Fórum Defesa Brasil

AlbertoRJ escreveu:O Gripen NG também é um programa essencialmente privado. Alguém duvida??

Aliás, o programa Gripen Demo foi lançado sem dinheiro do governo sueco:

Gripen Demo – Trail-blazing the future

Saab is launching its plans for a new Gripen Demonstrator programme in partnership with some of the world’s leading aerospace companies. “This programme will keep Gripen at the leading edge well beyond 2040”, says Johan Lehander, Managing Director Gripen International.

19/6/2007 | A powerful partnership between Saab and some of the world’s leading aerospace companies has been established to prepare the launch of the Gripen Demonstrator programme. This new programme is aimed at demonstrating a range of future technologies and capabilities to ensure that Gripen remains at the leading edge of fighter aircraft performance and capability well beyond 2040.
The demonstrator programme will include the development of a new Gripen test flying platform - Gripen Demo - and the Gripen Avionics Rig. Gripen Demo will include new features such as a new engine with increased thrust, an AESA radar, increased range, new landing gear, increased weapons and stores capabilities and enhanced avionics structures. The programme is driven by the future needs of current and potential customers, and incorporates state-of-the-art technology that will keep Gripen at the leading edge well into the future.
This programme complements and enhances Gripen’s ongoing technology insertion programme with the highly successful Gripen C/D version now being delivered to customers worldwide.
Investment in the programme will be made by Saab and its international industrial partners, as well as potential future customers. In April 2007, Norway signed a Letter of Agreement regarding the future development of Gripen, valued at around USD 25 million, and the Swedish government is also expected to make a decision soon. These decisions represent a significant national and international government investment and commitment to Gripen’s future.
General Electric together with Volvo, Honeywell, Rockwell Collins, APPH, Martin-Baker and Terma are just some of the world-leading aerospace companies that, together with Saab, will jointly invest in the Gripen Demonstrator programme. Saab is continuing its discussions with other industrial partners and suppliers regarding further investment in the programme.
This combination of international corporate partnership and national and international commitment, through a jointly funded industry and government investment programme, is a very powerful testament to Gripen’s future.
“The Gripen Demonstrator programme, supported by our world leading industrial partners, will strengthen our position in the international market and will keep Gripen at the leading edge throughout its lifetime, well beyond 2040”, says Johan Lehander Managing Director Gripen International.

General Electric:
GE Aviation and Volvo Aero Corporation will be working collaboratively on the new F414G fighter engine for the Gripen Demonstrator programme.
The F414G engine selected by Saab uses a similar architecture to the popular F414-GE-400 engine powering the F/A-18 Super Hornet, with minor changes to the alternator (for added aircraft power) and modified Full Authority Digital Electronic Control software for enhances single-engine operation. The F414 engine is capable of producing more than 22,000 pounds (96 kN) of thrust.
These engines combine advanced technology with proven reliability, maintainability and operability of its successful F404 predecessor while providing 35 % more thrust, with approximately 750,000 flight-hours and 700 engines delivered, the F414 engine continues to exceed U.S. Navy reliability goals.

Honeywell:
Honeywell is providing environmental control systems, air data computers, life support systems, pressure regulators, shutoff valves and radar altimeters to enhance safety and reliability.

Rockwell-Collins:
Rockwell Collins is providing an avionics suite of state-of-the-art Flight Management Computers, including switching, data transfer units and video processing capability. Rockwell Collins is also supplying three new intelligent 6” x 8” colour Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Display (AMLCD) Head-Down displays, and is integrating enhancements to the existing Rockwell Collins Head-Up Display. This cockpit solution builds upon experience built up over many years in the market and will leverage future technology investments.

Martin-Baker:
Martin-Baker Aircraft Company Limited, a world leader of aircrew escape systems, is to be involved with the new Gripen Demonstrator Programme. Martin-Baker will supply a first-class ejection seat for this aircraft and support Saab in future aircrew safety requirements.

APPH:
APPH Ltd, a BBA Aviation company, will be a part of the exiting new development of the Gripen. The design enhancements to the existing and already proven landing gear system will contribute towards the Gripen Demonstrator programmes future success.

Terma:
Terma is sub-contracted to supply a variety of machined metal parts for the Gripen Demonstrator programme. As the leading defence and aerospace company in Denmark, Terma has unique knowledge, capabilities and experience within design and production of advanced structural parts for military and commercial aircraft
http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations ... 9_demo.htm

Em seguida:

New deals extend Saab Gripen line into next decade


Saab has received contracts and commitments that will keep the Gripen multi-role fighter production line open into the next decade and pave the way for a next-generation aircraft.
Thailand has selected the Swedish fighter to replace its Northrop F-5s, and approved a budget of 34,400 billion baht ($1.1 billion) to procure 12 Gripen C/Ds and two Saab Erieye airborne early warning aircraft, to enter service beginning in 2010.
In addition the Swedish government has signed an SKr3.9 billion ($600 million) contract to rebuild 31 Gripen A/Bs to C/D standard, for delivery starting in 2010 under the plan to reduce the Swedish air force's fighter force to 100 Gripen C/Ds.
The contract also covers the Swedish government's investment in the three-year Gripen demonstrator programme. A test aircraft, the Gripen Demo, will fly in 2008 and demonstrate a strengthened 10g airframe, more powerful engine, new landing gear, increased fuel capacity, active-array radar and expanded weapons capability.
The Royal Thai Air Force will be the fifth operator of the Swedish fighter. Phase 1 of the procurement covers six Gripens and one Erieye, for which 19,000 billion baht has been budgeted within the 2008-12 five-year plan. Phase 2 procurement of six more Gripens and the second Erieye has been budgeted at 15,400 billion in 2013-17.
Sweden's Defence Materiel Administration says negotiations will now begin on the government-government deal. It is not yet clear whether the Thai aircraft will be new-build Gripens or ex-Swedish air force A/Bs rebuilt to C/D standard.
The airframes for the Swedish A/B to C/D upgrade programme will be entirely new, says Saab, and only the engines, radars and some systems will be reused. The work will begin in 2008 and upgraded aircraft will be identical to new-build C/Ds, it says.
Upgrading the Swedish aircraft will keep the Gripen production line open to 2012, says Saab. Meanwhile, the Gripen Demo will develop upgrades that could be retrofitted into Gripen C/Ds and technologies for a "Next Generation Gripen" that could be offered for export early in the next decade, the company says.
Industry is part-funding the demonstrator programme. Saab says it is investing SKr1 billion while risk-sharing suppliers like General Electric, Honeywell and Rockwell Collins are investing "several hundred million" more on their own money.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ecade.html

Não parece que o Gripen Demo seja um requerimento da Força Aérea Sueca.

[]'s

P.S.: O governo sueco gastou $ 600 milhões para reconstruir 31 aviões (todo o airframe) e mais um troco para o Demo. Não é isso?

Esses US$ 600 mi se referem a um contrato de 2007 para transformar 31 Gripen A/B em C/D provavelmente na última configuração, a MS20. Algum troco deve ter sido utilizado para o desenvolvimento do Demostrador da nova geração.

Quem define as configurações é o Governo (FMV/Flygvapen) e não a Saab. Na realidade deve ser em conjunto.

A nova configuração é a MS21 (Gripen E/F). Em 2010 um contrato com a FMV foi firmado com a Saab para o desenvolvimento dos sistemas dos aviônicos desta nova versão.

Artigo de 2010:

(...)
The next configuration, MS 21, is being defined, but it is clear that MS 21 is in fact the NG, with the General Electric F414G engine; modified airframe; Selex Galileo Raven ES-05 active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar; Skyward-G infrared search and track (IRST) system; and new core avionics. Selex’s Raven 1000P radar prototype is flying on the Gripen Demo and a ground rig is testing the innovative avionics in which flight-critical functions are partitioned so mission capabilities can be added more quickly through the fighter’s life.

The government is funding development of the definitive NG, which the independent defense procurement agency FMV calls JAS 39E/F. (A contract for the avionics system was issued in May.) The production version will have a larger wingspan and area, and the landing gear will be fully integrated with the wing (on the Demo, gear loads are taken through the wing and fuselage). Maximum takeoff weight has been increased (compared with earlier NG proposals) by 1,100 lb. to 36,400 lb.
(...)

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... hannel=dti

[]s

Isso é marketing Santiago. Os upgrades do Gripen C/D, incluindo o MS 21 (que não é o E/F, muito menos NG), estão previstos há muito tempo.
Veja que o governo sueco se dispôs a fazer um retrofit de 10 aviões para o padrão E/F CASO existam encomendas externas. A participação no desenvolvimento também parece estar condicionada a isso. Entendo que é mais um incentivo à Saab que um planejamento para a Defesa.
Está na proposta de orçamento de Defesa mais recente (que ainda precisa ser aprovada).

[]'s

A realidade é que os suecos assim como o resto da Europa não podem se dar ao luxo de ficar comprando centenas de caças como em outras épocas e no fim estão tendo que estocar os seus Gripen AB e utilizá-los para fazer a conversão dos seus C/D (ao invés de comprar todas essas aeronaves novas).

Obviamente se os tempos fossem outros a coisa poderia até estar melhor para ajudar a SAAB, mas é que a coisa está díficil mesmo... nada de errado nisso.

Eu ainda acho que a SAAB embolou um desejo "futuro" que fazia parte da política de continua evolução do Gripen com o que ela "achava" ser uma maneira de criar uma nova aeronave e daí surgiu o NG que está sendo oferecido para alguns países. Infelizmente isso funcionou para o F-18 porque existia a US Navy e mais de 500 aeronaves quase que garantias no bolso, mas fica díficil sem um nome de peso fazendo uma encomenda substancial da aeronave... daí a procura por um "responsável" e todas essas histórias de querer associar o nome ao Brasil.

Nada mais justo... e é uma maneira de sobreviver e lidar com os desafios do mercado e a falta de encomendas internas. Mas é uma aposta que veio no tempo errado... e é esse o problema.

Enfim, é só uma maneira de ver as coisas.

[]s
CB_Lima

cb_lima escreveu:

Carlos Mathias escreveu:F-20Tigershark.

Pois é...

Qualquer semelhança não é mera coincidência...

[]s
CB_Lima

o F-20 tb me veio logo á ideia

mas enfim, pelo menos está aqui em baixo uma imagem da SAAB que confirma o que toda a gente sabe, e que os gripeiros iam aos arames quando se fala de origami e photoshop. o NG NÃO EXISTE!!!!!!!

The Swedish Model
How to build a jet fighter.
11:45 PM, Apr 30, 2008 • By REUBEN F. JOHNSON
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.

P44 escreveu:

cb_lima escreveu: Pois é...

Qualquer semelhança não é mera coincidência...

[]s
CB_Lima

o F-20 tb me veio logo á ideia

mas enfim, pelo menos está aqui em baixo uma imagem da SAAB que confirma o que toda a gente sabe, e que os gripeiros iam aos arames quando se fala de origami e photoshop. o NG NÃO EXISTE!!!!!!!

Pelo menos assim o pessoal entende, é claro, para quem quer entender né!

[]´s

Benke escreveu:The Swedish Model
How to build a jet fighter.
11:45 PM, Apr 30, 2008 • By REUBEN F. JOHNSON
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.

Este artigo é interessante, nem fala do Super Hornet, até põe o Mig-35 à sua frente e diz isto:

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.

[[]]'s

Thor escreveu:Não sou especialista em Gripen, mas já li algo sobre isso postado aqui mesmo

MCesar escreveu: - supercruise
Logo acima do seu post tem um relato experimentado...
- incrementos pontuais da célula que beneficiariam a furtividade (melhor dizendo, redução do RCS), possivelmente pela atualização do conceito das tomadas de ar e da estrutura interna, para desvio, deflexão ou diversão de ondas-radar incidentes sobre as palhetas da turbina, em estilo muito similar às versões atualizadas da Boeing para o Eagle (F15SE) e o próprio FA18EF.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4673&start=10335

Obrigado.

Acho esses pontos relevantes, mas são pouquíssimos ou nada comentados.

O modelo do FX2, que mistura em sua essência, conforme as conveniências e oportunidades, basicamente pretensões de ToT e cessão de códigos-fonte em troca da disposição de se pagar mais alto, poderia ter justificação mais aceitável se investisse em tirar realmente o máximo dos pacotes de "furtivização" das plataformas oferecidas. Não podemos esquecer que seu produto terá de ser capaz de sobreviver operacionalmente pelos próximos 15 a 30 anos, se o programa for à frente, pois não há, necessariamente, qualquer compromisso de se produzir outro vetor mais capaz.

Ou seja, para mim, embora se gaste muito esforço de acompanhamento do assunto, não acredito que haverá justificativa realista de se padronizar caças também por esse motivo.

A diferença de premissas, muito equivocada por aqui, ouso opinar, é abissal em relação aos casos indiano e coreano.

Abs

One of the Gripen NG's key sales points is range. Saab says the fighter can fly 1,300km with six air to air missiles, loiter 30min and return to base. It's hard to make a direct comparison to the F-35 since performance specifications with external stores are not publicly listed. Using only internal fuel and weapons, the F-35A is designed to fly 1,093km with up to four air-to-air missiles and return to base.

Massive fuel tanks allow Saab to achieve the range goal for the Gripen NG. Saab has now tested the 50% larger, 450gal fuel tanks in flight, as the video above clearly shows. Stephen Trimble

De uma coisa que não existe até podem escrever que vai até á lua sem reabastecimento...

Só maldade...

P44 escreveu:De uma coisa que não existe até podem escrever que vai até á lua sem reabastecimento...

Não podem não, pois se isso vira requisito terá que ser cumprido.
Hoje em dia é possível prever quase 100% o desempenho de determinado projeto, com pequena margem de erro. É assim que novas compras são feitas, mesmo antes de o produto final já estar na linha de produção.
Quanto a empresas fazerem propagandas que o produto faz isso ou aquilo, isso é muito comum, seja com projeto ou com aeronave já desenvolvida, mas a diferença se faz quando nas reuniões face-to-face ou na comprovação de requisitos o fabricante não garante/põe no contrato ou não tem como provar o que esbraveja por aí...
Dizem que isso é comum com um grande país produtor de aeronaves militares.
Abraços

Thor escreveu:

P44 escreveu:De uma coisa que não existe até podem escrever que vai até á lua sem reabastecimento...

Não podem não, pois se isso vira requisito terá que ser cumprido.
Hoje em dia é possível prever quase 100% o desempenho de determinado projeto, com pequena margem de erro. É assim que novas compras são feitas, mesmo antes de o produto final já estar na linha de produção.
Quanto a empresas fazerem propagandas que o produto faz isso ou aquilo, isso é muito comum, seja com projeto ou com aeronave já desenvolvida, mas a diferença se faz quando nas reuniões face-to-face ou na comprovação de requisitos o fabricante não garante/põe no contrato ou não tem como provar o que esbraveja por aí...
Dizem que isso é comum com um grande país produtor de aeronaves militares.
Abraços

Thor, não é provocação (sou capaz de jurar de pé junto), mas como militar que é, ouso perguntar: se você estivesse escalado para avaliar um equipamento militar, principalmente de natureza polêmica, supondo também que este não estivesse pronto, você assinaria o documento final baseando-se na declaração de um dado fabricante que o equipamento terá "quase 100% do desempenho" programado?

Insisto, não é provocação, mas sim uma forma, como civil que sou, de compreender o pensamento do militar.


Abração!!!

Thor, vá que aspectos de desempenho possam ser estimados com uma boa precisão. Mas você diz que se é um requisito TERÁ que ser cumprindo sem informar o que garante isso. E se um requisito não for cumprido em um projeto? Multas?

[]'s

orestespf escreveu:

Thor escreveu: Não podem não, pois se isso vira requisito terá que ser cumprido.
Hoje em dia é possível prever quase 100% o desempenho de determinado projeto, com pequena margem de erro. É assim que novas compras são feitas, mesmo antes de o produto final já estar na linha de produção.
Quanto a empresas fazerem propagandas que o produto faz isso ou aquilo, isso é muito comum, seja com projeto ou com aeronave já desenvolvida, mas a diferença se faz quando nas reuniões face-to-face ou na comprovação de requisitos o fabricante não garante/põe no contrato ou não tem como provar o que esbraveja por aí...
Dizem que isso é comum com um grande país produtor de aeronaves militares.
Abraços

Thor, não é provocação (sou capaz de jurar de pé junto), mas como militar que é, ouso perguntar: se você estivesse escalado para avaliar um equipamento militar, principalmente de natureza polêmica, supondo também que este não estivesse pronto, você assinaria o documento final baseando-se na declaração de um dado fabricante que o equipamento terá "quase 100% do desempenho" programado?

Insisto, não é provocação, mas sim uma forma, como civil que sou, de compreender o pensamento do militar.


Abração!!!

Eu e a maioria do mundo...
Assim foi a assinatura do contrato 01/95 do SIVAM, onde tinha-se apenas a concepção inicial de como seriam os E/R-99, assim foi o da modernização do F-5, que era único e não sabíamos que funcionaria, assim foi o contrato do AL-X, assim foram as vendas do JSF, dos jatos executivos, antes mesmo de serem homologados, assim foi que a FAB está fazendo com o KC-390, e já temos todas as especificações desejadas...
Mas não deixa de ser um risco, pois qualquer problema no desenvolvimento, atrasos virão. Vide PAK, F-35, E-737 Wedgetail, os próprios F-5M, A-29, E-99, etc...
Abraços