Significance of the "Leaked" F-35 vs. F-16 Report ?

[melmothtw]

They claim to be achieving this by looking at every aspect of the programme; from project management, through to development, purchasing, and manufacturing, in an effort to drive down expenditure.

This approach is said to have served the company well in the legacy Gripens, so they have carried the philosophy over into the development of Gripen E, where it is bringing costs down while enhancing the capability of the airframe.

I get what you're saying about more modern and (presumably) more expensive systems for the Gripen E, but reading between the lines they appear to be suggesting that improvements to their processes is what is driving the cost reductions.

You can make of that what you will....

[LowObservable]

You could say that it's a matter of focusing as much attention on how you design the system, and you you will produced it, as on what you're designing.

In both engineering and production, getting it right first time is huge. The industry as a whole spends much too much time fixing early errors and then redesigning the adjacent parts because they no longer fit. (This gets really fun when extended to electronics and software.)

Another interesting thing about a Gripen on the assembly line is that it's mostly made of this funny stuff that comes in sheets and forgings and doesn't have to be cooked in a huge autoclave for a week. I think it's called "metal".

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by LowObservable

Another interesting thing about a Gripen on the assembly line is that it's mostly made of this funny stuff that comes in sheets and forgings and doesn't have to be cooked in a huge autoclave for a week. I think it's called "metal".

Metal, LO? Isn't that something like using bronze to make a shield for our soldiers?

... you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose.

This post brought to you by and and and

A question for our amigos in this thread: do we or don't we think it ought to be merged into the existing F-35 thread/fur ball?

[KenV]

The funny thing about airplane parts that need to be cooked is that airliners, which are extremely price sensitive, are now largely made of cooked material. With regard to the Gripen specifically, the original had 30% composites, and the new one has significantly more, with the fuselage now made from "carbon nanotube reinforced polymer composites."

It seems increasingly that airplane companies (including SAAB) are moving away from making airplanes out of that "funny stuff" called metal.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by KenV

The funny thing about airplane parts that need to be cooked is that airliners, which are extremely price sensitive, are now largely made of cooked material. With regard to the Gripen specifically, the original had 30% composites, and the new one has significantly more, with the fuselage now made from "carbon nanotube reinforced polymer composites."

It seems increasingly that airplane companies (including SAAB) are moving away from making airplanes out of that "funny stuff" called metal.

FWIW, and perhaps OT, another very expensive and controversial APN-1 acquisition program, Comanche Helicopter, RAH-66, which was axed over a decade ago ... increased the use of composites on the rotary wing side significantly.

When we look at AB 350 and Boeing 787 ... composites seem to be an area of growth.

But what about composite repairs, from the simple to the complex? For the F-35 and for aircraft in general, I'll offer that more progress is needed for it to be as "simple" as metal repairs are/were.

[LowObservable]

Carbon nanotube polymer composites?

According to a blog somewhere (the only source)...

According to some reports, wing area is double of Gripen C’s, fuselage is 20% longer, but it is made out of carbon nanotube reinforced polymer composites, reducing weight compared to Gripen C.

Given the dimensions are tosh, I don't place a lot of credit on that report. By the way, commercial airplanes are far more sensitive to operating cost than price, but that's just another dogmatic misstatement from the usual source.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by LowObservable

Carbon nanotube polymer composites?

According to a blog somewhere (the only source)...

According to some reports, wing area is double of Gripen C’s, fuselage is 20% longer, but it is made out of carbon nanotube reinforced polymer composites, reducing weight compared to Gripen C.

Given the dimensions are tosh, I don't place a lot of credit on that report. By the way, commercial airplanes are far more sensitive to operating cost than price, but that's just another dogmatic misstatement from the usual source.

LO, at the risk of being wholly off topic, it isn't just commercial air that benefits from composites str/weight combination.

V-22.

[KenV]

commercial airplanes are far more sensitive to operating cost than price, but that's just another dogmatic misstatement from the usual source.

Sigh. May I gently point out that the term "price sensitive" includes cost of acquisition (which include fabrication and assembly cost and composites are put together by robots which can reduce the cost of "touch labor" during manufacturing), cost of operations, cost of crew training, cost of maintenance and support, and resale value. That's why even though composites cost way more per lb to purchase than metal, the overall costs of a composite airplane can (and now generally are) below that of a "funny stuff" metal airplane. The "dogmatic misstatement" claim appears to be based on yet another (false) assumption.

[KenV]

But what about composite repairs, from the simple to the complex? For the F-35 and for aircraft in general, I'll offer that more progress is needed for it to be as "simple" as metal repairs are/were.

That depends. If a chunk of primary structure is damaged, often the only way to repair it is by scabbing on doublers, which can be expensive in terms of engineering, fabrication, installation, and weight. Many composite structures can be fixed with scarf repairs (basically glued up layers of composite material) which can be quicker, easier and cheaper than metal. That's why commercial aircraft are going to composites. Not only can the repair be easier/cheaper, but repair can be avoided altogether. Composite structures don't corrode like metal and don't fatigue like metal. LOTS of inspection and repair costs are related to both corrosion and fatigue.

But this is based on the non-stealth composites world. I have no idea how difficult repairs would be on a stealth airplane where very different considerations may apply.

[LowObservable]

Ken - Nobody else here confuses "cost" or "operating cost" with price. Because the words have quite different meanings in the English language.

[KenV]

Ken - Nobody else here confuses "cost" or "operating cost" with price. Because the words have quite different meanings in the English language.

Oh my. Nobody else????

price: n. the amount of money expected, required, or given in payment for something
cost: n. an amount that has to be paid or spent to buy or obtain something

English is not my first language, so I on occasion have difficulty with it. But the above definitions are quite close and do NOT have "quite different meanings" in either the UK or the US versions of English. So may I ask which version of English you are using?

To reiterate my original statement, the price (amount of money expected or required) or the cost (the amount that has to be paid or spent) for purchasing, owning, operating, maintaining, supporting, and finally disposing of a used airplane is driven by a huge number of factors. The manufacturers have adopted composites because it reduces the overall price to the airline of all (or most) of those factors except possibly disposing of it. But disposal price is coming down as the industry learns how to recycle composites.

And further, I assume you know the meaning of synonym: (synonyms do NOT have "quite different meanings")
synonyms for price: value, rate, cost; estimate
synonyms for cost: price, asking price, market price, selling price, unit price, fee, tariff, fare, toll, levy, charge, rental

Me thinks that our problem is mostly one of language. This latest exchange appears to confirm that. For whatever reason, you and I appear to be speaking two different versions of English. I have no idea how to correct that because the language difference does not appear to be driven by the difference between US and UK versions of English.

[LowObservable]

Ken

You are a troll. A quite sophisticated one, but a troll nonetheless.

[NITRO104]

Originally Posted by KenV

English is not my first language...

So, how come you flew F18s in the Navy, then?

[KenV]

So, how come you flew F18s in the Navy, then?

May I ask what does my first language have the remotest to do with me flying F-18s??!!!

But OK, let's go down yet another rat hole.

I was born in Surabaja, Island of Java, Indonesia. (Indonesia was a colony of the Netherlands back then.) My first language was Pasar. That's a "street language" version of Malaysian. (Pasar literally means street market). Sort of like Creole English in the far south of the US. There is no written form.

When the communist revolution happened my parents (and I as a child) were forced out and effectively deported to the Netherlands because my parents had Dutch passports. I learned to speak Dutch.

Then my parents emigrated to the United States. I learned English. I can still understand, speak, and read Dutch (sort of write, but that's severely atrophied.) I've for all intents lost all my abilities in Pasar. I am a naturalized US citizen. Some folks claim our president is also. I deny that. And while naturalized citizens are precluded from becoming President, we are very welcome to serve in the armed forces. I did. And I flew (operationally) A-4s, P-3s and F-18s.

[KenV]

Ken You are a troll. A quite sophisticated one, but a troll nonetheless.

Oh my. This is not some kind of language problem, but something quite different.

Nevertheless, may I kindly ask a sincere question? How does you using a form of English different than the ones commonly used in the US and the UK translate into me being a troll?

[FODPlod]

Originally Posted by LowObservable

Ken

You are a troll. A quite sophisticated one, but a troll nonetheless.

A bit late to complain about the standard of competition now.

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by FODPlod

A bit late to complain about the standard of competition now.

What was it you bleated on about bullying and victimisation not so very long ago bud?

[t43562]

There seems to be a lot of evasion of the question asked about why non-stealth aircraft can't have sensors, networking and fusion and gain an information advantage. Doesn't gripen have some of this already?

[a1bill]

LO said "Carbon nanotube polymer composites?"

Seeing that they are used on The F-35 in non-structural areas, (they haven't done structural testing yet AFAIK) I see no reason they won't be used in the Gripen NG.
If I were you LO, I'd be careful calling someone else a troll.


@T4, they can go to the expense of fitting 5th gen sensors. The trouble is they wouldn't have a 5th gen platform to get them into the future battle space

[t43562]

@T4, they can go to the expense of fitting 5th gen sensors. The trouble is they wouldn't have a 5th gen platform to get them into the future battle space

I feel that this is a real case of "the answer begging the question" i.e. the answer is just a restatement of the question with no added information.