Zeer interessante gegevens uit Noorwegen, die de kosten en performance van de Gripen NG in een ander daglicht plaatst.
Samenvatting: de Gripen is DUURDER dan de JSF, kan minder en heeft een veel hogere 30 jaar operating kostenbasis, nog daargelaten dat het toestel waarschijlnijk eerder vervangen zou moeten worden. Bovendien wordt met de Gripen een toestel geboden dat niet aan de Navo standaard voldoet (= extra kosten, 4 miljard Kronen). hieronder staan de meest interessante quotes, onder de link nog meer (google translate). Nog geen definitieve order, maar de Gripen lijkt in Noorwegen uitgespeeld. Nederlandse beslissingsmakers zouden hier notie van moeten nemen.
Het testprogramma voor de JSF is aardi op gang, al meer dan 300 testvluchten gemaakt en er vliegen nu actief 8 toestellen in het testprogramma.
It conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the two candidates, the Swedish JAS Gripen NG and the American F-35, where the F-35 ultimately proved to be the best option for Norway.
The selection of the F-35 is based on clear, scientific conclusions. . It is especially in the areas of sensor capability, the opportunities to remain uopp ¬ discovered and electronic warfare that F-35 is better than the Gripen NG.
"Stealth" was not a requirement, but this feature of the F-35 proved through our evaluations to be very beneficial to be able to solve the mission that was used as the basis for our evaluations.
All the scenarios in which the F-35 was better, involves the defense of Norway and Norwegian territory.
It received a quote for 48 aircraft from each of the candidates.
The U.S. offer was 18 billion 2008-NOK. D It is kept up constantly in the media that we had to have argued that this was a fixed-price. It is not true. It is not a so-called fixed-price, but a real quote, based on specific assumptions about the number of aircraft produced, the time of delivery and estimated dollar at this time.
The acquisition costs of 48 JAS Gripen NG, based on the supply from the Swedish authorities are about. 20 milliarder kroner. 20 billion. In addition, approx. 4 billion, the investment in necessary equipment to make the JAS Gripen NG to a multi-role combat aircraft in accordance with NATO requirements and standards.
Overall, this is 24 billion 2008-NOK in procurement costs for the JAS Gripen NG.
This equipment is also described in the offer from the Swedish authorities, and partly priced. Swedish authorities themselves acknowledge that the total amount for the purchase of 48 planes in the order of 24 billion. There are a limited extent questioned this amount. These 24 billion crowns for 48 JAS Gripen NG is directly comparable with the 18 billion crowns for the 48 F-35 mentioned above. These charges constitute the sole basis that it is possible to implement a direct economic comparison between the two fighter candidates.
Analysis of lifetime costs for the JAS Gripen NG shows a cost picture that is in the order of 20-30 billion higher than for the F-35 (which therefore is estimated at 145 billion) in a 30-year lifespan perspective.
The uncertainty attached to both candidates' expenses are included in calculations of total investment cost, and lifetime costs.
The JAS Gripen NG it must be emphasized that this cost estimate gives a performance that does not meet the requirements that are set to combat aircraft capacity, and which is tested through the operational analysis. It is considered to be impossible to buy into the lack of performance. It has therefore not been possible fully to estimate the lifetime cost of a combat aircraft capacity with JAS Gripen NG as a basis that meets our operational requirements. This assessment is supported by external quality assurance.
In the calculations of lifetime costs for all costs it is likely to be incurred in a 30-year perspective sought identified. The basis for this work is the received offers, as well as our own "experience base" relating to procurement, operations, maintenance and upgrades of a relevant combat aircraft fleet over the past 30 years. It is important to emphasize that the lifetime cost includes far more than what the suppliers are asked. For example, in these calculations added to the expected costs of weapons, infrastructure, erstatningsfly, fuel, organization, including salaries, education, and more. Lifetime Cost accounts will of course be entirely dependent on the cost elements that are added in, and the size of these.
http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... d%3D568032" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
/kras.gif)
)
