The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[LowObservable]

It's next to impossible to make any sensible comparison of fighter prices unless you know that the basis is the same - for example, you can compare the cost of two different aircraft acquired by the US, or of different aircraft offered to meet the same tender. So the $107 million doesn't mean anything.

By the way, I don't think Saab has ever advertised the Gripen as being cheap to buy (Swedish-made goods don't have that reputation generally).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It's next to impossible to make any sensible comparison of fighter prices unless you know that the basis is the same - for example, you can compare the cost of two different aircraft acquired by the US, or of different aircraft offered to meet the same tender. So the $107 million doesn't mean anything.

Which is why it’s a good thing that the article in question is referring to the gross cost of the Swiss Gripen project or in US terminology: program unit cost. 3.13 billion SF (US$ 2.89 billion) for 22 units or $131 million per unit program cost.

Which compared to the recent figure provided by the ANAO for the F-35A is $132 million per unit program cost. That is with a Tier III partner level in investment in development and a buy of a fair slice of jets early on in the production schedule before learning and higher rates of production lower the unit cost.

So the Gripen is one million USD per unit over the program for a customer or 0.75% cheaper despite being at full rate production and a far inferior product.

By the way, I don't think Saab has ever advertised the Gripen as being cheap to buy (Swedish-made goods don't have that reputation generally).

Single engine, lightweight fighter isn’t cheap? What’s the point of it then? Plus re Swedish goods not being cheap well I don’t know where you buy your furniture but IKEA is the place to go for the cheap crap to fill the new apartment.

 

[Triton]

Are land-based F-35As sufficient to defend Japanese sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands? Or does Japan need to use its helicopter destroyers and purchase the F-35B to defend these islands in its dispute with the People's Republic of China?

 

[Evil Flower]

The whole GripenNG idea is really ridiculous and only a means of keeping SAAB in business as an aerospace/defense contractor. To begin with the budget isn't even there to fully replace the current batch of Gripen C/D's which are to be phased out as NG enters service, so we'll go from having 100 fighters to having 50, with less than 30 fully deployable at any one time. And of course this all required gutting the Army and Navy budgets. And it's not like they're building a 5th gen design or anything. It's just a Gripen with a pair of extra hardpoints and CFTs. YAY!

 

[chuck4]

Grippen NG seems to largely be a industrial policy project aimed at developing and protecting a native fighter design and manufacturing capability for Sweden. It is a little bit like Japan and her little fleet of Mitsubishi built, astronomically expensive F-16 derivatives. In such projects, it's the total cost vs. skill based protected that is the measure, not unit cost of the things that come off the assembly line, which is almost incidental.

Is F-35 also a national industrial policy project? If so, it would seem to have been better if it was awarded to Boeing to protect breadth of design and manufacturing capability while letting LM make a few more F-22s.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

while letting LM make a few more F-22s.

It wasn't having to work on the F-35 that killed the F-22.

 

[chuck4]

while letting LM make a few more F-22s.

It wasn't having to work on the F-35 that killed the F-22.

No, but keeping f-22 going at LM while building fewer f-32s at Boeing would protect the industrial base better than either building both f-22 and f-35 at LM, or building more F-35 and no F-22 at LM

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

while letting LM make a few more F-22s.

It wasn't having to work on the F-35 that killed the F-22.

No, but if the project is aimed at protecting skill base, then one let more players into the act.

we are just talking hypothetically about all this right?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Swiss Gripen buy is for Gripen NG, which is still in development. Swedish price for NG includes development costs, Swiss price doesn't. Some Swedish people think that's unfair.

Gripen NG is going to be cheaper to operate than F-35 over its lifecycle, unless the price of oil decreases significantly. No sane person will argue against that. Probably cheaper initial purchase price too, though that depends on the relative production run sizes.

If your point is to say that fighters are expensive, then sure, you are right. If you want to prove F-35 is cheaper to buy than (or comparable in price to) Gripen NG, then you need some better sources than a Swedish news website.

 

[LowObservable]

Sgt - Sorry for trying to make sure people are making real cost comparisons around here. Oh, and yes, my attitude does vary according to the loftiness of the claims being made. Saab don't run around claiming to be cheaper than an F-16, 600 per cent better than anyone else in air-to-air, or invisible. Gains them points in my book.


AG - "Program unit cost" is not US terminology. And most non-US deals cannot be compared with US prices in any event because of what is bundled in (for instance neither APUC nor PAUC includes extended in-service support). So you're repeating the initial mistake that TT made.


And the reason I said "Swedish-made" was that I knew someone would drag in IKEA. Not a lot of Swedish manufacture there (but shows some people's knowledge of economics).

 

[chuck4]

while letting LM make a few more F-22s.

It wasn't having to work on the F-35 that killed the F-22.

No, but if the project is aimed at protecting skill base, then one let more players into the act.

we are just talking hypothetically about all this right?

Yes, since f-35 was awarded to the f-22 maker.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

So you're repeating the initial mistake that TT made.

Once again I did not write the article. What I did was:

1. typed a phrase from the article

2. linked to it

3. Didn't even comment on it.

If you would like to comment or write to the author his name is there in the article, and i'm sure you can reach him. What happened was I found the article and I thought "Thats interesting, I didn't think they cost that much, I wonder what they will say on Secret Projects..." I am what was historically called "the messenger" unless I typed something was inaccurate I don't think they made any "mistake" the $107 million per plane was a quote the author gave from different and unnamed sources.

 

[chuck4]

.

Gripen NG is going to be cheaper to operate than F-35 over its lifecycle, unless the price of oil decreases significantly.

Although, fingers crossed, f-35 will not manifestly reach obsolescence as soon, so initial investment in plane, support skill and equipment base cost might be prorated over a larger number of useful life years.

 

[sferrin]

while letting LM make a few more F-22s.

It wasn't having to work on the F-35 that killed the F-22.

No, but if the project is aimed at protecting skill base, then one let more players into the act.

we are just talking hypothetically about all this right?

Yes, since f-35 was awarded to the f-22 maker.

Much as I'd have preferred Boeing come up with a better design (or Northrop not try to ignore the USMC) the right choice was made in that the best aircraft was selected.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

"Program unit cost" is not US terminology.

LOL, so you and everyone else can’t get it? I doubt it. Sorry I didn’t use Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC). This is only a discussion forum, being terminology Nazi is hardly a reasonable activity, but have fun.

And most non-US deals cannot be compared with US prices in any event because of what is bundled in (for instance neither APUC nor PAUC includes extended in-service support). So you're repeating the initial mistake that TT made.

And the Swiss deal does?

That total is guaranteed by the Swedish government, and includes mission planning systems, initial spares and support, training, and certification.

Sounds pretty much like the terms of a US deal…

And the reason I said "Swedish-made" was that I knew someone would drag in IKEA. Not a lot of Swedish manufacture there (but shows some people's knowledge of economics).

So IKEA isn’t Swedish… Bold claim. But considering the labour cost breakdown of a designing and building an advanced fighter I think anyone informed about economics won’t find much of a difference between Sweden and the USA. Said economics knowledgeable person would no doubt point out the far smaller production run of the Gripen and the far less effort to drive down cost via supply competition as a reason for its far higher cost per weight compared to the F-35.

Gripen NG is going to be cheaper to operate than F-35 over its lifecycle, unless the price of oil decreases significantly. No sane person will argue against that. Probably cheaper initial purchase price too, though that depends on the relative production run sizes.

The price of a Gripen in fuel per flight hour will no doubt be less than a F-35. But that is not the basis of a benchmark in TLS cost. The F-35 will require less flight hours to achieve pilot competency than a Gripen thanks to its automatic flight control system allowing for far more simulator hours in the training mix. F-35 spares should be far cheaper per unit than Gripen thanks to the scales of the comparative fleets. The F-35 will require more spares and services for sustainment but that is again because of its far higher capability. So which aircraft will be cheaper to sustain across its lifetime? Hard to say at this point but I doubt it will be a significant difference.

If your point is to say that fighters are expensive, then sure, you are right. If you want to prove F-35 is cheaper to buy than (or comparable in price to) Gripen NG, then you need some better sources than a Swedish news website.

The total price of the Swedish-Swiss deal is a figure released by their Governments (~$3 billion) and not determined by any news website. The scope of this deal is also released by these Governments and I included a quote from the PR above to counter LO’s attempt at discombobulating. This program scope is remarkably similar to that of Australia’s F-35 buy so a relevant unit average comparison can be made between the two. And that the Gripen comes in at 0.7% cheaper is outrageous considering how more capable the F-35 is.

 

[Racer]

In the Swiss package all is inclusive. Weapons, training, simulators, engines, spareparts (for lifetime of the aircrafts), even rebuilding of military installations. This is how it is normally done here. Example was F/A-18. Total of 3,4 billions Swissfrancs back then.

So forget about every comparison with publicated F-35 prices. Just doesn't apply here.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So forget about every comparison with publicated F-35 prices. Just doesn't apply here.

Yet the Australian program cost is all inclusive too even down to the rebuilding of airbases…

 

[Racer]

And also around 150mio $ for Ruag for development of Gripen E. Other things included? Simple not public yet! So no one other then Ueli Maurer (and team) and Saab knows it.

So how someone is trying to use these numbers for comparisons is beyond me.

 

[Racer]

So forget about every comparison with publicated F-35 prices. Just doesn't apply here.

Yet the Australian program cost is all inclusive too even down to the rebuilding of airbases…

But in Australian case the rebuilding could be 100mio, in Swiss case 500mio (bunkers in mountains and such...)? Do you know it?

And what prices were calculated in the Australian offer? The same as in Norway ? Are details public?

----

As for IKEA: go buy something... vast things are Made in East Europe, Taiwan, China.

----

The Swiss F/A-deal was - as quoted - 3,4 billions SFr. / 34 aircrafts -->100mio per aircraft. Fly away was then around 50mio SFr. Just to give a hint. As a young guy I was shocked about this factor 2 ;D

----

For Gripen we will buy Meteor. Normally it would be around 4 pcs. per aircraft. A Meteor will be around 1.5mio$ -->6mio$ per aircraft. Also there will be IRIS-T, lets say 2 per aircraft -->2x0.6mio$ --> 7.2mio per aircraft in AAMs. More than 150mio$ for AAMs in this buy.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The same as in Norway ? Are details public?

Bill Sweetman has some details:

In the last few days, though, I've heard from a senior retired Norwegian officer, with a good view of the campaign.

In his view, the driving Norwegian consideration had nothing to do with the numbers either side submitted to the evaluators.

"What finally decided it in favour of Lockheed Martin (in spite of the fact that Saab had the best industrial package by far) was risk." Government evaluators concluded that "even if the number of JSF produced should be reduced by 50% the unit cost would only go up by 20%. The risk that Saab would not succeed in selling more than 60 to 100 planes - meaning that R&D costs over the lifespan of the aircraft could skyrocket."

Norway's decisionmakers also fretted that Saab is "a relatively small and vulnerable producer. If Saab were to go bankrupt - leaving Norway with an aircraft that from that moment on would not be developed further - at least not a an affordable price."

This is just a small portion and the whole thing can be read here:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogscript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%253A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%253Ae7fecd93-9d7e-4c42-936a-1627abbac4d2

 

[Abraham Gubler]

But in Australian case the rebuilding could be 100mio, in Swiss case 500mio (bunkers in mountains and such...)? Do you know it?

But the Swiss are not building NEW mountain bunkers. This was a major issue with the Super Hornet withdrawal from the competition as it was claimed it wouldn’t fit in the old bunkers. And is the facilities budget really $500m or 1/6 of total budget? I doubt it.

EDIT: Further to this the official statement of the deal by the Swiss Govt. does not include any mention of alpine fortress rebuilding costs though it may be included under the dot point "Logistics package for the air force". I would imagine if they were going to spend $500m SF out of $3,000m SF it would have at least garnered its own dot point.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Also Racer, the article I posted said 22 Gripens but you are saying 34?

They are leasing a squadron's worth to replace the Tiger in the meantime. Costing an addition $50 million SF or something (defrayed by withdrawal of the Tiger).

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Also Racer, the article I posted said 22 Gripens but you are saying 34?

They are leasing a squadron's worth to replace the Tiger in the meantime. Costing an addition $50 million SF or something (defrayed by withdrawal of the Tiger).

Ahh thank you. So leasing the older model Gripen.

 

[LowObservable]

Sorry I didn’t use Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC). This is only a discussion forum.

Jeez, and I thought SP was full of professionals with more SAP clearances than fleas on a dog. At least, that's what your countrymen tell me. And when the US uses APUC and PAUC, yes, "program unit cost" which is a mixture of the two, is confusing.

That total is guaranteed by the Swedish government, and includes mission planning systems, initial spares and support, training, and certification. -
Sounds pretty much like the terms of a US deal…

Not so fast, A US FMS deal, maybe, but that's not what you were talking about. Services and weapons are not covered by APUC.

The F-35 will require less flight hours to achieve pilot competency than a Gripen thanks to its automatic flight control system allowing for far more simulator hours in the training mix. F-35 spares should be far cheaper per unit than Gripen thanks to the scales of the comparative fleets.

These are bold projections, but you might want to wait until IOC before you make them. Indeed, the F-35 will surely require a good deal of training for its single pilot, if we believe the fans' assessment of its 800-mile-range spherical sensing capability. Also (for instance) it will be some time before the F-35 engine matches the well-over-1,000 fleet total of the F414.

TT - Very true. The Norwegians did say that, and indeed the JAS 39E would be unaffordable if the annual R&D for upgrades was on a Lockheed Martin scale - around $1 billion for quite slow-paced enhancements to the F-22. Even with 1000 JSFs in the field, that would be $5000/flight hour, even before the cost of doing any work. Fortunately Saab prices do not look like that - see the comments from Airpower on the blog post.

 

[Evil Flower]

Fortunately Saab prices do not look like that

Which would mean anything if SAAB prices meant getting an equally capable product. GripenNG is cheaper because it's just a growth version of a gen 4 design. You get what you pay for and if you want superlative performance it's gonna cost ya.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Indeed, the F-35 will surely require a good deal of training for its single pilot, if we believe the fans' assessment of its 800-mile-range spherical sensing capability.

Is the Gripen not "burdened" with such capability?

Also (for instance) it will be some time before the F-35 engine matches the well-over-1,000 fleet total of the F414.

"Some time" is fine, its pretty clear people who have waited this long for the JSF are willing to play the long game if you will. as your Norway story mentions they feel SAABs days may be numbered anyway and if so, all that simple/cheap stuff goes right out the window. not only that but (and I don't have the stats in front of me) I think the F135 may be a tad more powerful. And the F-35 a tad more capable.

allow me to quote:

Whoever wins India will have a short lease on life in the business, but otherwise Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale and F-18 are fighting over crumbs and most if not all will exit the market before 2020.

Looking into the Gripen NG more, I have seen articles that say if the Swiss deal falls through there is no ability to produce the Gripen NG. Switzerland still needs to vote the decision through too, and Dassault is planning on resubmitting bids. Now this doesn't mean that the Swiss don't stick with the Gripen NG anyway, but it certainly is interesting.

India has said that it hesitated on the Gripen because it relies too much on American parts already. the same article goes on to say:

The JSF is unique in the degree of integration in its information systems. So far, for example, it has no open-standard transmit datalink, at least in stealth mode. The automated logistics system will continuously transmit operational information back to Fort Worth. Not only is it a coalition-optimized airplane, it's hard to see how it could be operated at all without direct, constant US support.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:877a1640-afa9-4e30-8763-a1191f2a3113

Which, if we are relying on thousands of F414s that are operated by the USNs Super Bug fleet, would be relying on "direct, constant US support" If I am not mistaken. Which is interesting considering that a lot of objections to the F-35 are that it creates permanent dependence on the US. (Some have gone so far as to say that the JSFs will have a "kill switch" that makes the warplanes inert.) Buying SAAB inadvertently creates dependence on the US as well, to get that well proven and very much loved American engine. So I guess it is like IKEA, Swedish created, built elsewhere, at Swedish prices:

By the way, I don't think Saab has ever advertised the Gripen as being cheap to buy (Swedish-made goods don't have that reputation generally).

On that note, SAAB may not have said anything about being cheap to buy, but I know someone who did FTFA:

The JSF will cost less to acquire and operate than the Gripen NG, and by inference any fighter in the world.
The JSF is lower-risk than the Gripen NG, despite the fact that the latter combines a simple modification of an in-service airframe with a proven engine.

These are lofty claims and have inspired a relatively well informed force of critics to ask difficult questions.

Pretty clear we are starting to get some difficult answers.

TT - Very true. The Norwegians did say that, and indeed the JAS 39E would be unaffordable if the annual R&D for upgrades was on a Lockheed Martin scale - around $1 billion for quite slow-paced enhancements to the F-22. Even with 1000 JSFs in the field, that would be $5000/flight hour, even before the cost of doing any work. Fortunately Saab prices do not look like that - see the comments from Airpower on the blog post.

You will have to pardon me Bill, but I will not be trusting any of the comments made on your site. I know far too many of the commenters. not only that but PaulMM mentioned that we shouldn't trust what some swedish publication says, I would think that if that doesn't have much credibility, neither do your commenters (no offense)

Fortunately Saab prices do not look like that

Which would mean anything if SAAB prices meant getting an equally capable product. GripenNG is cheaper because it's just a growth version of a gen 4 design. You get what you pay for and if you want superlative performance it's gonna cost ya.

Hits it right on the head.

 

[LowObservable]

You might want to add some context to those quotes:[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]

The JSF business plan, if fulfilled, results in a virtual fighter monopoly in the West and its allies. Whoever wins India will have a short lease on life in the business, but otherwise Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale and F-18 are fighting over crumbs and most if not all will exit the market before 2020.

I think that statement was entirely justified in 2009 given qualification in the first sentence.[/font][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]

The JSF is unique in the degree of integration in its information systems. So far, for example, it has no open-standard transmit datalink, at least in stealth mode. The automated logistics system will continuously transmit operational information back to Fort Worth. Not only is it a coalition-optimized airplane, it's hard to see how it could be operated at all without direct, constant US support.

The US can block sales of a lot of aircraft, but at the risk of killing its export market if it does so for commercial reasons. It's harder in most cases to block operations (as seen with Iranian F-14s).

It is no secret that Sweden has made a go-ahead for the Swiss order a condition for its own program (in part, because the Swedes are buying ahead of their own needs). Thus far, however, the deal seems to be going through its gates on schedule.

And of course Nils D is correct to note that one reason that Gripen is cheaper is that it is a growth version of an earlier design (4th-Gen is a LockMart marketing term). However, a more basic reason is that it is designed to different requirements. The F-22 and F-35 incorporate a higher degree of stealth, but the F-22 has been truncated due to its costs. The F-35? We'll see. [/font][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]You'll note that at the time of that story, the official line was that JSF SDD would be complete in 2014...[/font][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]

 

[bobbymike]

These are bold projections, but you might want to wait until IOC before you make them.

Yes because we are all wating for IOC to make 'bold projections' are we LO

 

[SpudmanWP]

Training requirements and projections are not "bold" as they are doing it now and know what is involved.

It's one thing to claim that Combat Effectiveness claims are "bold" until proven in combat, but since training is happening now that bar has been met.

 

[LowObservable]

Er, Spud, no.

With the standards now released for training - subsonic and no weapons - it's certainly too early to claim that pilots of a fully operational JSF will require fewer flying hours than pilots of other aircraft. Evaluation of a full-up aircraft in an operational environment wraps up in 2019. Get back to me then.

BobbyMike,

Not sure what you are talking about. I have used, and do use, projections of observable trends to gauge whether predictions have a high or low probability of coming true.

For instance, in early 2009 it was statistically clear that the JSF test program was going to have to go from one of the world's slowest to one of the fastest if the 2014 SDD completion target was to be met. Those who doubted that the target (including the JET and Navair) would not be met were right. The program officials and fans were wrong. Historical fact.

Indeed, the naysayers' biggest mistake was that they did not realize how bad things were, and that in 2008-10 the SDD completion date was actually getting further away with each month.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

[/i]The US can block sales of a lot of aircraft, but at the risk of killing its export market if it does so for commercial reasons. It's harder in most cases to block operations (as seen with Iranian F-14s).

So all this European Paranoia about the US turning their American made aircraft into paper weights is unfounded then yes?

Secondly, I would not cite the Iranian Tomcats as an example any country would want to partake in. although the Iranians were able to keep their fleet going in various degrees, I would say that the price of having to make your own parts, buy from second and third hand sources, and of course smuggle parts through scandalous means may have effected not just operations, but the expense of the operational costs as well. Even the most diehard IRIAF/ Tomcat nuts will concede that the Embargo hurt in a lot of areas. at the very least, it sure made things co$tly.

And of course Nils D is correct to note that one reason that Gripen is cheaper is that it is a growth version of an earlier design (4th-Gen is a LockMart marketing term).

By the way, I don't think Saab has ever advertised the Gripen as being cheap to buy (Swedish-made goods don't have that reputation generally).

Thank goodness too, if a legacy (can't use a LM term) Gripen costs around 40-60 million, and a "cheap" Gripen NG costs around 100 million, I would hate to see what an "expensive" growth looks like.

However, a more basic reason is that it is designed to different requirements.

strange to see you advocating it as an F-35 peer/substitution then. Unless I have misinterpreted something.

[/size][/font][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]You'll note that at the time of that story, the official line was that JSF SDD would be complete in 2014...[/font][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]

indeed, but does that then change everything in the article? Frankly if you want to disown the words you have written every time something about the JSF schedule changes, you are going to have to walk away from a lot of work. Things have changed-- For example its looking like the Gripen NG won't be cheap.

Evaluation of a full-up aircraft in an operational environment wraps up in 2019. Get back to me then.

(AKA the year before the Gripen NG is in service)

These are bold projections, but you might want to wait until IOC before you make them.

Yes because we are all wating for IOC to make 'bold projections' are we LO

Like most simple/cheap upgrades of operational aircraft that take 12 years and see the price double, Gripen NG is supposed to be ready around 2020... But it hasn't stopped us from declaring it "cheap".

 

[SpudmanWP]

With the standards now released for training - subsonic and no weapons - it's certainly too early to claim that pilots of a fully operational JSF will require fewer flying hours than pilots of other aircraft. Evaluation of a full-up aircraft in an operational environment wraps up in 2019. Get back to me then.

Obviously there is no way to predict requirements since there is no way of comparing the current flight profile envelope training requirements with the same envelope requirements of other fighters.

No, wait :

1. They know what it takes to fly the current envelope
2. Most of the learning that is needed for the cockpit is systems and not flight control. This can be mostly done in the simulators.
3. Most of the software that runs on the simulators is actually F-35 Code, not an interpretation. As changes are made to the avionics, flight control laws, etc the simulator adapts to replicate those changes.
4. Weapons release is a very MINOR part of the training and does not need "in-the-plane" time.
5. The closer a simulator behaves like a fighter than the more time a pilot can spend in the simulator vs the actual fighter. This is the whole point.

 

[LowObservable]

strange to see you advocating it as an F-35 peer/substitution then. Unless I have misinterpreted something.

Well, you have. The whole idea of the F-35 was to include stealth while reducing the cost of ownership, including R&D, procurement and operations relative to earlier aircraft. The fact that it has failed on the first count and is projected by the SAR to fail on the second and third is telling

Frankly if you want to disown the words you have written every time something about the JSF schedule changes, you are going to have to walk away from a lot of work.

Most true, but I'm not doing that. The critics were right in 2009.

Like most simple/cheap upgrades of operational aircraft that take 12 years and see the price double

Evidence? Aside from your own third-hand figures from a news aggregator site?

Spud - Those comments seriously look like opinions to me. And in what respects (details please) is the automation level of the JSF higher than that of its contemporaries?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

strange to see you advocating it as an F-35 peer/substitution then. Unless I have misinterpreted something.

Well, you have. The whole idea of the F-35 was to include stealth while reducing the cost of ownership, including R&D, procurement and operations relative to earlier aircraft. The fact that it has failed on the first count and is projected by the SAR to fail on the second and third is telling

and yet it still may be cheaper than the "Sweden doesn't make cheap"/cheap Gripen NG...

I guess the problem here is that the F-35 may well be more expensive than was originally projected, but still less costly than alternatives. Paraphrasing what PaulMM said, maybe fighters are just that expensive these days. In that case, maybe the JSF has been judged a little harshly. Frankly if SAAB can't keep the price of a modern fighter down to (LM Marketing term that includes the number 4) costs, even while using a proven design with a "simple upgrade" maybe no one can... Even then it seems pretty steep for a (LM/Boeing Market term -- "a top Boeing official has called their newest 4.5th generation fighters "stealth killers"" with the number 4 a dot and the number 5 ) fighter

Evidence? Aside from your own third-hand figures from a news aggregator site?

Well here is the Aviation Week article on it:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A6f06e815-269a-4947-b638-92516f0590b3

all the numbers, save the 107 million dollar per aircraft seem similar. So unless Abraham Gubler really sucks at math...

The article also say the first Swedish Squadron doesn't stand up until 2023. so until then the bold projections abound.

Plus the Swiss are dodging costs:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120901/DEFREG01/309010001/Will-Gripen-NG-Project-Bring-More-Defense-Cuts-Sweden-

FTFA:

“We don’t know what the final cost will be,” he said. “The big problem with programs like this is that it is very difficult to know at the outset what the final cost will be.”

Technical hurdles, exchange rate fluctuations, problems with sourcing parts from foreign suppliers, and problems in the development and testing stages could all add to costs, Wezeman said.

“The Gripen E/F will be an almost completely rebuilt and unproven version,” he said. “This is not just an upgrade of the existing Gripen; it is a complete redesign, and essentially a new aircraft. Because of the small number to be built, the R&D costs per unit are likely to be very high.”

simple improvement, cheap.

Speaking to the Almedalsveckan Politics and Society conference in Gotland on July 1, Göranson said the military may be forced to mothball parts of the Navy, Air Force and Land Forces if forced to absorb funding for the Gripen-NG program.

Cheap

 

[SpudmanWP]

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/october/lockheed-martin-completes-f-35-full-mission-simulator-installati.html

“The importance in simulation to the program is twofold—cost and effectiveness. Due to the fidelity of the simulators, approximately 50 percent of the core syllabus flights for the F-35 program are accomplished in the simulator,” said Lt. Col. Dwight DeJong, director of the Joint Strike Fighter Site Activation Team for MCAS Yuma. “This becomes extremely cost effective with realistic training that is independent of the weather, maintenance and range availability that can challenge daily operations.”

The FMS includes a high-fidelity 360-degree visual display system and is the highest fidelity trainer in the F-35 pilot-training-device suite, accurately replicating all F-35 sensors and weapons deployment.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2011/april/LockheedMartinDeliversFir.html

"JSF training technology brings a revolutionary new capability to the joint services," said Col. Arthur Tomassetti, 33rd Fighter Wing Vice Commander. "The smooth surface, high-resolution dome is a dramatic improvement over legacy fighter simulators. The high visual acuity and utilization of a significant amount of real aircraft parts and source code will allow us to train a wide variety of mission tasks previously not accomplished in simulators. The F-35 FMS will be our primary pilot training device, and we are anxious to start putting it to good use."


In all F-35 simulators, actual aircraft software is used to give pilots the most realistic experience and allow software upgrades in step with the F-35 development.

http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123330544

Throughout the High AoA testing, the F-35A's performance has closely matched piloted simulator results and modeled predictions, giving the team the confidence in the jet to continue moving forward in the test plan.

Then there is the whole issue & cost (in both cash and airframe hours) savings associated with Embedded Training.


A whole bunch of info on the depth and breadth of F-35 Simulation and Embedded Training here
http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/SystemsEngineering/Documents/Committees/M_S%20Committee/2011/February/NDIA-SE-MS_2011-02-15_Evans.pdf


More Here:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-simulation-seen-as-key-to-cost-effective-military-training-379182/

 

[Racer]

But in Australian case the rebuilding could be 100mio, in Swiss case 500mio (bunkers in mountains and such...)? Do you know it?

But the Swiss are not building NEW mountain bunkers. This was a major issue with the Super Hornet withdrawal from the competition as it was claimed it wouldn’t fit in the old bunkers. And is the facilities budget really $500m or 1/6 of total budget? I doubt it.

EDIT: Further to this the official statement of the deal by the Swiss Govt. does not include any mention of alpine fortress rebuilding costs though it may be included under the dot point "Logistics package for the air force". I would imagine if they were going to spend $500m SF out of $3,000m SF it would have at least garnered its own dot point.

To make it clearer:
I try to express the meaning of my sentence with other words: No one in public knows how much building cost is in the 2 deals. The amount in each deal could be marginal or very relevant - it is simple not public, so we don't know. (relevant parts in bold)
The numbers i had given were NOT real numbers, just examples to help to have a picture.

No portion of the swiss deal is realy public (or even signed), so its not possible to say whats in the logistics package. And only because it is not reported seperately means anything.

As a guess I would set the building costs in the swiss deal in the ballpark of 50...200mio$.

 

[SpudmanWP]

In response to a misplaced comment in the F-35 News Only Thread, the "Green Lantern" F-35 is a mashup of different models.

At least it did not go with dual guns like the one in "Live Free or Die Hard".

From Green Lantern (F-35 A/B mashup) Besides the notes in the pic below, you can see the B/C style refueling prove at the 1:59 mark in clip.

From Die Hard (based of the X-35B, not AA-1)

 

[Racer]

Also Racer, the article I posted said 22 Gripens but you are saying 34?

They are leasing a squadron's worth to replace the Tiger in the meantime. Costing an addition $50 million SF or something (defrayed by withdrawal of the Tiger).

Ahh thank you. So leasing the older model Gripen.

Sorry, in my original post the "18" was missing I was there writing about the former F/A-18 deal.

As for Gripen leasing: For 5 years, 8xGripen C and 3xGripen D, 44mio SFr per year -->220Mio SFr.
But this will be a separate deal.

A document (in german) about this (see page 4):
http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/vbs/de/home/themen/defence/tte/dokumente.parsys.85521.downloadList.97958.DownloadFile.tmp/gfad.pdf

 

[fightingirish]

...a misplaced comment...

Probably or even only the best part of that crappy movie "Green Lantern" from 2011.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA1npx-p7YU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA1npx-p7YU

Notice that modell of the F-35 is based on the first series prototype AA-1 with the test pitot tube and one piece front gear door,

 

[Racer]

Plus the Swiss are dodging costs:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120901/DEFREG01/309010001/Will-Gripen-NG-Project-Bring-More-Defense-Cuts-Sweden-

FTFA:

“We don’t know what the final cost will be,” he said. “The big problem with programs like this is that it is very difficult to know at the outset what the final cost will be.”

Technical hurdles, exchange rate fluctuations, problems with sourcing parts from foreign suppliers, and problems in the development and testing stages could all add to costs, Wezeman said.

“The Gripen E/F will be an almost completely rebuilt and unproven version,” he said. “This is not just an upgrade of the existing Gripen; it is a complete redesign, and essentially a new aircraft. Because of the small number to be built, the R&D costs per unit are likely to be very high.”

simple improvement, cheap.

You missed the most relevant part in this quote:
"..., said Siemon Wezeman, a defense analyst with Stockholm International Peace Research Institute."

He will say that every weapon is bad, evil, not mature, to old and to costly.

----

Typhoon was said to be cheaper than F35 in Japan. Typhoon was around 1.5x more expensive then Gripen in Swiss and it is brough up here that F35 is cheaper than Gripen. Think about.