MILAVIA Forum - Military Aviation Discussion Forum

Author Topic: The Swedish Model  (Read 7188 times)

Offline tigershark

  • News Editor
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2025
The Swedish Model
« on: May 01, 2008, 04:38:13 PM »
The Swedish Model
How to build a jet fighter.
by Reuben F. Johnson
04/30/2008 11:45:00 PM


Linköping, Sweden
ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 23, Sweden's Saab Aerospace rolled out what may become the fighter aircraft that sets the standard for the future of the military aerospace business. What Saab is calling the "Next-Generation Gripen" (Gripen N/G for short), is a substantially modernized version of its JAS-39C/D model, the fighter currently in service or in the process of being delivered to the air forces of Sweden, Hungary, the Czech Republic, South Africa, and Thailand.

As fighter aircraft go, the Gripen does not have the look of a super-stealthy, new-age marvel like the two most recent Lockheed Martin (LM) platforms--the F-22A Raptor or the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The new Gripen N/G will also not feature an entire bevy of brand-new, designed-from scratch on-board systems, although there are some 3,500 new components that are part of the aircraft's configuration.

The notable changes to the JAS-39 in its new incarnation are the replacement of its single Volvo RM-12 engine with one General Electric F414G, a variant of the same engine used as a two-power plant propulsion system on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet--a 25 per cent increase in thrust. The airplane also will have a new active electronically scanning array (AESA) radar set, a technology that has now become a more or less standard requirement for any new fighter aircraft. (This new radar will feature a Saab Microwave Systems PS-05 design on the back end of the radar set, with a Thales active array similar to that used on the Dassault Rafale fighter's RBE2 radar on the front end.)

But the change that has perhaps the biggest impact on the Gripen's performance has nothing to do with high-technology weaponry or sensors. The landing gear have been displaced from the undercarriage to the main wing pylons. This frees up a large space in the center fuselage section of the aircraft and provides room for additional fuel tanks. This gives the new Gripen and unrefueled range of 2,200 nautical miles, 500 more than the unrefueled range of the F-16.

What is remarkable about this Swedish product is that despite being produced in rather modest numbers--and then add in the high rates of taxation and super-expensive Scandinavian welfare state in which the plane will be produced--this jet will still end up costing less than half of the price of a Joint Strike Fighter, perhaps as little as one-third. Moreover, customers of the Gripen are going to have full access to the aircraft's software source code and will be able to make their own modifications and integration of weapon systems.

But, the most interesting fact about the Gripen is what it says about the fallacy upon which most modern-day military aircraft programs are based.

There are about six fighter jets in the world that could be classified as "new-generation designs." The Gripen, France's Dassault Rafale, the F-22A and F-35, Russia's Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flanker, and the four-nation consortium (UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain) Eurofighter Typhoon. (A sixth player that can in some respects be considered a new model is Russia's modernised version of the Mikoyan MiG-29, which is designate the "MiG-35," although it retains almost the same basic platform as the MiG-29 it does contain an AESA and a host of other new systems in it its configuration.)

Of these six aircraft, three of them are designed and built by several companies or several nations cooperating together. The F-22A is a joint program between LM and Boeing, with several subsystem contractors also on board as major partners. The Eurofighter is largely a product of the aerospace industries of the four original partner nations. The F-35 is the biggest cooperative program of them all, pulling in the aerospace firms of the United States and the United Kingdom, plus industrial partners from many of the other nations that are also part of the program.

Military airplane programs that are produced by these "teams" of companies are structured this way because--as the rationale goes--it is "too expensive for one company or one country to go it alone." Sharing the costs of designing, testing, building, and validating new technologies--and giving each country or company that part of the program where they have a competitive advantage--is supposed to make these airplanes cheaper to procure for all of the participants.

Except that just the opposite has occurred. The F-35, a single-engine stealthy aircraft, is projected by a recent report from the U.S. Government Accounting Office to cost in the neighbourhood of $130 million per copy. This is a program that, when it was developed, was specifically designed to be "cheap," as in around $35-40 million per copy, and that the designers were to make maximum use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components in order to achieve that efficiency. So, why does it end up costing more than three times one of the aircraft it is supposed to replace-- the F-16--and almost three times the price of the Gripen? (Not surprisingly, some of the JSF partner nations--namely Norway--are now talking about bolting from the program in favor of a Gripen purchase instead.)

The Eurofighter, partially thanks the catastrophic drop in value of the U.S. dollar against the Euro (and if you live in Europe as I do and try to buy groceries and gas with dollars, "catastrophic" might not even be a strong enough description for the situation), is now well over US $100 million. It suffers from the fact that it was organised and planned primarily as "welfare for European aerospace and high-tech industries," as one UK-based analyst described it, "and as a program to produce a fighter as a secondary consideration."

The economies of scale that the Eurofighter was supposed to benefit from as a result of being built by a "team" of companies never materialised. Instead multiple redundancies were created that only added to the bottom line and caused the progress of the program to move forward at what seemed like a snail's pace at times. "Don't tell anyone I ever told you this," said a frustrated Eurofighter test pilot to me during a private chat at the Le Bourget air show almost a decade ago, "but there are no efficiencies achieved in this program by having four separate flight test centres--one in each of the partner nations." The Eurofigther also has production lines in each of the four nations, plus ground test facilities, etc.

(Having had the experience of the Eurofighter has not caused European industry to rethink the viability of this model very much. The new-age European military transport, the Airbus A400M, will be built in only one factory instead of four, the CASA/EADS factory in Sevilla, Spain, but the costs of the program are still expected to make it the most expensive aircraft of its kind ever built.)

F-22A tops them all, however. The program's development has been long and expensive. Admittedly, several technologies were pioneered and matured by the process of designing and testing the F-22A. Many of these technologies--now that F-22A has "paid the freight"--can be dialled into numerous other future programs. But, when these development costs are amortised over the production run of the Raptor, the aircraft comes in at a whopping US $390 million per unit.

Surprisingly, the three aircraft that are built by one company in one country--a feat that we have been told for more than 20 years is "no longer affordable"--all cost well under $100 million. These are the Gripen, the Rafale, and the Su-35. All of them contain the latest in on-board systems technology, but they have been designed with stealthy airframe shaping being far less important and with more reliance on electronic warfare as a means of keeping them survivable in the air combat or air defence environment.

There is something to be said for the fact that the emphasis on a stealthy, low radar cross section (RCS) aircraft shape does a lot to increase the costs of the F-22A and F-35, and that this is a technology that is the competitive advantage that the United States has over its adversaries. What is sobering to realize, however, is that the one U.S. aircraft that was built with RCS being its primary--in fact, perhaps its only--consideration was just retired this week after one of the shortest service lifespans in the modern jet age: the Lockheed Skunk Works F-117A Stealth Fighter.

The F-117A is now regarded as "old" technology where its RCS reduction methods are concerned and no longer as effective ("its survivability has been eroded" is the operative term) as it once was. Its missions will be taken over by other more modern stealthy aircraft, such as the F-35. One has to ask the question, though, given the significant advances by Russia, China, and other nations in counter-stealth methods and air defence, will the ultra-expensive F-22 and F-35 face similarly truncated service lives?

(The fact that the F-117A design is said to be outmoded and made obsolete by these newer model fighters did not keep the US Air Force from continuing to engage in needlessly silly security arrangements. The world's most famous and experienced air-to-air aircraft photographer, Katsuhiko Tokunaga of Japan, was barred from the retirement ceremony on the grounds that "no foreigners at all are allowed." This despite the fact that he has flown more than 1,000 hours in the rear seats of almost all U.S. fighters and has completed some of the most extensive air-to-air photography of the--supposedly--much more advanced F-22A.)

On Monday the Indian Ministry of Defence accepted bids from six U.S. and foreign competitors for the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (M-MRCA) program. The $10 billion-plus program is the PowerBall lotto of fighter aircraft sales and will be the largest procurement of a military aircraft by a export customer in more than three decades.

The JAS-39, because of its reasonable cost and the many improvements made in the Gripen N/G configuration, is one of the odds-on favourites in this competition. Eurofighter, the MiG-35, Rafale, F-16, and F/A-18 are all in the bidding, but the Swedish bid is considered by some to be the one proposal that will meet all of India's requirements. (Gripen's India-based team were carrying the shrink-wrapped proposal in their cabin baggage on the flight back to New Delhi after this week's rollout ceremony.)

How India decides will say a lot about how the future military aircraft business develops worldwide. If New Delhi's decision makers opt for the Gripen, the whole concept of teaming and multinational program needs to be re-examined - as does the heavy US emphasis on RCS as the primary design criteria. With other future military programs starting to form up as more "team" projects, such as the USAF Next Generation Bomber (NGB), these are considerations that need to be addressed now rather than later.

Reuben F. Johnson is a contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Online.

© Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

Source
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/047zojsh.asp

Offline tigershark

  • News Editor
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2025
Re: The Swedish Model
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2008, 12:23:26 AM »
Quote
The landing gear have been displaced from the undercarriage to the main wing pylons. This frees up a large space in the center fuselage section of the aircraft and provides room for additional fuel tanks. This gives the new Gripen and unrefueled range of 2,200 nautical miles, 500 more than the unrefueled range of the F-16.

If this is true and they still keep the price under new Vipers one would think new sales and follow up would follow.  India and or Brazil should jump on this if the price is right.  The Morocco deal looks hard to beat could Sweden's Saab Aerospace match something like below to Brazil? 

Morocco - F-16C/D Block 50/52 Aircraft
WASHINGTON, December 18, 2007 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Morocco of F-16C/D Block 50/52 aircraft as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $2.4 billion.
The Government of Morocco has requested a possible sale of:
Major Defense Equipment (MDE)
24 F-16C/D Block 50/52 aircraft with either the F100-PW-229 or
F110-GE-129 Increased Performance Engines (IPE) and APG-68(V)9 radars;
5 F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-129 IPE spare engines;
4 APG-68(V)9 spare radar sets;
30 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing Systems (CMDS)
30 AN/ALR-56M Radar Warning Receivers (RWR)
60 LAU-129/A Launchers;
30 LAU-117 Launchers;
6 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems;
4 AN/ARC-238 Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGAR)
radios with HAVE QUICK I/II;
24 Conformal Fuel Tanks (pairs);
4 Link-16 Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume
Terminals;
2 Link-16 Ground Stations;
4 Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Embedded GPS/ Inertial Navigation
Systems (INS);
12 AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER Targeting Pods or AN/AAQ-28 LITENING Targeting
Pods
5 Tactical Air Reconnaissance Systems (TARS) or DB-110 Reconnaissance Pods
(RECCE);
4 AN/APX-113 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) Systems;
28 AN/ALQ-211 Advanced Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Suites
(AIDEWS); or 28 AN/ALQ-187 Advanced Self-Protection Integrated Suites
(ASPIS II); or 28 AN/ALQ-178 Self Protection Electronic Warfare Suites
(SPEWS)
1 Unit Level Trainer
Associated support equipment, software development/integration, tanker support, ferry services, CAD/PAD, repair and return, modification kits, spares and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel
Northrop-Grumman Electronic Systems Baltimore, Maryland
training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $2.4 billion.
The proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by enhancing Morocco’s capacity to support U.S. efforts in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), as well as supporting Morocco’s legitimate need for its own self-defense. Morocco is one of the most stable and pro-Western of the Arab states, and the U.S. remains committed to a long-term relationship with Morocco. The proposed sale will allow the Moroccan Air Force to modernize its aging fighter inventory, thereby enabling Morocco to support both its own air defense needs and coalition operations. Morocco is a Major Non-NATO ally. Delivery of this weapon system will greatly enhance Morocco’s interoperability with the U.S. and other NATO nations, making it a more valuable partner in an increasingly important area of the world. The country will have no difficulty absorbing this new capability into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this weapon system will not affect the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be:
BAE Advanced Systems Greenlawn, New York
Boeing Corporation Seattle, Washington
Boeing Integrated Defense Systems St Louis, Missouri
(three locations) Long Beach, California
San Diego, California
Raytheon Company Lexington, Massachusetts
(two locations) Goleta, California
Raytheon Missile Systems Tucson, Arizona
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Fort Worth, Texas
Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control Dallas, Texas
Northrop-Grumman Electro-Optical Systems Garland, Texas
Pratt & Whitney United Technology Company East Hartford, Connecticut
General Electric Aircraft Engines Cincinnati, Ohio
Goodrich ISR Systems Danbury, Connecticut
L3 Communications Arlington, Texas
There are no known offset agreements in connection with this proposed sale.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Morocco involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, program management, and training over a period of 15 years.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law; it does not mean that the sale has been concluded.
-30-

Link
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36...occo_08-20.pdf

Offline Webmaster

  • MILAVIA Webmaster
  • Administrator
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2842
  • Country: nl
Re: The Swedish Model
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2008, 04:28:02 AM »
The new F-16s (especially if India gets a customized, new variant) still surpass or equal the Gripen in many other areas. I'm not sure how desperate the US is to sell more weapons. But if you try to picture Brazil or India in the following phrases:

Quote
Morocco’s capacity to support U.S. efforts in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), as well as supporting Morocco’s legitimate need for its own self-defense. Morocco is one of the most stable and pro-Western of the Arab states, and the U.S. remains committed to a long-term relationship with Morocco. The proposed sale will allow the Moroccan Air Force to modernize its aging fighter inventory, thereby enabling Morocco to support both its own air defense needs and coalition operations. Morocco is a Major Non-NATO ally.

It doesn't quite fit. However the cheap dollar might give the price advantage to US weapons, and I think the Swedes will not offer this new variant for less than the C/D which was already in the Block 40/42 range. India is looking for technology and workshare (incl. possibly local production), and as is Brazil, only to a smaller extent and might be just as happy with good industrial off-set contracts. Either way, the Gripen consortium and Swedish government is really good at offering both, whereas LM/US have more concerns over technology and work sharing than just the engine and radar.

To get back on topic, I think the title "The Swedish Model - How to build a jet fighter." makes it look a bit too glamerous. Sweden paid a lot to develop its own jet fighter, and now it just needs to keep trying to sell it to earn some of that R&D money back. Luckily for us, Sweden really wanted to have SAAB develop it, and the public accepted it as it had become a tradition for Sweden to build its own fighter. In most other countries, except far bigger countries such as the US, UK, France, Russia, India, China, the Gripen project would have been cancelled I believe.
  • Interests: Su-15, Su-27, Tu-22, Tornado, RNLAF
Niels Hillebrand
MILAVIA Webmaster

 



AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com click to vote for MILAVIA