UK Defence Forum

Spitfire9 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 15:38

mrclark303 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 13:59 Absolutely, it had been hypothesised that SAAB would lead design of a single engine smaller machine, using the engine, avionics and new construction techniques within Tempest, creating a highly scalable high low mix that could have played well to the market.

I think that the KAI KF-21 is in the order of 25 tonnes, as is the not-yet-launched HAL AMCA. What would SAAB design to avoid competing with these? How small can a fighter be and still carry a meaningful weapons load internally?

mrclark303 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 13:59 Re the numbers game, it used to be said that 400 units represents the break even point in modern combat aircraft.

With that in mind....
GB 150
Japan 150
Italy 85
(A quite plausible Saudi Arabian buy) 55

I follow Indian military aviation. It is possible that their own 5G AMCA project will end up being cancelled through India's inability to organise (and reluctance to finance) development of a suitable engine. It may be very advantageous for the GCAP group to keep talking to India about possible involvement in the program either as a co-developer or as a customer. india will need to start replacing 250+ Su-30 fighters from mid/late 2030's(?) so might be in the market for 100-150 frames if AMCA is cancelled/abandoned.

Ron5 wrote: ↑01 Jan 2023, 15:21

mrclark303 wrote: ↑01 Jan 2023, 03:08

Ron5 wrote: ↑31 Dec 2022, 15:30

Meriv9 wrote: ↑30 Dec 2022, 20:50 It is firstly an industrial project and only after a defense one.

That doesn't mean there isn't a defense need. All those Typhoons need replacing and as much as the little boys here think the F-35 will be an adequate replacement for Typhoon in the second half of this century, it will not be. Go check how the F-35's did in exercises against F-22's (spoiler, not well) and think that the F-22 has roots back in the 1980's. Not hard to imagine that China and maybe Russia will have an F-22 equivalent one day in the not to distant future. That's why the US is developing a 6 gen fighter.

I'm not sure exactly what @SW1 meant when he said if the F-35 was made in the UK, there would be no Tempest program. I don't know how a UK F-35 production line would address the UK industrial requirement for Tempest that goes far beyond license manufacture, and as I said, militarily it doesn't fit either.

You do know that the UK is a tier one partner don't you Ron, so 'licence' manufacture wouldn't come into it.

Happy new year Mr Grumpy

Not any more. Please keep up.

mrclark303 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 17:00 I would be extremely weary of allowing India into any high end military programme, they remain non aligned and just as likely to share technology with Russia.
Their silence over Putin's invasion of Ukraine and filling their boots with Russian oil and gas post invasion, tells you all you need to know about their reliability as partners today.

tomuk wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 11:28

SD67 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 10:19 And BAE have given SAAB alot of help over the years.

Yes and that fell apart because BAE tried to grease the wheels of the Gripen sales with some payments to 'agents' these payments would be better known to us as bribes.

Spitfire9 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 01:06

mrclark303 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 17:00 I would be extremely weary of allowing India into any high end military programme, they remain non aligned and just as likely to share technology with Russia.
Their silence over Putin's invasion of Ukraine and filling their boots with Russian oil and gas post invasion, tells you all you need to know about their reliability as partners today.

India is non-aligned. It does not follow that India is likely to leak secret information to Russia about western weapon systems it has or is likely to leak secret information to the west about Russian systems it has. Same applies to technological secrets.

Agreed, India has not condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine. India has repeatedly called on both sides to settle their differences by diplomacy.

Spitfire9 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 08:04 Some thoughts on GCAP from Richard Aboulafia

https://richardaboulafia.com/november-2022-letter

He notes that the US NGAD fighter may not be offered for export. That would leave the 6G market to non-US types.

SD67 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 07:54

tomuk wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 11:28

SD67 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 10:19 And BAE have given SAAB alot of help over the years.

Yes and that fell apart because BAE tried to grease the wheels of the Gripen sales with some payments to 'agents' these payments would be better known to us as bribes.

Undisclosed advance commissions ie what everyone else does. Maybe the world would be a better place if developing country x bought Sukhois instead of Gripens ( because that’s their market - let’s face it they ain’t gonna win against F35 ).
Sweden has a choice - do they want to be in the aircraft business?

Meriv9 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 10:03 Let's remember that we can break even as planes but also as components.

IMHO for this reason is key that the Swedish government understand how important Tempest it is.

Because If Tempest is too much for 3/4 of the world a single engine/Griphen with Tempest tech inside would be perfect for past export countries like Brasil&Visegard, plus at the same time it could attract the Russian clients that Ukraine is going to make Sukoi loose (thinking of Peru for example, but way higher chance they will go for KF-21 considering their Korean ties).

mrclark303 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 16:47 Break even point...

An often used industry metric in new military aircraft programmes was a build of 400 units to make a program economically viable and not cancelled due to spiralling costs at birth.

it's particularly relevant when discussing very high end fighters like this, as fail to get sufficient numbers under contract at the start, then the unit cost becomes unacceptably high for the partners and into the bin it goes.

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 16:49 Very much depends on what is meant by austere operations. Or by what distances your taking about for takeoff and landing with what weapons fit.

Ron5 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 13:44

mrclark303 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 16:47 Break even point...

An often used industry metric in new military aircraft programmes was a build of 400 units to make a program economically viable and not cancelled due to spiralling costs at birth.

it's particularly relevant when discussing very high end fighters like this, as fail to get sufficient numbers under contract at the start, then the unit cost becomes unacceptably high for the partners and into the bin it goes.

Utter rubbish.

Meriv9 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 10:03 Let's remember that we can break even as planes but also as components.

IMHO for this reason is key that the Swedish government understand how important Tempest it is.

Because If Tempest is too much for 3/4 of the world a single engine/Griphen with Tempest tech inside would be perfect for past export countries like Brasil&Visegard, plus at the same time it could attract the Russian clients that Ukraine is going to make Sukoi loose (thinking of Peru for example, but way higher chance they will go for KF-21 considering their Korean ties).

mrclark303 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 09:11 India has unfortunately shown itself to be an unreliable partner, in an era when right thinking nations are stepping forward and firmly hammering their colours to the mast.

I hope they don't look towards Russia for help if China attacks, I doubt their loyalty to Putin will be rewarded..

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 16:49 Very much depends on what is meant by austere operations. Or by what distances your taking about for takeoff and landing with what weapons fit.

topman wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 17:40

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 16:49 Very much depends on what is meant by austere operations. Or by what distances your taking about for takeoff and landing with what weapons fit.

Nato has a definition of what an austere airfield means. As it does for the other types of airfield.



On a wider point, I wouldn't believe everything that saab says about gripen operating with a couple of conscripts, how quick they can change an engine etc. A fair bit is smoke and mirrors.

Spitfire9 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 15:26

mrclark303 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 09:11 India has unfortunately shown itself to be an unreliable partner, in an era when right thinking nations are stepping forward and firmly hammering their colours to the mast.

I hope they don't look towards Russia for help if China attacks, I doubt their loyalty to Putin will be rewarded..

India is not a partner of the west. Definitely not a partner of US. US applied sanctions when India tested a nuclear device about 20 years ago. All the R&D and dev work done on their LCA fly-by-wire system in US was embargoed, meaning India had to start more or less from scratch again by on its own.

India is under constant attack (several times a week) by armed militants crossing from Pakistan. US favoured Pakistan over India while conducting its Afghanistan operations, to India's cost. You can surely understand that India does not see US as a country it would want to be rely on. It has proved to be unreliable in the past. In recent times it has given support to a country seen as a 'terrorist state' by India.

To me India should have condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Not because it invaded an 'ally' of the west. Because it invaded a sovereign country.

SW1 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 18:24

topman wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 17:40

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 16:49 Very much depends on what is meant by austere operations. Or by what distances your taking about for takeoff and landing with what weapons fit.

Nato has a definition of what an austere airfield means. As it does for the other types of airfield.



On a wider point, I wouldn't believe everything that saab says about gripen operating with a couple of conscripts, how quick they can change an engine etc. A fair bit is smoke and mirrors.

I suspect those definitions are not what was being opinionated about here though.

Design requirements on the aircraft I suspect from those documents and others have been incorporated into aircraft we have designed in the past and I suspect will continue to be in the future.

I don’t believe there is that much of difference between typhoon and gripen in this regard.

topman wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 19:35

SW1 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 18:24

topman wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 17:40

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 16:49 Very much depends on what is meant by austere operations. Or by what distances your taking about for takeoff and landing with what weapons fit.

Nato has a definition of what an austere airfield means. As it does for the other types of airfield.



On a wider point, I wouldn't believe everything that saab says about gripen operating with a couple of conscripts, how quick they can change an engine etc. A fair bit is smoke and mirrors.

I suspect those definitions are not what was being opinionated about here though.

Design requirements on the aircraft I suspect from those documents and others have been incorporated into aircraft we have designed in the past and I suspect will continue to be in the future.

I don’t believe there is that much of difference between typhoon and gripen in this regard.

Yes it's a bit more than how long the runway is.

This type of thing comes into fashion every now and again, it gets tried every so often and then quietly dropped when reality appears.

From my experience, I'm sceptical that beyond the odd bit of refuelling etc, there's good reason no-one really does it. I don't include PR events in that. I mean doing it properly and consistently.

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 14:33

tomuk wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 13:33

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 11:52 I’d rather have Sweden involved than Italy. Would reduce program execution risk

Where would you get the radar from?

Edinburgh!

SW1 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 21:37

topman wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 19:35

SW1 wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 18:24

topman wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 17:40

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 16:49 Very much depends on what is meant by austere operations. Or by what distances your taking about for takeoff and landing with what weapons fit.

Nato has a definition of what an austere airfield means. As it does for the other types of airfield.



On a wider point, I wouldn't believe everything that saab says about gripen operating with a couple of conscripts, how quick they can change an engine etc. A fair bit is smoke and mirrors.

I suspect those definitions are not what was being opinionated about here though.

Design requirements on the aircraft I suspect from those documents and others have been incorporated into aircraft we have designed in the past and I suspect will continue to be in the future.

I don’t believe there is that much of difference between typhoon and gripen in this regard.

Yes it's a bit more than how long the runway is.

This type of thing comes into fashion every now and again, it gets tried every so often and then quietly dropped when reality appears.

From my experience, I'm sceptical that beyond the odd bit of refuelling etc, there's good reason no-one really does it. I don't include PR events in that. I mean doing it properly and consistently.

Yes access to ground support services will drive you quickly to more traditional facilities for repeated use as I can’t see all the equipment required being lugged to forest clearings. This will become complicated further with low observable aircraft characteristics.

A number of the nordics “road” operations are roads surrounding the main base which the aircraft have access via taxi ways from the base

tomuk wrote: ↑04 Jan 2023, 22:45

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 14:33

tomuk wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 13:33

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Jan 2023, 11:52 I’d rather have Sweden involved than Italy. Would reduce program execution risk

Where would you get the radar from?

Edinburgh!

That's my point. The Italian owned (30% Italian Government) Leonardo in Edinburgh.