JAS-39E 그리펜 NG 대안들과 비용 비교
스웨덴의 경우 저런 비용 대비 실제 전술적 효과에 대해서 나온자료가 있나 모르겠습니다. 예산 대비 실제 전술적 효과가 있으면 좋을텐데....(기체 성능을 정확히 비교하기가 힘들려나요? 어차피 신형 기체가 도입되면 그걸 100% 전력화 할려면 시간이 제법 걸리겠군요)....
60대라는 숫자가 가상적국?의 기체를 얼마나 상대하려는 건지도 궁금하군요. 사실 불곰 입장에서 그럴 필요가 있다면 저 전력 60대에 대해서 어떤 의미가 될지...아니면 지역? 공동 방어 체계에서 60대가 가지는 의미가 있는건지 모르겠습니다. 유럽의 경우 실제 문제가 생긴다면 혼자 1:1 하는 상황은 아니니라 생각 됩니다.
재미있는 내용 잘 보았습니다. 새해에도 좋은일 행복한 시간이 가득 하시길 바라겠습니다.
워 게임을 비롯한 모든 시뮬레이션은 전제 조건과 입력되는 데이터를 살짝 바꾸면 원하는 결과가 나오도록 조작이 가능하겠죠.
2005년에 나온 책 "The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Navy in the Baltic 1921-1941 (Cass Series: Naval Policy and History, 저자 Gunnar Aselius)"를 보면
스웨덴해군은 1차대전 설계의 7600톤급 연안방어함 Sverige형 4번함을 만들어야 한다고 1930년대 중반에도 주장하고 있었는데, 그 이유는 스웨덴해군이 마땅히 더 크고 빠르고 현대적인 신형함 도입을 주장했어야 했지만 당시의 정치적 상황에서는 택도 없는 얘기여서 '이미 갖고 있는 것이나 하나 더 갖자'로 선회했기 때문이라고 합니다.
스웨덴해군은 1914년에 터진 1차대전 이전에 설계된 이 Sverige형 연안방어함의 4번함이 1930년대 중반의 시점에 왜 필요한지 정당화하기 위해서 스웨덴해군이 맞설 위협의 수준을 맘대로 낮췄다고 합니다 (reduced their appreciation of future naval threats in the Baltic, so that a role would be left for the Sverige ship).
있는 조직과 돈에 맞춰 위협의 수준을 "not too difficult nor too easy"로 조정했다는...
1975년 1월 14일 미국 정부의 회의록을 보면 헨리 키신저가 한 말이 더 재미있죠.
우리 전력을 증강할 수 없으면 적의 능력에 대한 'estimate'를 낮춘다고.
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v26/d126
Secretary Kissinger: Why do we consider the Soviets so fierce in Europe and so impotent in the Middle East?
Mr. Colby: Because they are all structured for Europe.
Gen. Brown: And they have their command and control in being. In this regard, our estimate of Soviet forces in Europe has changed. They are no longer ten feet tall.
Mr. Colby: Yes, we’ve cut it down a lot.
Secretary Kissinger: If we can’t increase our forces at least we can lower our intelligence estimates! We have to increase our security somewhere! The Europeans will never mobilize. They won’t even get to the railroad station. They will find a way to cop out.
어느정도의 차이가 났기에 0.8조원의 비손해를 택하고 c1인 현재의 그리펜 개량형(e type)으로 결정한것일까요?
그리펜에서 말하는 미래기술의 정체를 알수가 없으니 궁금하네요.
아, 그리고 밀돔 회원님들 모두 새해 복 많이 받으십시오.
C1과 C2의 차이에 대해서 첨부한 PDF의 스웨덴말을 구글 번역기로 돌리면 다음과 같이 나옵니다.
C1에 적용할 기술도 (주로 AESA 레이다와 전자전) 개발이 완료된 것은 아니지만 비용과 시기는 비교적 정확히 산정이 가능하고, C2는 비용과 시기도 현재 정확한 산정이 어려운 것이죠.
We had two options , C1 and C2, with slightly modified airframe and a more powerful engine . The difference was that we used the C1 technology is not developed fully , but that is known and can go to operational performance. In the second option would be similar to the B option, wait and try to develop another generation . It takes longer. Therefore, there are different timelines for when the various systems could be operational .
C2, also with a new engine and new hull but with a little more future technology , it becomes more expensive. There will be more development money. And the foreign alternatives cost considerably more , as you see on the stack. To this should be added operating costs, as you can see on the bottom line . JAS options are quite neutral in terms of operating costs , while in the foreign options will be at least another 15 billion on the drive side.
아래는 스웨덴군 최고사령관이 왜 JAS-39E 60~80대가 새로 필요한지 설명한 글을 구글 번역기로 돌린 것입니다.
비용뿐만 아니라 구체적으로는 알 수 없지만 2031년 어떤 시나리오의 워 게임에서 이길 수 있냐/없냐가 왜 필요한지를 설명하는 이유들 중의 하나입니다.
외국제 전투기 3개를 포함해서 검토한 옵션은 30개 이상이고 이 중에서 17개의 옵션을 골라 점수를 매겼다고 하네요.
Sverker Goranson on Defence policy
So we came up with the need for 60-80 new Gripens
Published: 2012-03-15, Updated: 2012-03-18
About the author: Sverker Goranson is the commander in chief.
Every era has its defense and we are now working closely with the operational defense that stands ready 2019th Then we have 55,000 sailors and soldiers, officers, specialist officers and civilian employees who are ready at short notice to defend Swedish interests. Here at home, in the neighborhood or around the world. They have good equipment and has been practicing with the women and men who like them are inspired to make a difference.
A key part of the defense's battle aviation. Our fighter's JAS Gripen as well meet today's operational requirements.
But the key question for me and my colleagues have been: What should we have for fighter that can stand against potential adversaries until 2040? Course has been that something must be done. If we just sit still, it is not so many years removed until our pilots are the flights that have radar and weapons with a longer range than ours. Not to mention the capacity for endurance and flexibility. Not to act against this would be to take an operational and security political risk.
The basis of the experts who worked on the issue has been operational effectiveness. It has been and is the single most important factor in the recommendations I have provided. Then the economy and risk assessments.
Important in this work has been to weigh the options against each other. In total, more than 30 variants with combinations of technical performance in terms of design and maintenance has been developed. As reference objects used JAS 39C/D - with today's ability retained next year 2042 From the specified four different ways to formagelyfta JAS 39. Different divisions were large or small hull structure and early or late formagelyft. There was also an option that was a combination of a small number of JAS 39 and new unmanned aircraft. Moreover analyzed three foreign fighter flight systems. The data on the foreign plan retrieved through open sources, interviews and visits.
The work resulted in four well-defined options and a foreign system comparison. Furthermore varied number of aircraft. A total of 17 were selected options and number combinations out for the final score. During last autumn, simulation exercises and tactical game to test the different combat aircraft systems power. A combined tactical and technical evaluation provided the basis for an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives. Also conducted war games in an estimated scenario 2031
Cost estimates for all alternatives and comparing objects made by Defence Materiel Administration, FMV. Estimates of co-presented by the Defence Export Authority, FXM. The various options cost images were then compared with the current economic conditions for the JAS 39 over the next decade, as well as assessments of the long-term economic prospects.
The risk analysis was considered operational, tactical / technical, production and financial risks and project risks. An individual risk assessment was made for each of the options.
Armed Forces requirements described then in a list, with each of them was given a weighting. The work resulted in a ranking of all tested alternatives, including the number of aircraft. Armed Forces leadership could then analyze different courses of action by changing the weighting between the requirements.
The end result was, as most know, my recommendation is to implement a formagelyft for 60 to 80 Gripen aircraft. With bigger hull, more powerful engine, improved radar and countermeasures. Formagelyftet require financing with at least one other nation.
Sverker Goranson (7 items)
www.forsvarsmakten.se