter. The research and the model digress in the case of the F-35 and the F/A-18.

In the case of the F-35, the study says the different 'costs arise from the differing power and specific fuel consumptions of the A / C and B models. The B model is the top figure in both cases'. The study says, "The single P&W F-135 engine is relatively fuel efficient for its power, resulting in a lower fuel burn at maximum dry thrust than might be expected." It adds that, although obviously, 'accurate CPFH for in-service aircraft does not exist', 'the US and Australian forecast costs both suggest it will not offer lower CPFH than current aircraft', considering 'the aircraft itself is an extremely sophisticated design carrying a large number of new and unproven onboard systems'.

The report thinks the digression with respect to the Super Hornet is 'due to the size of the fleet and the experience the US Navy has in operating' it, compared to the 'small fleet of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) that has yet to reach Full Operational Capability'. It points out that 'RAAF CPFH has fallen significantly as familiarity with the aircraft has grown, and is likely to fall further as this continues to improve'.

But the report also says the Super Hornet has 'relatively high dry thrust ratings while the GE F414 engine is less efficient in specific fuel consumption than the engines of the similar-sized Rafale and EuroFighter aircraft'. And everything else being the same, the F/A-18 E/F 'engines use more fuel and are hence relatively costly' compared to the SNECMA or Eurojet engines, even though the US Navy aircraft have a relatively low CPFH.

Gripen operational cost lowest of all western fighters: Jane's | StratPost
 

Zebra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
6,060
Likes
2,303
Country flag
July 4, 2012

The study conducted by IHS Jane's Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault's Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.



The operational cost of the Swedish Saab Gripen aircraft is the lowest among a flightline of modern fighters, confirmed a White Paper submitted by the respected international defense publishing group IHS Jane's, in response to a study commissioned by Saab.

The paper says that in terms of 'fuel used, pre-flight preparation and repair, and scheduled airfield-level maintenance together with associated personnel costs', "The Saab Gripen is the least expensive of the aircraft under study in terms of cost per flight hour (CPFH)."

The study, conducted by Edward Hunt, Senior Consultant, at IHS Jane's Aerospace and Defense Consulting, compared the operational costs of the Gripen, Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault's Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and the F-35 aircraft.

"At an estimated $4,700 per hour (2012 USD), the Gripen compares very favorably with the Block 40 / 50 F-16s which are its closest competitor at an estimated $7,000 per hour," says the report, adding, "The F-35 and twin-engined designs are all significantly more expensive per flight hour owing to their larger size, heavier fuel usage and increased number of airframe and systems parts to be maintained and repaired. IHS Jane's believes that aircraft unit cost and size is therefore roughly indicative of comparative CPFH."

In comparison, the figure for the F/A-18 Super Hornet ranged from USD 11000 to USD 24000, depending on degree of operational capability. The figure for the Rafale was USD 16500 per flying hour and number for the Eurofighter Typhoon, derived from British Parliamentary figures and seeming to cover only fuel usage, was USD 8200. But Jane's estimate of the actual Cost Per Flying Hour for the Eurofighter, keeping in mind supplies and scheduled maintenance raised the figure up to USD 18000.

The cost of operation of the F-35 appears to be in a whole other league. Jane's cites Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) estimates for the conventional F-35 A, assuming operational service over 30 years with 200 hours per year for each aircraft, to amount to USD 21000 per hour of flight. The paper also sources US Navy projections of the cost of operation of the F-35 B & C variants until the year 2029, which come to USD 31000 per flight hour.

The report says the figures were based on data sourced from the respective operating militaries and governments, disclosed international fighter competition cost figures (Rafale, F-18 E / F, Gripen), manufacturer-stated figures (F-35, Rafale, F-18 E / F, Gripen) and IHS Jane's estimates for all aircraft.

There are several caveats to this assessment. "Owing to the differing methods of calculating aircraft operating cost per flight hour and the large number of interlinked factors that affect such a calculation, IHS Jane's believes that any flight hour cost figure can only be regarded as indicative and that there is no single correct answer to such a calculation," says the report, but adds, "However, we believe that our results are of considerable merit and provide a useful benchmark when considering the costs associated with operating contemporary high performance combat aircraft."

The report stresses that 'without access to comprehensive military data over a significant timeframe' the results 'can only be regarded as approximate' and 'are an average cost across an entire fleet'.

The report says it is most confident about the data and its conclusions on the Gripen, F-16 and the F/A-18 'with good primary and secondary source data supported by logical results from our deductive modeling.'

The numbers for the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale are less certain, in comparison, but the report submits that 'the comparative modeling output appears to confirm IHS Jane's estimates' for them.

The report is least sure about the operational cost of the F-35 costs 'owing to the absence of actual in-service data'. "IHS Jane's does not feel that the modeled fuel cost figure is representative of likely CPFH costs," it says.

Besides using primary and secondary sources and their own databases, IHS Jane's also considered data thrown up by a 'modelled assessment of relative cost based on fuel usage'. In the absence of a single global standard for calculating cost per flight hour IHS Jane's arrived upon a list of factors which would determine this cost......

Gripen operational cost lowest of all western fighters: Jane's | StratPost

cont.....
 

Zebra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
6,060
Likes
2,303
Country flag


The study took into account, what it called, Basic cost calculations to the exclusion of a set of factors it grouped under the term, Comprehensive cost calculations, to arrive at a figure determined only by the characteristics of individual aircraft rather than complexity of operations, weapons or support elements.



The study 'determined that the Basic CPFH was the more common value stated and that this was therefore regarded as a more accurate and useful indication of the cost of sortie generation for a particular aircraft'.

The other factors, under the Comprehensive cost calculations, were 'more usually considered as part of the platform's capital cost rather than the daily service cost of which the Basic CPFH was felt to be a more useful representation'.

CPFH composition:

On the basis of a 2005 US Air Force study of its F-16 fleet, IHS Jane's thinks the CPFH is composed of approximately:

– 10-15% Consumable Supplies (small parts, wiring, basic electrical components)
– 20-25% Sortie Aviation Fuel
– 60-70% Depot Level Repair and Systems Maintenance


The study also points to less quantifiable and more intangible factors that could impact CPFH.




For the purpose of modeling to create a standard or benchmark, the study arrived at the 'aircrafts' fuel usage, hence cost, based on a theoretical one hour sortie at max dry thrust', not 'necessarily reflective of actual fuel consumption and hence fuel cost of a one hour sortie'.

As is evident, the modeled cost pattern is closest to the derived cost pattern in the case of the Gripen, F-16, Rafale, and Eurofighter. The research and the model digress in the case of the F-35 and the F/A-18.

In the case of the F-35, the study says the different 'costs arise from the differing power and specific fuel consumptions of the A / C and B models. The B model is the top figure in both cases'. The study says, "The single P&W F-135 engine is relatively fuel efficient for its power, resulting in a lower fuel burn at maximum dry thrust than might be expected." It adds that, although obviously, 'accurate CPFH for in-service aircraft does not exist', 'the US and Australian forecast costs both suggest it will not offer lower CPFH than current aircraft', considering 'the aircraft itself is an extremely sophisticated design carrying a large number of new and unproven onboard systems'.

The report thinks the digression with respect to the Super Hornet is 'due to the size of the fleet and the experience the US Navy has in operating' it, compared to the 'small fleet of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) that has yet to reach Full Operational Capability'. It points out that 'RAAF CPFH has fallen significantly as familiarity with the aircraft has grown, and is likely to fall further as this continues to improve'.

But the report also says the Super Hornet has 'relatively high dry thrust ratings while the GE F414 engine is less efficient in specific fuel consumption than the engines of the similar-sized Rafale and EuroFighter aircraft'. And everything else being the same, the F/A-18 E/F 'engines use more fuel and are hence relatively costly' compared to the SNECMA or Eurojet engines, even though the US Navy aircraft have a relatively low CPFH.

Gripen operational cost lowest of all western fighters: Jane's | StratPost
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top