Posted Defender - November 18, 2017
There is no doubt that the Republic of Croatia is never
closer to acquiring the multi-purpose combat squadron squadron since its
independence. After the supply of combat aircraft suppliers arrived, the choice
of the old F-16 or the new Gripen C / D was chosen. Namely, the Swedish SAAB
offers a new Gripen C / D with the latest MS20 package currently available only
by the Swedish Air Force. Greece and Israel offer F-16C / D that would be over
30 years old at the time of delivery.
Finally, the US has offered a new F-16 Block 70 that is
priced for the Republic of Croatia "science fiction" and around this
offer is hardly 1.5 bucks. The Commission did not waste too much time. Namely,
the US as a partner and ally kindly and diplomatically responded to the bid
submitted by Zagreb, knowing in advance that Zagreb can not seriously consider
this offer primarily for financial reasons.
So, old F-16 or new Gripen. The Greeks gave the
"cheapest" offer for the F-16 Block 30, which is understandable.
Namely, such an airplane can satisfy the HRZ and HZO requirements over the next
25-30 years with great additional costs, upgrades, modernization and extension
of resources, ie, the FALCON UP / STAR program that costs about USD 300-360
million for the 12 aircraft racing .
Israel offers F-16 C / D Barak. By reaching the full
operational capability that is planned to reach in 2024, it would approximately
be 35 years old. In order to meet the 25- to 30-year HRZ and PZO requirements,
it will also have to undergo a structural upgrade through the Lockheed Martin's
Service Life Extension Program (SLEP), which ensures life expectancy by 2048.
It will be interesting to see how the evaluation team MORH estimates Lifecycle
F-16 to 2050, since no one yet knows how much SLEP will cost in the end.
The fact is that the highest officials of the
Ministry of Defense are very irresponsible to point out that the transfer of
Croatian fighter pilots to the four generations of aircraft was a sort of
problem. The Czech example speaks the opposite.
In any case, it is good that the bids are finally
received so that the members of the Commission and all involved in the
selection process can see the real state of affairs, or how much will it cost
by 2050. Only for the uninitiated will be a great surprise for all when cost
estimation it comes to the knowledge that the old F-16 offered will be priced
in 2050 at the same cost as the new Gripen C / D due to high operational costs,
and the necessary modifications, upgrades and lifetime extension costs. A
special story is the sustainability of such a fleet and its operational
availability with aircrafts aged 30 and over. Of course, such a cost
display does not match the current top of the MoD, which at all costs wants to
assign a job to the Israelis, so it only raises the story of the current offer
that includes the price of aircraft, training and maintenance.
Sl.2 Gripen's opponents completely
unsubstantiated claim that the C / D version has no future what are the
complete nonsense that denied the MS20 and the above table of development
Therefore, when evaluating a bid, it does not even
evaluate the point offer of a new / old aircraft which is very
important. The reason is clear, that the relationship between the new /
old aircraft would have been touched would lead to an unacceptable position in
the Israeli bid. According to such criteria without a transparent analysis
of the cost of using combat aircraft by 2050, it is not entirely clear what
this role in the competition should have new aircraft other than screenwriting for
a previously-made decision. Well, the difference in the price of new and
combat aircraft of the age of 30 can be nothing more than big, and amount to up
to 3 billion kunas. If the bids are viewed in such a trivial way, then the
competition should not have been. However, if the final court judgment is
reached and the line is drawn after calculating the costs by 2050, including
infrastructure costs, then the story will get a completely different course.
Today's bid for the 12 Gripen C / D aircraft and the
simulator is almost the same as for the eight aircraft of 2012, only now
compared to the current offer, increased maintenance costs and pilot training
for four more aircraft for 10 years. With 140 maintenance and training packages
for 8 aircraft to over EUR 200 million for 12 aircraft. There is one important
difference, now Gripen C / D comes with a more advanced MS20 software version
in terms of the previously offered MS19. Just because of this fact, Gripen is
technologically and technically superior to the F-16 Barak, which, of course,
remains the only advantage of carrying capacity and performance, which does not
have any extra importance for the size of the country.
More precisely, the offer for 12 new fighter aircraft
Gripen C / D ranges between 800 and 900 million euros. Annuals will make the
new Gripen C / D cost of the Republic of Croatia around 600-650 million kunas.
When mentioning the MS20 version it should be emphasized that it is the latest
software that allows the integration of Gripen with the Meteor Rocket Meteor
BVR, a tactical missile of strategic importance unmatched by all the well-known
BVR rack market on the market, over 150km, and three times larger "no
escape" of any other BVR missile, and it is certainly such a means of deterrence.
That's what the F-16 Israel offered to the Republic of Croatia does not own.
In Sweden, aircraft with this MS20 upgrade are already
being used, the Czech Republic will upgrade its Gripen fleet with MS20 by the
end of 2018, while Hungary has also signed an upgrade agreement. However,
Meteor is just one part of what MS20 brings to Croatia. With this Gripen radar
capability package far outstrip those of the Israeli F-16 that are offered to
Croatia. Namely, the "radar ranger scale" has been increased to 300
km on the Gripen and a target of 0.4 m2 compared to MS 19 could be detected
when it was capable of detecting targets of 4m2. Also, this software suite has
significantly improved air-ground capabilities.
This includes the integration of the Boeing GBU-39 Small
Diameter Bomper for high precision attacks. Furthermore, Gripen's ISTAR
(Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance)
capabilities have been extensively expanded with MS20 through a submersible
scaffolding container that provides real-time IC sensor sensors in the cockpit.
The improved Link 16 data system supports a significant
increase in data exchange between other fighter aircraft and C2 hubs. This
raises awareness of the situation and supports new air-ground options,
including high-precision "digital" CASs (close air support). Front
monitors using a fighter-related device send the information directly to the
cockpit pilot for shooting targets. Pilot does not waste time writing and
writing, everything gets faster and goals are neutralized faster.
In addition to the technological and
"capability" of superiority that is quite apparent in relation to the
30 year old F-16 Barak, it is indisputable that Gripen is much easier and
easier to maintain and exploit. Namely, the "turn rate" is 10 minutes,
ie from the time the aircraft landed, system check, refueling and "air to
air" arming with the need for engagement of a technician and five
mechanics.
Also, it should be said that engine replacement lasts
only one hour. What is certainly better than Gripen is its operational
availability compared to the F-16. Namely, the MTBF, ie the time for a Gripen
failure, is 7.6 hours, while for example F-16 Block 52 is 4.2 hours.
Furthermore, the MTTR (time to repair) at Gripen is 2.5 hours at average, while
at F-16 Block 50 approximately 4.2 hours. Specifically, for a period of 48
hours, Gripen's availability will be 38 hours, and 10 hours will go to repairs.
At F-16 for the same 48-hour period, 24.6 hours will be available. Why is that
so? Very simply, the F-16 concept of multi-purpose combat aircraft originated
20 years before the appearance of Gripen. Situation at F-16 Barak is even worse
due to his age.
With the F-16 used in the fourth decade of life, this is
even more special because the operational availability will be even smaller as
time goes by. It's not just about availability because the Israeli Baraka's
operating costs are twice as high as the new Gripen. These are the facts
whoever thought about them.
The Israelis are talking about several thousand hours of
remaining resources. By what specifications, IAI or Lockheed Martin? Speaking
of the resources declared by Lockheed Martin but such resources relate to very
clear criteria and conditions of use of aircraft. This certainly does not refer
to the way the Israelis used these aircraft in war, climatic and other extreme
conditions. How can it be possible to claim that the remaining resources are
credible and correspond to those declared by the manufacturer?
In addition to the devastation of HRZ and PZO in the
technical and personnel sense of the last 15 years, the logistic nightmare of
uncertainty of purchasing parts, failures and the like, should simply not be
allowed. Is this affordable solution for the next 30 years for Croatia as
requested by Minister Krstičević just because of the price offered by Israel's
dampinška? If they thought in the MORH that the Gripen C / D MS20, or the most
modern one-time multi-purpose combat aircraft of today's operational use (not
counting the tested aircraft), could get below a cost of less than EUR 50
million then they missed their interest and expectations missed.
The Swedes have emphasized that they will deliver the
first two Gripen 2020 just before the anniversary of the Storm. They also state
that the ability of air policing will be feasible by the end of 2021 and full
operational capability of 2024.
The questionable and political part of this story remains
a strategic partnership. The Republic of Croatia is a member of the EU and NATO
alliances. We assume that this means that it is strategically linked to members
of these organizations whether it is defense and security, foreign policy, and
so on. Israel is not a member of either of these organizations, and in the long
run it will not be. Furthermore, it is no secret that Israel is in tense
relations with the EU on the Palestinian issue and the construction of
settlements on the west coast.
For some time, Israel has been pushing through the
countries of Central and Eastern Europe to soften the EU's views and get as many
allies as possible within the Union to get at least a tacit approval for their
actions. This was very clear in Budapest several months ago by Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Furthermore, the EU is very clear about Iran and
establishing closer co-operation, particularly in the economic sphere, and is
clearly opposed to the US standpoints in which the US questions the nuclear
agreement with Iran. It is well known that Israel supports American policy in
the Middle East.
Looking at relations in the region or Israeli foreign
policy in this area, there is no doubt that it is primarily focused on good
relations with the Republic of Serbia and the Serbian entity in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. It should be recalled that Israel strongly condemned the NATO attack
on Milosevic's regime and the army in Kosovo, and it should also be said that
Israel does not recognize Kosovo as an independent state. During a recent visit
to the official Zagreb, Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman has found
time in the middle of Zagreb to receive the head of the Serb entity in BiH and
Balkan politician pro-Milorad Dodik's biggest advocate. Liberman and Dodik have
been very close for many years, and Liberman is the largest lobbyist in the
world.
So, the Republika Srpska, the same "kitchen"
from which, for years, it takes an information war against the current Minister
of Defense of the Republic of Croatia Damir Krsticevic and his warriors.
Liberman signed a Memorandum on Defense Cooperation and Military Industry in July
with Serbian Defense Minister Aleksandar Vulin. The Serbian Army uses
communications equipment, unmanned aerial vehicles, and Israeli control tools.
On the other hand, Israel is interested in supplying weapons information from
the Balkan Arab countries to the Middle East, primarily to Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates.
Croatia does not have any great experiences with Israeli
defense industry. The unreliable Skylark I aircraft manufactured by the Israeli
company Elbit has been in operational use in the Armed Forces since 2007.
Thanks to the efforts and knowledge of OSRH employees, its lifespan is
prolonged and is still used in units. The Israeli company ELBIT has left OSRH
without the possibility of purchasing spare parts because they do not produce
them for Skylark I systems, and only thanks to Croatian experts who
independently maintain their use for the needs of the Armed Forces. So much
about Israeli support.
As far as economy is concerned, Swedish companies in the
Republic of Croatia have about EUR 500 million of turnover annually and employ
around 6,000 employees. The total "Swedish" investments in the
Croatian economy from 1993 to present amount to 700 million EUR. The total
commodity exchange between Israel and Croatia in 2016 amounted to EUR 66.6 million,
while the exchange with Sweden amounted to EUR 255.7 million, ie four times
more. Ericsson, the world's technological divider and owner of the most
successful Croatian IT company Ericsson Nikola Tesla, employs 3000 people,
mostly young professionals.
There is no doubt that strengthening bilateral relations
between Israel and the Republic of Croatia, primarily in the area of security
and defense, is a step in the right direction. Israeli companies have already
contracted the job of equipping Croatian armored vehicles Patria CRO with 30mm
remote controlled armaments, and are also likely to receive supplies of
unmanned middle-range systems to the Republic of Croatia. Cooperation is
already in place with the fight against fire and cooperation activities are
initiated in response to crisis and disaster. Enhanced defense cooperation on
the military-technical area as well as exchange of experience in the field of
training, demining, various forms of education and training, cybernetic
abilities. And that's all.
Therefore, without going into any deeper analysis, it
really raises a reasonable question as to whether it is a strategic defense,
political and other interest of the Republic of Croatia to connect with Israel
on the basis of eventual procurement of combat aircraft over the age of 30. It
fulfilled its strategic goals by joining the EU and NATO.
Translated by Google - Original post: defender.hr
Related articles:
Gripen C/D: Details
F-16C/D: Details
No comments:
Post a Comment