By: bring_it_on
- 11th May 2018 at 10:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
btw, The video (starting at 7:10) explicitly says that they take "existing F-18s in the fleet" and extend them out to 9k. No mention of factory fresh 9k lifetimes.
Boeing has claimed elsewhere that the Block IIIs delivered from the factory would be built for 9000 hrs.
By: pesko
- 11th May 2018 at 10:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There have been plenty of claims from Boeing that newbuilt Block III will be 9000 hours. I don't see it being that impossible, they have over 20 years of experience and data on the airframe to identify the key stress points and new manufacturing technologies have been adopted in the mean time.
What are you smoking? The Gripen C has a maximum speed of Mach 1.8(ish). Operationally stated as Mach 1.8. (Btw, so is the F-18E/F). F-18 armed with 2 Aim-120 and 2 Aim-9 the maximum speed is Mach 1.55.
And armed Gripen isn’t even 80 Knots faster than an F-35. The Gripen E/F is stated as Mach 2. However, we will see when weights and final configuration are set. Your obsessing about a truly irrelevant topic. When armed there is very little difference between most. The Typhoon has been stated to reach Mach 1.8 with 3 EFT so it is likely it can reach near Mach 2 armed. Realistically, most of the time every one of these aircraft will be carrying at least a centerline tank (except F-35), and be unlikely to reach 700 knots 30-35k feet (not that they would most of the time).
By: pesko
- 11th May 2018 at 21:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen topspeed is nearly 300kts faster than F-35. No wonder Royal AF has'em too.
Nothing you have written in this thread makes any sense. Top speeds of fighters have close to zero operational impact, yet you seem to be obsessed with them.
Ask yourself this, if Gripen E is so great and superior, why hasn't it won any technical evaluations? The only successful exports bids, one of which was rescinded, were based on cost and/or ToT.
And no, the RAF doesn't operate Gripens. Empire Test Pilots' School operated by Qinetiq flys Gripens based in Linköping, Sweden as a part of their fast jet training curriculum.
By: topspeed
- 12th May 2018 at 06:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok....here is a good chance for all to correct their misconceptions they receive in the internet.
I bet the 53 million a piece vs 125 million a piece price tag is also faulty and the fact that Saab said they can guarantee the 8 billion euros for 64 Gripens will also cover the maintenance for 30 years.
By: Loke
- 12th May 2018 at 08:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually it probably does not matter whether the Typhoon is 40% more expensive, 20% more expensive or "only" 10% more expensive than the F-35 -- it is no doubt more expensive, and I don't see why Finland would even consider it.
We have a strong opinion that we want to buy the best available defense material, wherever we want, because since 1992, when Finland decided to buy F-18 fighter planes, we have been practically married with United States defense technology, and we buy a lot of stuff, from Israel also. So for a country like Finland, which is militarily nonaligned and has territorial defense, [it] has to take care of defense on her own if needed. Of course we hope partners [will come to our aid], but alone if needed. It’s very important that PESCO is not excluding [non-EU industries].
We have money for €7-10 billion (U.S. $8-12 billion), and we are going to buy 64 fighter planes.
1. Finland is still more than happy to buy US equipment
2. They want to go for the best capabilities that can fit their budget
3. They definitely aim for 64 a/c.
It is almost guaranteed that they will go for the F-35, there is a huge capability gap between the F-35 and the others. In addition the F-35 will be cheaper than the Rafale and Typhoon and no more expensive than the SH/Growler solution.
Had Rafale/Typhoon cost the same as the F-35 (they do not) there will still be a capability gap, in particular between Typhoon and F-35. The capability gap between Rafale F4.2 and the F-35 will be much smaller, but nevertheless there will still be a gap, add to that the higher cost of the Rafale, and the lack of US integrated weapons, and it becomes a no-brainer for a US-oriented Finland.
What will happen if the budget can support 64 Gripen only? I guess they will then reduce the numbers slightly and still go for F-35. They will probably prefer 54 F-35 to 64 Gripen E.
And just to remind you all: They will not just look at the acquisition costs, but also life cycle costs.
By: Loke
- 12th May 2018 at 09:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When comparing the costs of 4.5 gen fighters like Typhoon with F-35 also keep in mind that a lot of stuff that is included in the F-35 must be added to the Typhoon, including various pods (including EW pods!?), drop tanks, etc.
By: EC 5/25 Corsair
- 12th May 2018 at 10:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just a small precision: J. Niinistö, like his FA colleague T. Soini, represents a now marginal and dead political branch. They have been characterized by their insane pro-US stance lately and they certainly will clear the floor in 2019.
By: topspeed
- 13th May 2018 at 18:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I cannot see why we need more than 10 planes for border patrolling the east border...as they are our old friends the russkies...well they do attack their neighbours to keep their soldiers busy time to time but still...they always have a good sounding reason for it...well Hitler sorta did that too, but he was insane in the membrane I recall.
I have switched from fighter aeroplanes to VAWT wind turbines ( I even have 2 prototypes )..as we have to go electric soon. But had I be given 10 billions I would have delivered a seventh generation superfighter...hundreds of them.
ANEW from Poland delivers H-darrieus turbines that exceed Betz's limit by 18%. My innovation makes that a self starting ( without electricity ) when on 2-blades when it is even 15% more efficient than a 3-blader ( ANEW has only those ).
By: Finny
- 14th May 2018 at 07:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Topspeed has got his medication wrong again. I wonder how long it takes before he is kicked out of this forum, like he has been from every military and aviation forum in his native Finland.
By: Yama
- 14th May 2018 at 10:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When comparing the costs of 4.5 gen fighters like Typhoon with F-35 also keep in mind that a lot of stuff that is included in the F-35 must be added to the Typhoon, including various pods (including EW pods!?), drop tanks, etc.
What EW pods? Typhoon has internal jammer.
Attack pods, sure...though Finland already has Litening pods.
By: mrmalaya
- 14th May 2018 at 10:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the model for Typhoon has to be RAF post 2020- Meteor, full A2G and burgeoning EW capabilities, not some random guesstimate based on the Swiss evaluation years and years ago. Typhoon backed by UK experience and development and funded by the Gulf States is not Typhoon in Luftwaffe service (or out of service, more like it).
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 11th May 2018 at 05:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Given that the F-15C (you know.... the one that has never lost in combat) has never gone above mach 1.4 in combat then m1.6 should be just fine.
Difference between M2 and M1.6 is 211 kn.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 11th May 2018 at 06:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
good to know you can add.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 11th May 2018 at 10:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Boeing has claimed elsewhere that the Block IIIs delivered from the factory would be built for 9000 hrs.
Posts: 14
By: pesko - 11th May 2018 at 10:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There have been plenty of claims from Boeing that newbuilt Block III will be 9000 hours. I don't see it being that impossible, they have over 20 years of experience and data on the airframe to identify the key stress points and new manufacturing technologies have been adopted in the mean time.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 11th May 2018 at 10:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Against who? because neither Gripen nor M2k never lost in combat either (as an example)
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 11th May 2018 at 19:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen topspeed is nearly 300kts faster than F-35. No wonder Royal AF has'em too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA9x-Zt9jg8
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 11th May 2018 at 19:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Too bad that's unarmed :)
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 11th May 2018 at 19:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What are you smoking? The Gripen C has a maximum speed of Mach 1.8(ish). Operationally stated as Mach 1.8. (Btw, so is the F-18E/F). F-18 armed with 2 Aim-120 and 2 Aim-9 the maximum speed is Mach 1.55.
And armed Gripen isn’t even 80 Knots faster than an F-35. The Gripen E/F is stated as Mach 2. However, we will see when weights and final configuration are set. Your obsessing about a truly irrelevant topic. When armed there is very little difference between most. The Typhoon has been stated to reach Mach 1.8 with 3 EFT so it is likely it can reach near Mach 2 armed. Realistically, most of the time every one of these aircraft will be carrying at least a centerline tank (except F-35), and be unlikely to reach 700 knots 30-35k feet (not that they would most of the time).
Edit- added 100 knots by accident.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 11th May 2018 at 19:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Remind me again of the Gripen's range armed with only 2 AAMs?
Posts: 14
By: pesko - 11th May 2018 at 21:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nothing you have written in this thread makes any sense. Top speeds of fighters have close to zero operational impact, yet you seem to be obsessed with them.
Ask yourself this, if Gripen E is so great and superior, why hasn't it won any technical evaluations? The only successful exports bids, one of which was rescinded, were based on cost and/or ToT.
And no, the RAF doesn't operate Gripens. Empire Test Pilots' School operated by Qinetiq flys Gripens based in Linköping, Sweden as a part of their fast jet training curriculum.
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 12th May 2018 at 06:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok....here is a good chance for all to correct their misconceptions they receive in the internet.
I bet the 53 million a piece vs 125 million a piece price tag is also faulty and the fact that Saab said they can guarantee the 8 billion euros for 64 Gripens will also cover the maintenance for 30 years.
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 12th May 2018 at 08:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually it probably does not matter whether the Typhoon is 40% more expensive, 20% more expensive or "only" 10% more expensive than the F-35 -- it is no doubt more expensive, and I don't see why Finland would even consider it.
https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/2018/05/11/interview-finlands-defense-minister-talks-air-defense-eu-procurement-regulations/
This clarifies that:
1. Finland is still more than happy to buy US equipment
2. They want to go for the best capabilities that can fit their budget
3. They definitely aim for 64 a/c.
It is almost guaranteed that they will go for the F-35, there is a huge capability gap between the F-35 and the others. In addition the F-35 will be cheaper than the Rafale and Typhoon and no more expensive than the SH/Growler solution.
Had Rafale/Typhoon cost the same as the F-35 (they do not) there will still be a capability gap, in particular between Typhoon and F-35. The capability gap between Rafale F4.2 and the F-35 will be much smaller, but nevertheless there will still be a gap, add to that the higher cost of the Rafale, and the lack of US integrated weapons, and it becomes a no-brainer for a US-oriented Finland.
What will happen if the budget can support 64 Gripen only? I guess they will then reduce the numbers slightly and still go for F-35. They will probably prefer 54 F-35 to 64 Gripen E.
And just to remind you all: They will not just look at the acquisition costs, but also life cycle costs.
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 12th May 2018 at 09:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When comparing the costs of 4.5 gen fighters like Typhoon with F-35 also keep in mind that a lot of stuff that is included in the F-35 must be added to the Typhoon, including various pods (including EW pods!?), drop tanks, etc.
Posts: 128
By: EC 5/25 Corsair - 12th May 2018 at 10:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just a small precision: J. Niinistö, like his FA colleague T. Soini, represents a now marginal and dead political branch. They have been characterized by their insane pro-US stance lately and they certainly will clear the floor in 2019.
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 13th May 2018 at 05:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why there has been put so much money for that deal 7-10 billions ....F-35s only costs 5 billion and Gripens 3,4 billions ?
Country is the worst economical situation ever and "we" wanna spent all available assets to promote foreign weaponmakers ???
Posts: 163
By: J-20 - 13th May 2018 at 05:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I totally agree Top speedo!
Finland should stop wasting its money and instead, buy one of your designs!
Posts: 2,619
By: topspeed - 13th May 2018 at 18:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I cannot see why we need more than 10 planes for border patrolling the east border...as they are our old friends the russkies...well they do attack their neighbours to keep their soldiers busy time to time but still...they always have a good sounding reason for it...well Hitler sorta did that too, but he was insane in the membrane I recall.
I have switched from fighter aeroplanes to VAWT wind turbines ( I even have 2 prototypes )..as we have to go electric soon. But had I be given 10 billions I would have delivered a seventh generation superfighter...hundreds of them.
ANEW from Poland delivers H-darrieus turbines that exceed Betz's limit by 18%. My innovation makes that a self starting ( without electricity ) when on 2-blades when it is even 15% more efficient than a 3-blader ( ANEW has only those ).
Posts: 123
By: Finny - 14th May 2018 at 07:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Topspeed has got his medication wrong again. I wonder how long it takes before he is kicked out of this forum, like he has been from every military and aviation forum in his native Finland.
Posts: 621
By: Yama - 14th May 2018 at 10:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What EW pods? Typhoon has internal jammer.
Attack pods, sure...though Finland already has Litening pods.
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 14th May 2018 at 10:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the model for Typhoon has to be RAF post 2020- Meteor, full A2G and burgeoning EW capabilities, not some random guesstimate based on the Swiss evaluation years and years ago. Typhoon backed by UK experience and development and funded by the Gulf States is not Typhoon in Luftwaffe service (or out of service, more like it).