lol , what a reckless driving, my condolence to for the meatballs seller
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can we be clear first, are we talking about Gripen C/D or Gripen NG (E/F)? They're quite a leap with each other though
I don't see the point of replacing the F-16 with the Gripen especially if you're referring to the Gripen C/D which would actually be a downgrade. They are in the same class and the Gripen won't bring much difference in capabilities in the single engine segment, not too mention introducing a more foreign fighter would introduce more costs. Plus the $4700 figure from what I read is for the Gripen C/D, the numbers for the Gripen E/F (NG) aren't there yet considering its new and only a few are undergoing tests currently and its probably going to be a tad bit more costly than the Gripen C/D also considering its a major upgrade of the Gripen by giving it AESA radar as well as newer engine (F414 compared to the RM12 (F404 based) on the Gripen C/D). If you want to compare F-16V it should be with Gripen NG since both are latest developments of each airframe, Gripen C/D is more comparable to earlier F-16C/D while F-16V is comparable to Gripen NG.
And btw if you want to pair the Gripen (Gripen E/F in this case) with a twin-engine, its better to pair it with the Super Hornet. I think engine commonality is a big cost saver and both the Gripen and Super Hornet uses F414's although not interchangeable unlike some of the F100's and F110's on the F-16 and F-15 pairing. In this case Gripen + Super Hornet or F-16 + F-15 pairing is more compatible IMO. Another problem with the Gripen in my opinion is its to short-legged I think in terms of fuel and range.
Plus its no use having the Gripen if the main goal is to have different 2 sets of fighters of US and non-US. The reason I call the Gripen a Swedish F-16 is because it is literally a Swedish American jet, half of its components are American so no use there, the other European options especially the Rafale is better for this particular problem.
View attachment 668418
I just don't think its worth transitioning to another single engine fighter when its not going to introduce much difference in capability despite cheaper CPFH, you also need to think about the cost of transition. The part I agree with you is the armament flexibility, the Gripen can utilize both American AIM-120's, AIM-9's as well as European IRIS-T, Meteor, etc.
But I get your point and partly agree though, If I was building an air force from scratch the Gripen is something I would certainly be looking at first.
Then why keep saying that US 'fanboys' will never mention about cost, infrastructure, training when thats mostly what US fanboys like Chestnut keep talking about, I mean they probably talk about that more compared to network centric capabilities and engine commonality (which is also considered as infrastructure in this case). Its not that hard to realize either that a jet like the F-16V and F-15 or even the F-35, the jet that is literally meant to replace the F-16 among its operators in the future would probably be more easier on on the introduction cost, infrastructure and training part since both our personnel and pilots would be more familiar with it and already have some experience with them.
And are you sure the AU actually gets to decide what they want to do? I mean if thats the case, I'm all for it. But thats not really what I've been seeing and been told at least hehe
But to me those avionics/radar & EW suites really tempting to be put in our future KFX/IFX. At least it is proven design that works compare to the one Sokor has right?The picture that you shared really hit the nail on the head. It totally destroys my argument about having Gripen as the non-U.S. set of fighter
Operating cost of a Su-30 is roughly around $35,000. For a Mig-29 it's around $20,000. That's for Myanmar, a country with a larger base of Russian equipment than we do. It would be larger for us.
Myanmar confirm Russian military aircraft order - Sukhoi Su-30. | FocusCore Myanmar
company incorporation services, ongoing corporate secretarial services, payroll & bookkeeping servicesmyanmarcs.focuscoregroup.com
An F-15EX's operating costs is estimated to be around $29,000, but is projected to decrease to $25,000 as production lines increase.
F-15EX is a boon to Boeing, but it might not break the international fighter market
Is the F-15EX ready for the competitive international field?www.defensenews.com
For an F/A-18 Super Hornet, the operating costs is around $11,000 by a DoD estimate.
Why Sloppy Accounting Is Destroying the US Fighter Inventory
The DoD's cost per flight hour of military aircraft misses the mark. FighterSweep's financial expert Brett Odom gives the real cost breakdownsofrep.com
For an F-16, it costs around $8,000.
The Hourly Cost Of Operating The U.S. Military's Fighter Fleet [Infographic]
Modern military fighter aircraft are extremely expensive to procure with the unit cost for a single F-35A coming to $98 million, according to Lockheed Martin. That program has already gone down as the most expensive weapons system in history and it's set to cost $1.509 trillion through to 2070...www.forbes.com
A Gripen C/D costs around $4,700 in 2012. Adjusting to current inflation it is $5,300. Keep in mind this is the C/D. But as @Gen3115 has said, we currently don't know how much the E/F would cost. But a new aircraft with few operators it would likely be more.
Gripen operational cost lowest of all western fighters: Jane’s
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.stratpost.com
Although yes, CPFH is difficult to determine because of a variety of factors, it still provides a basic idea of how much it would be. And from these few sources alone you can already tell the big difference of operating costs regarding US/EU aircraft compared to Russian aircraft.
So again, us "fanboys" are not making baseless assumptions as you claim. Everything we say has been said before by actual professionals. The only fanboy here is you.
Then share your sources, you keep saying everyone else doesn't share sources but you yourself is the one that resorts to ad hominems and name calling when you're replying to others. And I did mention the CPFH would vary by country for a plethora of reasons, you're the one who is willingly excluding that since you're so obsessed with getting a "gotcha!" moment. It's already written on this article that I shared as well.It's good that a professional turned fanboy (due to obvious bias) like you actually use data to back up your arguments, for once. But I found it curious that you left out the CPFH of Rafale (estimated at around USD 16,500) and Typhoon (estimated at around USD 8,200 - 18,000), which were significantly lower than that of F-15 and also no mention about the CPFH of F-35 (estimated at around USD 31,000 up to a whopping 36,000). It's also convenient to left out estimates made by Australia regarding their Superbugs fleet about their CPFH of around USD 24,400. Not surprisingly, also no mention about when those numbers were ESTIMATED and who made the calculations, since the numbers calculated by Myanmar (about Russian made Su-30s) was certainly as valid as numbers calculated by the US (about the Hornets manufactured by.. themselves), right?
Again, at this point it's very obvious you're letting your emotions over a hobby get the better of you. That's just pure fanboyism. Imagine being the pot that called the kettle back.And from these few sources alone you can already tell the big difference of operating costs regarding US/EU aircraft compared to Russian aircraft.
What ever you say my guy.But then again, surely nobody cares about those numbers as long as they have commonality, interoperability, and the almighty network centric capability as the one ring to rule them all argument.
Literally scroll up. The past several replies to your post has been people calling you out and debunking your argument just as I have. Me and others have already have proven our sources credible to other posters on this thread, and just because you don't know them doesn't make them invalid. Literally the only person going absolutely nowhere here is you, fanboy.Lastly, try to bring numbers and data more often without first being scrutinized, would you? People will get bored eventually by conjectures such as "western planes are known to be wholly superior" or "upgrades to Russian planes were known to be not transparent, according to certain sources" or "my buddy, a brass in certain branch of military told me such and such". Why? Since "news" from hearsay and own bias will not get you anywhere, my guy.
Comparing CPFH between jets and countries is very difficult. Everyone makes different assumptions in their accounting and includes/excludes different items. Not to mention things such as economy-of-scale, how far/accessible are you to an MRO facility, how often your aircraft fly, etc. also plays a part in a fleet's operating cost.Not sure how this annual increase rate compare with other fighters.
But to me those avionics/radar & EW suites really tempting to be put in our future KFX/IFX. At least it is proven design that works compare to the one Sokor has right?
Our KFX/IFX won't have AESA radar? Really?
Btw, is it normal practice to ask an aircraft manufacturer to upgrade the aircraft that's produced by different manufacturer?
If so, considering their good track record in flexibility, can we ask SAAB to upgrade all of our fighter fleet (at least F-16s) with their brand new AESA. Also the upcoming European jets fleet?
Instead of SAAB, BAE system had license to upgrading and do major overhaul for F16 and among other task.
Maybe because air force using USAF as model and use their operation syllabus. So it's better to use the same radar as theirs.Then why didn't we go with BAE AESA radar, instead settled with AN/APG-68 upgrade?
I knew it.
I've been observing this "Nike" guy. He's full of bullsh*t
Wow wow... chill bro..I knew it.
I've been observing this "Nike" guy. He's full of bullsh*t
And Why The H**l you mentioning Saab to handle F16 upgrade?Instead of SAAB, BAE system had license to upgrading and do major overhaul for F16 and among other task.
erghhh no, I mean we use their latest AESA radar and EW suites, afaik their radar isnt related to ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulation) so we can worry less about US embargo. Having the same manufacture/source for avionics/radar/EW imo would make it easier to integrate and maximize its individual function in certain way. It also can work with our future data link-16.Our KFX/IFX won't have AESA radar? Really?