Gripen Favored to Replace Austrian Eurofighters

[ACE OF THE AIR]

Spare parts and maintenance is really, REALLY expensive.
Austria expects to pay an additional 5-6B$ after the


A maritime attack squadron using a fighter that only has air 2 air capability?
What would be the role?

There are Italian and Spanish Tranche 1 for sale since several years and as I said, noone is buying. There is a good reason for that.

Well most of us in Pakistan think that PAF requires a dedicated air superiority fighter but PAF's think tanks want multi-role aircraft. Hence PAF wanted the Gripen but were refused. Some F-16's were procured through Jordan and directly but further procurement was stopped as Block 52 were too expensive.

Now as we know that PAF has her budget and PN has her so it could be possible that PN procures some fighter do deny the Indian Aircraft carries. However this would require an aircraft that is capable of swing role so that the battle group can be targeted as well not just the aircraft.
May be PAF fulfills muti role and PN gives PAF airsuperiority fighters. though highly unlikely

 

[ziaulislam]

How the hell kind of people they are.thinking about replacing eurofighter with Gripen.

Cost

Spare parts and maintenance is really, REALLY expensive.
Austria expects to pay an additional $3-400M per aircraft after they upgraded them for $180M per aircraft.

Because Austria doesn't do it in house

 

[Kompromat]

Spare parts and maintenance is really, REALLY expensive.
Austria expects to pay an additional 5-6B$ after the


A maritime attack squadron using a fighter that only has air 2 air capability?
What would be the role?

There are Italian and Spanish Tranche 1 for sale since several years and as I said, noone is buying. There is a good reason for that.

It can't be retrofitted for maritime strike?

 

[Maxpane]

Trench 1 is air superiir and it is very expensive to upgrade to trench 3 . So best decision is grippen, because of expensive upgradation spanish and german EFT are not combat ready

 

[Signalian]

It can't be retrofitted for maritime strike?

If PAF opts for EFT (T-3) in decent numbers, then getting theseold EFT would make sense and upgrading them in longer run through an agreement on a suitable price, not a rip off. The F-16 ADF were procured, but possibly they have A2G suite installed now, if its still pending, the possibility for future A2G suite installation exists through an MLU.

Well most of us in Pakistan think that PAF requires a dedicated air superiority fighter but PAF's think tanks want multi-role aircraft. Hence PAF wanted the Gripen but were refused. Some F-16's were procured through Jordan and directly but further procurement was stopped as Block 52 were too expensive.

Now as we know that PAF has her budget and PN has her so it could be possible that PN procures some fighter do deny the Indian Aircraft carries. However this would require an aircraft that is capable of swing role so that the battle group can be targeted as well not just the aircraft.
May be PAF fulfills muti role and PN gives PAF airsuperiority fighters. though highly unlikely

Gripen was single engined so caught PAF eye, had PAF wanted a twin engined strike aircraft, then Rafale was an option, if not EFT.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

Gripen was single engined so caught PAF eye, had PAF wanted a twin engined strike aircraft, then Rafale was an option, if not EFT.

Well what you say is not correct. Over the years various interviews of CAS have replied to the procurement in regards to all three aircraft in question.

EFT = too advance.
Rafale = Not up to the standard. Then not possible as competing for Indian MRCA.
Gripen = Not available due to US engine and Swedish Law.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

If PAF opts for EFT (T-3) in decent numbers, then getting theseold EFT would make sense and upgrading them in longer run through an agreement on a suitable price, not a rip off. The F-16 ADF were procured, but possibly they have A2G suite installed now, if its still pending, the possibility for future A2G suite installation exists through an MLU.

Sir, you have mentioned it will be possible only if PAF gives a decent order for T3's, but what I have read is the cost of T3 is almost similar to F-35. Moreover T1 can not be upgraded to T3 standards because of changes in the air-frame which are prohibitive. Recently RAF did upgrade their T2 to T3 standard but the aircraft were manufactured on the T3 standard, hence could be modified.

PAF requires aircraft for stop gap in which the consideration would be low cost easily available. What is the period considered as Stop gap needs to be looked upon, than only one can adequately consider which aircraft is feasible.
A reasonable time frame for 5th gen aircraft in PAF fleet is 2030-2035 depending which one is considered.
J-20 is from 2025 to 2030
TFX is from 2030 to 2035
Project AZM J-31 is 2027-2032
Project Azm JF-17 5th gen 2029 - 2035
F-35 (Unlikely) but USA can provide these tomorrow or never.

IMO
Stop gap is about 10 -15 years hence if PAF can negotiate a bargain for EFT T1 in 40-42 million a piece would be a very good deal. This is similar to what JF-17 block 3 would cost.

 

[Signalian]

Well what you say is not correct. Over the years various interviews of CAS have replied to the procurement in regards to all three aircraft in question.

EFT = too advance.
Rafale = Not up to the standard. Then not possible as competing for Indian MRCA.
Gripen = Not available due to US engine and Swedish Law.

Too advanced would be an immature excuse not to get EFT. I highly doubt "too advanced" would be a reason not to procure EFT, maybe it didnt holdthe complete package that would have got PAF interested, like having only A2A mode in first tranche . Coming to Rafale, i haven't seen an official report on rejection. Gripen was the only one out of these 3 in which PAF showed the most interest and it is single engined. Its rejection is another story.

Sir, you have mentioned it will be possible only if PAF gives a decent order for T3's, but what I have read is the cost of T3 is almost similar to F-35. Moreover T1 can not be upgraded to T3 standards because of changes in the air-frame which are prohibitive. Recently RAF did upgrade their T2 to T3 standard but the aircraft were manufactured on the T3 standard, hence could be modified.

PAF requires aircraft for stop gap in which the consideration would be low cost easily available. What is the period considered as Stop gap needs to be looked upon, than only one can adequately consider which aircraft is feasible.
A reasonable time frame for 5th gen aircraft in PAF fleet is 2030-2035 depending which one is considered.
J-20 is from 2025 to 2030
TFX is from 2030 to 2035
Project AZM J-31 is 2027-2032
Project Azm JF-17 5th gen 2029 - 2035
F-35 (Unlikely) but USA can provide these tomorrow or never.

IMO
Stop gap is about 10 -15 years hence if PAF can negotiate a bargain for EFT T1 in 40-42 million a piece would be a very good deal. This is similar to what JF-17 block 3 would cost.

The EFT investment makes sense if PAF goes for a high number of aircraft and gets KSA involved for guaranteed support in case of sanction during any war. Acquiring a small number of aircraft, and that too only for A2A role is not cost feasible too especially when combined with logistics and maintenance etc. A feasible stop-gap cost wise would be JFT Blk III.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It can't be retrofitted for maritime strike?

Almost impossible. A huge cost will be incurred.

 

[Kompromat]

I don't think so. Austria has no maritime requirements, Pakistan does. These jets can be upgraded to carry out ADA & Maritime Attack roles if Austria, Italy or Spain agree to sell them at an affordable price.

One dedicated maritime attack Squadron equipped with Eurofighters will increase our capabilities many folds as Indian carrier based Migs will meet a proper match.

Almost impossible. A huge cost will be incurred.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I don't think so. Austria has no maritime requirements, Pakistan does. These jets can be upgraded to carry out ADA & Maritime Attack roles if Austria, Italy or Spain agree to sell them at an affordable price.

One dedicated maritime attack Squadron equipped with Eurofighters will increase our capabilities many folds as Indian carrier based Migs will meet a proper match.

The problem is with structural issues. Between the first tranche and the following second and third, there were lots of changes made.The first tranche was made for air superiority exclusively; the idea was to deploy a plane for the single most important role, air defence. Once it was in place, they brought in the changes needed in tranche 2 and in tranche 3 to carry other types of ordnance. It is almost impossible to convert the tranche 1 machines to alternative roles. Unfortunately, as far as I can make out, this thread was about the acquisition of Austria's 16 aircraft at a cheap price; so far so good, but then came the question of multi-role combat, and that is where it fails. The tranche 1 machines CANNOT be converted. Or rather, it can, for a hideous cost (I don't know the bus configurations).

Your last para is fine, but getting there is the problem.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

It can't be retrofitted for maritime strike?

Everything can be retrofitted. Austria expects they have to pay $181M per aircraft for the retrofit.
It is probably less costly to buy new Tranche 3.

The main change in Tranche 2 was that they replaced all the computers, and possibly the communications channels, so no S/W developed for Tranche 2 or 3 can be used for Tranche 1.
All weapons added have to go through full development and qualification.

 

[Kompromat]

Is there any link where i can read about the retrofitting cost in more detail?

Everything can be retrofitted. Austria expects they have to pay $181M per aircraft for the retrofit.
It is probably less costly to buy new Tranche 3.

The main change in Tranche 2 was that they replaced all the computers, and possibly the communications channels, so no S/W developed for Tranche 2 or 3 can be used for Tranche 1.
All weapons added have to go through full development and qualification.

 

[BordoEnes]

Spare parts and maintenance is really, REALLY expensive.
Austria expects to pay an additional $3-400M per aircraft after they upgraded them for $180M per aircraft.

Thats a fair criticism imo. Not only is the aircraft bought through corruption AND is expensive to upkeep, but has to already go through an upgrade process for it to stay relevant. I completely understand Austria's decision to do away with them. The Gripens is an excellent choice to replace it, pretty much the exact opposite of a scenario where Austria keeps the Eurofighters.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Is there any link where i can read about the retrofitting cost in more detail?

I doubt it, I searched for the difference between Tranche 1 and Tranche 2, and the mission computer is mentioned just briefly.
The cost is basic calculations from the calculations presented in articles about Austria.
When You change the mission computer, you are probably increasing the performance quite a lot, so even if you had access to the source code, it might not run properly on the Tranche 1 mission computer because of the lack of performance.

Imagine an improved flight control algorithm, which runs every 20 milliseconds.
On the Tranche 2, the algorith finishes after 10 ms, so the CPU has 50% loading.
On the slower computer of the Tranche 1, the algorithm finishes after 30 milliseconds.
I.E: it has to start the next cycle before the previous cycle has finished.
The S/W cannot be ported to Tranche 1, it has to be rewritten.