Hacker News Reader

Comment by bjourne | Hacker News Reader

I'm sure this news will annoy many a Swedish military nerd. JAS 39 Gripen was designed for takeoff and landing from highways just like its predecessor JA 37 Viggen (developed in the 70's) could. In fact, that JAS 39E/F is easier and cheaper to operate (disputed of course) was one of its main selling points. The Finnish air force, however, choose F-35A over JAS 39E/F.

View on HN

It's not only about being able to takeoff and land from a highway. The Gripen is designed to be maintained by conscripts, and the entire maintenance system is designed for dispersed operation from the get-go. E.g. all the usual spare parts and tools are located in shipping containers even in "normal" usage on an airbase. The hangars have slots in the sides where they place the containers, the containers thus becoming an integral part of the hangar storage. When it's time to disperse, they just shut the container doors and lift the container up on a truck and drive it away.

From what I understand the F-35 maintenance system is designed around the aircraft being based on permanent air bases. Could a next generation maintenance system be similarly designed around dispersed operation? I'm sure it could, but it's not the reality today.

As for the cost, I can definitely understand the F-35 being cheaper just due to all the fixed costs (R&D, etc.) being amortized over a huge number of aircraft over the life of the program.

Was Grippen actually cheaper to operate? Because I've been following Swiss and Finnish purchase orders and they claimed that F-35A came out both cheaper to procure and was not more expensive to operate (mostly due to much higher production numbers since every other NATO country seems to be procuring them, making spare parts and per unit costs lower).

The savings are due to the production scale and expected operation time. F-35 is so cheap (amortized) because it is a) bought by everyone and their mother, b) expected to operate for many, many decades.

I think that's one of the reasons the newer Gripen uses the same engine as the F/A-18.

I miss the old Gripen howl =)

But to the accounts department, it is cheaper and rightly so?

> F-35 is so cheap

Things I never thought I would hear...

It's surprising isn't it? After all the costs and overruns... but the economies of scale kicked in becaues EU NATO countries are buying them in large numbers (and they're noticably more advanced than competitors now that software is actually working).

Aren't a large portion of the F-35s that have been made to date practically complete write-offs because they're not going to update the software on them to support features from the most recent version?

Since we're on HN I should also add that the most delay producing part of the plane was, by far, the software.

Also, both of my points are important. The very long expected lifespan may be even more important.

Switzerland, too, has been doing this for ages: http://aircraftnut.blogspot.com/2012/11/swiss-air-force-jets...

Well I'm sure one of the backroom conditions for being let into NATO is that they must shop USA armaments, regardless of which is better/cheaper.

Huh? Plenty of NATO members use their own or other members’ gear. Why would that be a condition (even a non-written one) now?

Finland is a new NATO member and required approval from existing members. And sweden is not a member so doesn't vote.

Of course uk and germany can do whatever they feel like, because they are already in NATO.

>Well I'm sure one of the backroom conditions for being let into NATO is that they must shop USA armaments, regardless of which is better/cheaper

Since you are so sure, what is a cheaper alternative? FYI Romanian wants to buy 48 F35 , we found no better alternative .

Let me thank Putin and his plan for finally forcing my country to modernize our aviation , navi and ground forces because we were decades behind.

Here in sweden they just took advantage of the war to ask to join nato, abandon neutrality, swiftly change the constitution, cut funds to social programs, without a public uproar, just pushing the narrative that russia was going to invade any moment.

And is history not showing Russia is always invading someone? Is Sweden entering NATO increasing your defense budget or what is making you not liking this ?

The Defense budget had to increase either way, and during the Cold War it was very sizeable.

So why some from Sweeden and Finland are against NATO?

Are they afraid to be pulled into USA wars ?

You're taking the wrong approach here.

Why should the population of a neutral country be in favor of no longer being neutral?

What's the advantage?

The disadvantage is that now social spending has decreased and the owners of Saab are very very happy with their extra pocket money.

Does neutral countries spend less on defense? Maybe Austria who is a lucky parasite because is surrounded by civilized countries. .

Sweden spent A LOT while outside of NATO.

Then the Soviet empire fell.

What drives defence spending in Sweden is not NATO or no NATO, but war in Europe.

Historically, sweden invaded or raided a lot of countries (including finland!)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com