Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

Thanks, partially then. Which parts, please?
 
A.P.Richelieu said:
* Swiss: Did not allow Gripen to participate in the second tender after it won the first tender.
Click to expand...

Not true.
Saab was told their JAS 39E pre series model was not mature enough for the evaluation, i.e. the Swiss AF required a ready into service aircraft for the evaluation. Saab could not provide that, so they decided to quit.
In the first tender from 2011, the F-35 was not a participant at all. That program was to replace the F-5E fleet so requirements were lower.
 
A.P.Richelieu said:
Because while the price of the F-35 appears to be similar to that of the Gripen E, the cost of maintaining the F-35 is so steep that you can have 3 Gripen for the same price.

The first tender lost was Norway. According to the Norwegian calculations, the Gripen E would have been more expensive even if SAAB had given away the Gripens free of charge. the maintenance cost of Gripen was considered much much higher than the cost Sweden experience for running the Gripen.

Guess what? Now with the real cost known, the Norwegians believe that their 56 F-35As will cost them a lot more. A LOT MORE. NOK326B ($31,24B) during the next 30 years. That is $558M per aircraft or $18,6M per year.
If it flies 200 hours per year, that is $95k per flight hour.
They do include the cost of running the base in that number.
Click to expand...
Which instantly makes the numbers invalid.

You're going to operate that base regardless of what fighter is based there, so you should not be including the general operational costs for the base in F-35 operational costs.

You should include the F-35-specific bits that are on that base, like any intermediate or depot level maintenance units that are specific to the F-35.
 
Avimimus said:
I suppose I was thinking of SAAB's offer to South Korea (but I suppose that was FS2020 derived). The idea of partnering with SAAB to produce our own airframes around Gripen avionics would be popular in Canada, but the price tag and timeframe likely wouldn't be.
Click to expand...
I also wonder how things would have turned out if Saab had gone with a scaled down FS2020 (say ~3/4 scale) with NG avionics and ITAR-free systems including a 90-100kN EJ200. Instead of reusing the Gripen airframe.

Could have been much like a 5th gen F-16 / Mirage 2000. Although Thrust/Weight would have been a tad low... but probably OK for a stealth fighter with low-drag internal carriage for 4 AAMs (+ optional wingtip AAMs).
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
I also wonder how things would have turned out if Saab had gone with a scaled down FS2020 (say ~3/4 scale) with NG avionics and ITAR-free systems including a 90-100kN EJ200. Instead of reusing the Gripen airframe.
Click to expand...
Would have taken a lot more development, IMO.


H_K said:
Could have been much like a 5th gen F-16 / Mirage 2000. Although Thrust/Weight would have been a tad low... but probably OK for a stealth fighter with low-drag internal carriage.
Click to expand...
You mean using an EJ2x0 Stage 1? ~103kN afterburning, 72kN MIL?

I think you'd want to step up to the Stage 2, 78kN MIL, 120kN AB. After all, the F-22 is 25% heavier than the F-15C, so I'd expect a similar weight increase over an F16 or M2K. (Completely ignoring the 70klbs MTOW that is the F35...)

But yes, the internal carriage would give much less drag even for the lower powered engine. IIRC the F4D Skyray did very well when it was clean.
 
TomcatViP said:
But what would do a Grip E force against Su-57s or J-20Next? ... Making saving plans is a great thing to do while you are not invaded.

The number that are raised by @A.P.Richelieu are coming from where? Most countries that evaluated the Gripen Vs the Lightning choose the latter on Cost AND efficiency basis (not just cost Vs Efficiency).
A Stealth strike force is more lean, less subject to attrition and more deadly that one that is not. It´s hard to see how cost effective a Gripen can be facing similar environment. I read the argument with Simulated training flights. But that is because Stealth is a thing you want to protect, hence not train full scale a couple hundred miles only from your potential adversaries.

It is important to try to make sense beyond just the key words.
Click to expand...
The numbers on Norway comes from a Norwegian government report.
The Swedish Gripen E contracts was a fixed prize contract for 35,6BSEK. All over the news in Sweden around 2012. The $85B appears to be the general consensus in blogs, but I doubt there are much info.

In the first Swiss tender, Gripen won, and I suspect the politicians simply thought it was good enough when given the price of the options. If you want politicians to select your preferred solution, telling the politicians that something you want is cheaper is going to increase the chance of getting it.

In Canada, now when the RCAF think getting an all F-35 fleet is a bad idea, they can suddenly afford 150 Gripen E instead of 52 F-35s. That is a good indication of the real price.

For Canada, the difference between flying a Gripen E for one hour in the Northern territories to meet an intruder will incur the cost of 1 flight hour ($10-30,000/hour, really don’t know). An F-35 flying from Cold Lake for two hours, one hour on station and a two hour return flight will incur 5 hours (at $35,000/hour?) and will need air tanker support. If the tanker aircraft is based in Cold Lake as well, it probably needs to stay up for five hours as well ($20,000/hour?). Total cost of the operation is $10-30,000 fir Gripen and $275,000 for the F-35. If two aircraft are flying, it becomes $20-60,000 for Gripen and $450,000 for the F-35.
 
TomcatViP said:
But what would do a Grip E force against Su-57s or J-20Next? ... Making saving plans is a great thing to do while you are not invaded.
Click to expand...
If you do not trust the Gripen E to detect them first, then you can let the F-35s detect the perfidious commie b-rds and inform the Gripens (flying silent with full EW) through the data link allowing the Gripens to launch meteors in an ambush.
 
Last edited:
red admiral said:
You can use other open source numbers to prove that Gripen is more expensive.

It's really difficult to do a "fair" comparison when you don't have access to any of the real numbers. Hence it's better to just look at what is published from the various source selection competitions.
Click to expand...
We are not talking about purchase price, It is total cost of ownership.

Norway calculates the TCO to be almost $600M per aircraft over 30 years. The TCO for Gripen at a purchase price of $80M and 8,000 hours at $10,000 is $160M, at $30,000 it is $320M.

As for the purchasing price, around $50-60B has been spent on developing the F-35.
Some 1000-1200 aircraft produced so the development cost is almost $50M per aircraft.
This will go down as more aircrafts are produced but at the same time more money are spent on development.
A country like Finland, are they really paying a fair share of the development, or are the partners paying for all the development. If not, the real cost of the F-35 is $110-130M not $80M,
 
Scott Kenny said:
Which instantly makes the numbers invalid.

You're going to operate that base regardless of what fighter is based there, so you should not be including the general operational costs for the base in F-35 operational costs.

You should include the F-35-specific bits that are on that base, like any intermediate or depot level maintenance units that are specific to the F-35.
Click to expand...
Denmark had to upgrade their main F-16 base for $190M to support specifically the F-35.
I know of no such numbers for Norway, but both decided that bases are so expensive that they can only afford one base.
 
Last edited:
eagle said:
Not true.
Saab was told their JAS 39E pre series model was not mature enough for the evaluation, i.e. the Swiss AF required a ready into service aircraft for the evaluation. Saab could not provide that, so they decided to quit.
In the first tender from 2011, the F-35 was not a participant at all. That program was to replace the F-5E fleet so requirements were lower.
Click to expand...
Considering the Swiss decided to purchase the non-working F-35 Block 4 after evaluating the Block 3F, it certainly looks like politics to me.
 
A.P.Richelieu said:
Considering the Swiss decided to purchase the non-working F-35 Block 4 after evaluating the Block 3F, it certainly looks like politics to me.
Click to expand...

How is it politics if Saab could not meet the specs?
The Block 3F was good enough for the evaluation. Doesn't mean that's the standard that needs to be introduced later. A better standard is possible.
Swiss AF tested F-18A/B back then for example.
 
eagle said:
How is it politics if Saab could not meet the specs?
The Block 3F was good enough for the evaluation. Doesn't mean that's the standard that needs to be introduced later. A better standard is possible.
Swiss AF tested F-18A/B back then for example.
Click to expand...
SAAB believed they could complete all the tests, but were not allowed to do so. A few tests would use the Gripen C.
The Block 4 would not have been able to complete all the tests, and it is debatable if it will be able to meet the tests before Gripen E is operative. It will be at least three years delayed, and possibly killed by Musk.
 
Saab believed initially when the competition was launched that they could meet the requirements. But at day X they realised they couldn't demonstrate the required capabilites which is why they stayed at home. If they weren't "allowed" (whatever that means) they would have sued.
The F-35s that were sent to Payerne were operational aircraft and demonstrated the required capabilites. Block 4 was not a requirement.
 
A.P.Richelieu said:
Because while the price of the F-35 appears to be similar to that of the Gripen E, the cost of maintaining the F-35 is so steep that you can have 3 Gripen for the same price.
Click to expand...
All of that norwegian and subsequent stuff is very much meaningless. What do we know for a fact is that Finland evaluated the finished products in the F-35 and the Gripen E and found that not only was the F-35 more capable but it was also cheaper to acquire, operate and upgrade across the lifetime of the aircraft. Acquiring a less capable aircraft in the form of Gripen E would have required significantly more investment over the lifetime of the aircraft in the aircraft itself and in supporting systems to keep it relevant against evolving threats.

Why would that be any different for Canada, other than perhaps Canada being an example of underinvesting in their aircraft and having the oldest and least upgraded Hornets of the major operators...?
 
eagle said:
Saab believed initially when the competition was launched that they could meet the requirements. But at day X they realised they couldn't demonstrate the required capabilites which is why they stayed at home. If they weren't "allowed" (whatever that means) they would have sued.
The F-35s that were sent to Payerne were operational aircraft and demonstrated the required capabilites. Block 4 was not a requirement.
Click to expand...
No, SAAB was told by the Swiss that they should not bother.
The demand was that the aircraft was in operation. Gripen E is only in operation this year,
Why demand this? To ensure there are no delays!
And then they select the Block 4 which does not work, and is likely to incur delays.
 
Ozair said:
All of that norwegian and subsequent stuff is very much meaningless. What do we know for a fact is that Finland evaluated the finished products in the F-35 and the Gripen E and found that not only was the F-35 more capable but it was also cheaper to acquire, operate and upgrade across the lifetime of the aircraft. Acquiring a less capable aircraft in the form of Gripen E would have required significantly more investment over the lifetime of the aircraft in the aircraft itself and in supporting systems to keep it relevant against evolving threats.

Why would that be any different for Canada, other than perhaps Canada being an example of underinvesting in their aircraft and having the oldest and least upgraded Hornets of the major operators...?
Click to expand...
The Norwegians concluded that the F-35 was more than twice as expensive as they expected.
Their figures for the cost of Gripen was far off the cost what was seen by the Swedish Air Force.
Unless you know how the Finns calculated, it is impossible to judge whether they were as ”creative”.

What is different with Canada is that they do not want the 88 F-35. They, like other air forces adapt their calculations based on what they want.
 
Beyond unsubstantiated allegations such as those above, we have a long history of discussing along the same arguments line for long here. Perhaps the reader will be interested to see factually based responses instead (I think we have the Swiss evaluation report somewhere - perhaps in the Rafale thread(?)).
Here is a long reply from Czech MoD to similar allegations. More similar materials should be available through the Search function.

Don't take me wrong, the Gripen is a potent airframe with some unique capabilities among 4th Gen but the argument line that it can be equal to later 5th gen aircraft and beyond is simply flawed. Canadians would also have to ask themselves what does it will bring to their Air Force beyond their modernized Hornet (aside of a decomplexed flight schedules).

Classic hornets with a modern radar and 12 AAM, including 10 long range missiles, is certainly a better fit that already exists today...

So why that step aside? Is the Madison now the new operational strategy up north?!

View: https://youtu.be/_PIRQ6wzoTM?si=6d6c0DWgs2F_R8jL
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
I also wonder how things would have turned out if Saab had gone with a scaled down FS2020 (say ~3/4 scale) with NG avionics and ITAR-free systems including a 90-100kN EJ200. Instead of reusing the Gripen airframe.

Could have been much like a 5th gen F-16 / Mirage 2000. Although Thrust/Weight would have been a tad low... but probably OK for a stealth fighter with low-drag internal carriage for 4 AAMs (+ optional wingtip AAMs).
Click to expand...
I guess the problem is it's impossible to make true FS2020 with NG avionics.

They had to either commit to developing stealth aircraft(it'll change a lot), or they could make a mini-KF-21.

Second option was already clearly beyond budget, first option was further still...
 
There's little point in taking incorrect numbers and combining them in incorrect ways to then try and draw conclusions that are the opposite of what the competent people with the actual numbers.
 
Ainen said:
I guess the problem is it's impossible to make true FS2020 with NG avionics.

They had to either commit to developing stealth aircraft(it'll change a lot), or they could make a mini-KF-21.

Second option was already clearly beyond budget, first option was further still...
Click to expand...
I have never seen FS2020 being ever mentioned in any newspaper in Sweden.

I think it is best ignored as an unsubstantiated rumour.
 
A.P.Richelieu said:
I have never seen FS2020 being ever mentioned in any newspaper in Sweden.

I think it is best ignored as an unsubstantiated rumour.
Click to expand...
Valid, but I'm more from the point that if SAAB would have had more budget to tinker their airframe, they would do it.

They only had this much.
 
TomcatViP said:
Beyond unsubstantiated allegations such as those above, we have a long history of discussing along the same argumention line for long here. Perhaps the reader will be interested to see factually based responses (I think we have the Swiss evaluation report somewhere - perhaps the a Rafale thread(?)).
Here is a long reply from Czech MoD to similar allegations. Burlt more material should be available through the Search function.
Click to expand...
The czech report compares their known cost of operating Gripen with the estimated cost of operating the F-35, numbers coming from the US. They concluded that the F-35 was more expensive. But not by much.

Those numbers are not written in stone.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106703
”The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps' have made progress in meeting their affordability targets (i.e., the amount of money they project they can afford to spend per aircraft per year for operating the aircraft). This is due in part to the reduction in planned flight hours, and because the Air Force increased the amount of money it projects it can afford to spend. DOD currently estimates the Air Force will pay $6.6 million annually to operate and sustain an individual aircraft. This continues to be well above the $4.1 million original target. In June 2023, the Air Force increased the amount of money it can afford to spend per F-35 aircraft to $6.8 million per year.”

So before you know what number was used by the Czechs it is still ambiguous.

South Africa’s cost of operating Gripen turned out to be much more expensive than the cost for operating Gripen in Sweden. This was related to how they handled spare parts. I remember reading about this a long time ago but I don’t remember the details. The take is that the cost of operating aircraft can vary between different air forces suing the same aircraft depending on how they are organized.
 
Last edited:
What is this FS2020 I've seen mentioned in several recent posts?
 
NMaude said:
What is this FS2020 I've seen mentioned in several recent posts?
Click to expand...
FS2020 or Flygsystem 2020 was considered old news in 2013.
Then it made it to a Wiki article. Since then, some people have believed it is for real.
At most, it was an internal project at SAAB to study the stealth technology (and that is not confirmed), but not a funded project to even create a prototype.
Now the Swedish parliament has funded a prestudy at SAAB to prepare for a decision before 2030 on
whether to:
  1. Develop a 6th generation fighter in Sweden
  2. Join a consortium like the UK Tempest of the French/German FCAS.
  3. Buy a 6th generation fighter when available.
Some people like to call this FS2020. SAAB has not called it FS2020 in any news flashes I have seen.
If they were, they would call it FS2050 which is when such a fighter is deemed necessary.

Sweden already joined the Tempest project to get access to some of its technologies for use in Gripen.
 
A.P.Richelieu said:
FS2020 or Flygsystem 2020 was considered old news in 2013.
Then it made it to a Wiki article. Since then, some people have believed it is for real.
At most, it was an internal project at SAAB to study the stealth technology (and that is not confirmed), but not a funded project to even create a prototype.
Now the Swedish parliament has funded a prestudy at SAAB to prepare for a decision before 2030 on
whether to:
  1. Develop a 6th generation fighter in Sweden
  2. Join a consortium like the UK Tempest of the French/German FCAS.
  3. Buy a 6th generation fighter when available.
Some people like to call this FS2020. SAAB has not called it FS2020 in any news flashes I have seen.
If they were, they would call it FS2050 which is when such a fighter is deemed necessary.

Sweden already joined the Tempest project to get access to some of its technologies for use in Gripen.
Click to expand...
Wishful thinking, but it would be nice if Sweden and Korea worked together to develop an "affordable" 6th gen based on the KF-21. Maybe go from the F414 to a European or a joint Volvo/Hanwha solution.
 
Colombia should have gone for the Rafale even if it is more expensive. I know how Colombia operates; let’s buy something we can afford! Then they buy aging kfirs which are completely outdated in terms of airframe technology and engine; then after a few years they are spending more money fixing them, or not even flying so then they go over and over and over what to get. The saying says “barato sale caro” cheap ends up being expensive.
 
Also, Colombia has a lot of big birds; they have lost some mirages and kfirs due to bird strikes; having two engines should have been part of the requirement; in addition to having to protect San Andres; which is a good distance from mainland.
 
One should buy a global map before typing ;)

Screenshot_20250404_161330.jpg


Sourced from:

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/colombia/sweden
Also you have quite a lot of Crane and Goose in Sweden and Hungary, two countries that fly Gripen among large birds.

What Columbia would really have needed is some Mirage 2000. But some genius cut it as a way to sell more. The Gripen E is just filling the void here like in many other places.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
One should buy a global map before typing ;)

View attachment 765583


Sourced from:

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-comparison/colombia/sweden
Also you have quite a lot of Crane and Goose in Sweden and Hungary, two countries that fly Gripen among large birds.

What Columbia would really have needed is some Mirage 2000. But some genius cut it as a way to sell more. The Gripen E is just filling the void here like in many other places.
Click to expand...
Sweden has lost one Gripen to birdstrikes in 30 years. A Gripen C ran into a flock of Cormorants sucking in 5-6.
I bet a dual engine fighter would have gone down as well.
 
TomcatViP said:
One should buy a global map before typing
Click to expand...
There is some distortion in that map. Orthographic projections, with Sweden and Colombia at or near the map's centre are slightly different. Maps from wiki.
 

Attachments

  • COL_orthographic_(San_Andrés_and_Providencia_special).png
    COL_orthographic_(San_Andrés_and_Providencia_special).png
    256.3 KB · Views: 15
  • EU-Sweden_(orthographic_projection).png
    EU-Sweden_(orthographic_projection).png
    374.6 KB · Views: 11

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom