OT: Putin's War in Ukraine

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

@Vespers: I misspoke (or mis-typed, rather). I meant to write that the Gripen would probably be cheaper to maintain and fly (than older US models like the F-4 Phantom). That was just an educated guess, though, and I very well could be wrong. Do you know off hand if a newer build F-16 is cheaper, off-the-shelf, and to fly and maintain, than a current model Gripen? I guess I fell for the Saab marketing that the Gripen is a low-cost alternative to NATO's Gen 4 offerings.

Another thing the Gripen has going for it is it's ability to operate dispersed from conventional airbases and take off from and land on roads. It's also designed to be serviced by conscripts. Add all of that to a closer working relationship with Sweden, and I think it might be worth it to the Baltics to pay a little more (and NATO to subsidize the whole deal).

-

No, it's not cheaper. The reason is an odd one though. The F16 is cheaper to maintain and fly (in dollars per flight hour) for the exact same reason the Cessna 182 is the most economical general aviation plane to own. There have been SO MANY F16s produced (over 1,000) for such a long period of time that maintenance costs have been pared down to the bone, even on newly manufactured parts. The Gripen and Viggen were made in MUCH SMALLER NUMBERS and do not have the ubiquitous support that the F16 has. Thus, their cost per flight hour is higher. In addition, the Grippen has VERY "short" legs... even shorter than the F16 (which is no champ in this area either). To some countries (like Canada), that IS an issue which must be considered. For example, the Canadians DON'T want to build airfields in the Arctic to support short-ranged fighters. That's why the F18 beat out the F16 for Canadian service.