Reply With QuoteYeah that must be why it's a top priority in Russia and China.Originally Posted by JJHH
Yes, the EF was used over Libya and dropped ordnance as well. The Gripen proved to be a capable platform, so I don't see the need to compare airframes and actual use in combat. Otherwise you can say good-bye to that F-35..
Last edited by Steak-Sauce; 07-04-2012 at 02:40 PM. Reason: spelling
Yeah that must be why it's a top priority in Russia and China.
Odds are he was 1. being sarcastic and 2. waging war against the USA, Russia or China isn't at the top of the Swedish agenda.
As for the operational costs... regardless of the number of engines the difference is still very interesting. The chart seems to suggest that the powerplant isn't the first and foremost cost multiplier - so Saab must have done something very right in the Gripen's development.
such "studies" bog my mind.
Where did they get these numbers from? 7000 for f-16? Where? Who can do that?
Real numbers are around 20000 (27000e in the NL as was reported by nobody else but D. Berlijn), 30000$ for F-15 as claimed by AFA, 16-28000 F/A-18E depending on the specific model and type of the mission.
And
this
is just plain"brilliant". How difficult just to sit down and read what is GE-F414-400, why the americans have designed it and what was achieved...Btw Old Gripen uses old F404, new Gripen is supposed to use F414g (gE-F414-400 squeezed into one engined plane), and exactly this engine upgrade coupled with extra tanks allows SAAB to claim "double flight hours".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.
Anyway all military birds are nothing more but weapon delivery platforms. It's funny how peace time economy tries to get in between.
All these "counting" should come to the question: why to fly them at all? After all not having any is definitely the cheapest variant.
The future operating cost of Gripen NG is uncertain. If only a few dozens are made, future upgrade cost will be very high per unit.
If Norway had chosen Viggen in 1979, and been upgrading it to todays F-16 level, the Viggens operating cost would probably be astronomical today.
A jet without weapon bays can't be "stealthy" at all. The "real" combat load would smash any RCS decrease measure of the jet.
Given the fact its payload is the smallest of all the comparables, what other outcome should you expect?
Taking payload into consideration, the Gripen costs about $2.70 USD per KG of payload per hour.
Comparatively:
Saab Gripen: $0.89 USD per KG (5,300 KG @ $4,700 USD/hr)
F-16 Block 40/50: $0.91 USD per KG (7,700 KG @ $7,000 USD/hr)
Rafale: $1.73 USD per KG (9,500 KG @ $16,500 USD/hr)
F-18 Super Hornet: $2.11 USD per KG (8,050 KG @ $17,000 USD/hr)
Eurofighter: $2.40 USD per KG (7,500 KG @ $18,000 USD/hr)
F-35A : $2.59 USD per KG (8,100 KG @ $21,000 USD/hr)
Its a little bit different if you looked at it as to which aircraft can deliver the most payload on target for the price, rather than simply what aircraft is cheapest to operate.
You forget that French Rafales also dropped ordnance and carried out recce missions over Libya.
As for the Eurofighter, I think you are wrong.
It didn't drop air to ground ordnance, this very job was done by Tornado GR-4. The Brits mainly used their Typhoons for combat air patrols (CAP).
Anyway, when it comes to selling combat aircraft, combat proven experience is very often a big "plus".
I am not saying that you are wrong, but how true is this?
99% of the flight hours are probably flown in peace time with limited payload. I doubt that jane's or the worlds govenrments count CPFH with a fully loaded aircraft since it almost never is, no?
Negative. RAF Typhoons have been dropping bombs, just like the Tornados or French Rafales. Don't know for the Swedish Gripens, but I've heard they did a pretty good recce job.
They did not attack ground targets, and the superior recce performance was more due to the over all recce capabilty (ie. ground componants) then to the aircraft itself.
The F/A-18 C has a fuel tank of little under 5000 kg. 5 metric tons of Jet fuel costs about $4300. I believe the F/A-18 C/D runs about an hour with it's internal fuel tank. One has to wonder whether the Typhoon actually burns twice the fuel the also twin-engined F/A-18 does?
Hey Libyan Air Force Chief, hope you're reading this!
The fuel burn is determined by the specific fuel consumption and thus it all comes down to the weight of the aircraft. The bigger cost factor than fuel is the overhaul of the engines (thus the service life or MTBO), the cost of overhaul, and the maintenance of the engines and aircraft in general.
All the engines in that class have a pretty much equal fuel consumption, be it the F-414, F-404, M88, EJ200 or RD-33.
The F-16 engine obviously has a higher thrust and fuel consumption because it is a stronger single engine, to power a more heavy fighter than the Gripen, not far from the other airplanes which use two engines like the Gripen's.
Last edited by Hyde; 07-04-2012 at 06:21 PM.
You mean regardless of engine type or the shape or the size (width,length,height) of an aircraft, equally heavy aircraft always consume an equal amount of fuel? Now why do I find it hard to believe.
Posting Permissions
