• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Saab Gripen NG

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
887
Grey Havoc said:
Sorry, I should have said under development.

I would say, it's still just a proposal and as long, as there isn't a country actually ordering,
or at least pre-ordering it, there probably won't be actual tests or construction works.
As F-14D wrote, the Gripen could be a sound basis for a naval fighter, but the transformation
nevertheless will be a major undertaking and I'm not sur, that it could be done by Sweden/Saab
alone.
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,306
Reaction score
122
I've long suspected the Gripen would win.

A couple of pointers along the way are that the Rafale wasn't a comfortable fit onto the carrier Sao Paulo.
I suspected whichever aircraft won will get a naval edition ordered in the future. Enter the Naval Gripen. Saab wouldn't throw money at a project unless there was definite interest, IMHO.


The Brazilians have bought into Denels A-Darter AAM, which is cleared on the Gripen.
Denel helped build a factory in Brazil for the A-Darter, which is becoming operational during 2014.
They have also stated an interest in Denels BVRAAM, and may buy into that like they did with the A-Darter.


Rafale is overkill for Brazil if one looks at their regional competitors, with 2 engines increasing fuel usage and maintenance tasks.
The Gripen NG is a very capable platform, but utilising one engine.

Lastly, Brazil operates the Embraer R-99 AEW&C aircraft, which is fitted with Saabs Erieye radar.

So the investment in the complementary equipment such as the R-99 and A-Darter showed a strong support for the Gripen.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
Jemiba said:
Grey Havoc said:
Sorry, I should have said under development.

I would say, it's still just a proposal and as long, as there isn't a country actually ordering,
or at least pre-ordering it, there probably won't be actual tests or construction works.
As F-14D wrote, the Gripen could be a sound basis for a naval fighter, but the transformation
nevertheless will be a major undertaking and I'm not sur, that it could be done by Sweden/Saab
alone.

While it will take some work, the Gripen has advantages over other land based fighter regarding developing a carrier based version.

For the approach/landing, the carrier-unique part of the profile that affects design the most, you need to be able to fly a constant angle of attack all the way to a no-flare touchdown or initiation of a waveoff anywhere in the evolution without having to change angle of attack. You have to have good over the nose visibility through that entire process. The landing gear and keel have to be strong enough to take the stress of repeated slams onto the deck.

Becasue of the way the Swedes operate Gripen, that part of the design is already there. The main gear would have to be strenghtned, but not totally redesigned, the talihook would have to be beefed up and the nose gear would need more extensive work if a catapult operation was envisioned, but the flying characteristics are already there. It's already designed to be maintained in a compact space, although I don't know if the < 1 hour engine change takes place in the "shadow" of the aircraft or if it has to come out the back.

So it would take some work, but not as much as would be involved as trying to adapt say, a Typhoon or Eagle to carrier ops.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
480
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Source:
http://malaysiaflyingherald.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/gripen-hit-another-brazils-fx-2-success/
 

Attachments

  • gripendemo_05-7.jpg
    gripendemo_05-7.jpg
    65.2 KB · Views: 699

UpForce

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
141
Reaction score
12
sublight is back said:

If this article is in any way accurate, Roussef and her administration seem to be very selective in their reading and understanding of the documents and information Snowden has chosen to disseminate.

Heads of states seem to have been surveilled, but equally Snowden alleges that one of NSAs most trusted partners in signals intelligence is none other than Sweden's FRA. Certainly some recent legislation granting them sweeping powers in leveraging Sweden's somewhat pivotal place in the physical infrastructure of the internet lends some credence to this - not to mention the long, covert and cozy cold war symbiosis between the two nations. Meanwhile, Boeing and Saab are partnering - nominally to develop T-X - but brands and projects are superficial aspects insofar as IP matters and economic dimensions are considered on the whole.

So Roussef's "avoidance" of things US, NSA and Boeing ends up seeming pretty rhetorical. Some might say their distinctions, set to a wider context, may become thin enough to be called ... "brazilian".
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
480
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
President Obama's lack of an apology to Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff for NSA spying demonstrated to Brazil that it was not a strategic ally of the United States on the level of Germany. It also cast reasonable doubt over whether the assurances of Vice President Joe Biden that the United States government would not block transfers of technology were trustworthy. Rousseff feared that Republicans in Congress would try to block crucial technology transfers from Boeing to Brazil because of its leftist government. Rousseff would probably have gone with the $4.5 billion deal of the Boeing F/A-18 if it had forged an strategic alliance with the United States. But the spying scandal put all United States government assurances in doubt. The article also states:

Anger over espionage was not the only reason for Rousseff's decision. Saab's Gripen jet offered the best combination of price, transfers of technology to Brazilian companies and low maintenance costs compared with the other two finalists, Boeing and France's Dassault Aviation, Defense Minister Celso Amorim told reporters on Wednesday.

So it makes sense that Brazil went with the Saab Gripen NG if it wasn't going to get a strategic alliance with the United States.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
sublight is back said:

I keep seeing these kind of reports, but must admit that I am somewhat skeptical. Brazilian AF has favored Gripen E for some time, and for whatever reason, SH has never done well in a competition. Did something change, did this Brazilian President by herself want to pick SH arbitrarily, just like last President wanted to pick Rafale? Or, is this just wishful thinking or spin on the part of champions of the US entry?

Regarding technology transfer and the like, Republicans or even Congress affecting that is nothing new. One of the marketing points made by other countries competing for orders is that their aircraft have little or no US content. They emphasize this because Washington is well known for not only controlling technology transfer, but also what the nation that has bought the aircraft with substantial US content may do with the acft. One of the things Sweden has to deal with in their presentations is how they can protect the buyer form this, given the Gripen E's US engine.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
480
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Brazil Snubs Boeing in Fighter Jet Deal"
By DAN HORCH and CHRISTOPHER DREW
Published: December 18, 2013

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/business/international/brazil-snubs-boeing-in-jet-deal.html?_r=0

SÃO PAULO, Brazil — In a disappointment for Boeing, Brazilian defense officials said on Wednesday that they had picked the aircraft maker Saab for a $4.5 billion contract to build 36 fighter jets over the next 10 years.

The Brazilian defense minister, Celso Amorim, told reporters at a news conference in Brasilia that Saab was selected over Boeing because it had agreed to share more technology with contractors and because many parts for the new jet, the Gripen NG, would be made in Brazil.

The decision “took into account performance, the effective transfer of technology and costs, not only of acquisition, but also of maintenance,” Mr. Amorim said in a statement. He was accompanied by Gen. Juniti Saito, the Brazilian air force’s chief of staff. “The decision was based on these three factors.”

The announcement comes at a time of heightened tension between the United States and Brazil. In September, the Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff, canceled a state visit to the United States after revelations that the National Security Agency was spying on foreign heads of state, including her.

In a speech at the United Nations that month, Ms. Rousseff gave a blistering attack on the United States for its “illegal interception of information and data.”

In a response to the outcry over the spying, a panel of advisers for President Obama on Wednesday recommended limiting the wide-ranging collection of personal data and restricting operations to spy on foreign leaders.

When asked at the news conference if the spying had anything to do with the decision to award the contract to Saab, Mr. Amorim did not answer directly, instead repeating reasons of cost and technology sharing.

Analysts said Brazil had many financial and practical reasons to award the contract to Saab.

Richard L. Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at Teal Group in Fairfax, Va., said that while Brazil’s disenchantment over the N.S.A.’s spying could have played a role in the decision, costs were probably a bigger factor.

“You’re talking about a military service that doesn’t need a heavyweight front-line fighter and has suffered a budget squeeze and hasn’t been able to fly the planes that it owns,” he said.

He added that a basic version of the Saab jet might cost about $45 million, compared with $55 million for Boeing’s basic F/A-18 Super Hornet.

And the Gripen’s fuel costs would be half of that for the Boeing plane. Both jets use the same engine, but the Super Hornet has two engines and the Gripen one.

A study by the military publisher IHS Jane’s said that the Gripen costs about $4,700 an hour to fly — the lowest among modern fighter jets — compared with the $11,000 for the Super Hornet.

Boeing said that the decision was “disappointing” and that it would talk to the Brazilian air force to better understand it. The company, based in Chicago, said it would still look for chances to expand its partnerships in Brazil.

The loss was also difficult for Boeing because there are only a few fighter competitions going on around the world and the United States Navy plans to stop buying the F/A-18’s.

While most countries that want high-tech fighters are buying Lockheed Martin’s more advanced F-35, many other countries cannot afford even top older models like the F/A-18. So far, Australia is Boeing’s only export customer for the jet.

By contrast, Saab’s more workaday Gripen models are flown by several other countries.

Brazil originally began its quest for new fighters to replace its aging Mirages more than a decade ago. Brazil’s former president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, wanted to buy Dassault’s Rafale fighter jets in 2009 instead of the F/A-18.

But a change in administration in Brazil, and the country’s deteriorating financial condition, helped alter the equation. A Brazilian news report on Saturday said that Dassault had already been eliminated from the competition even though the French president, François Hollande, backed the jet on a visit to Brazil last week.

Terms of the deal must still be negotiated over the next year, but delivery of the first batch of Gripen NG jets is expected in 2018.

Also on Wednesday, Boeing announced the promotion of Dennis A. Muilenburg, the head of its military business, to vice chairman, president and chief operating officer of the company.

Analysts said that move made Mr. Muilenburg, 49, the heir apparent to Boeing’s chief executive, W. James McNerney Jr., who is 64.

Ray Conner, the chief executive of Boeing’s commercial airplane division, was also named a Boeing vice chairman while keeping his current responsibilities. Christopher M. Chadwick, 53, will succeed Mr. Muilenburg as chief executive of Boeing’s military unit.

Dan Horch reported from São Paulo, Brazil, and Christopher Drew from New York.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
Triton said:
"Brazil Snubs Boeing in Fighter Jet Deal"
By DAN HORCH and CHRISTOPHER DREW
Published: December 18, 2013

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/business/international/brazil-snubs-boeing-in-jet-deal.html?_r=0

...and that's the point I'm making. The story says, "Brazil's former president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, wanted to buy Dassault’s Rafale fighter jets in 2009 instead of the F/A-18". What it overlooks is that President da Silva wanted to buy the Rafale not instead of the F/A-18, but of the Gripen NG, which is the one that the people who would actually be using whatever was selected wanted. We still tend to look at the world through US-colored glasses.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
480
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Analysis: Lost Brazil order raises threat to Boeing fighter jets"
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON Fri Dec 20, 2013 11:45pm EST

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/21/us-boeing-fighters-analysis-idUSBRE9BK03420131221

(Reuters) - Brazil's decision to buy Swedish fighter jets instead of F/A-18 Super Hornets from Boeing eliminates its most promising foreign-sales prospect just as the U.S. company faces critical decisions about extending the jet's production line past 2016.

The loss of the $4.5 billion contract for 36 planes is the latest blow to Boeing's defense division, whose F-15 fighter jet last month lost a potential 60-plane order from South Korea to Lockheed Martin Corp's next-generation F-35 fighter.

Without new orders, both programs, based in St. Louis, Missouri, could fold in several years, effectively putting Boeing out of the fighter-jet business until a next-generation plane is developed, a decade or more in the future. The closures would follow the shuttering of Boeing's C-17 military transport plane production, in Long Beach, California, set for 2015, also because of sagging sales.

All these prospects present a near-term threat to Boeing's defense business. Fighters and C-17s accounted for 40 percent of Boeing's military aircraft deliveries so far this year. Military aircraft sales totaled $11.5 billion in the first nine months of 2013, down from $11.9 billion a year ago. (Boeing does not break down revenue by product line.)

Spokesman Conrad Chun said Boeing was disappointed about the loss in Brazil but remained confident about the Super Hornet's prospects in Europe and the Middle East.

The outlook for new domestic or foreign contracts is also diminished by budget cuts in the United States and financial constraints abroad, leading to delays in contract decisions in some key foreign markets.

Without fighters and the transport planes, Boeing's military aircraft business would be largely reliant on Apache and Chinook helicopters and the P-8 antisubmarine plane.

Boeing's lucrative after-sale market would be undermined as well. More than 80 percent of the money earned on a fighter jet comes from sales of spare parts, upgrades and support services over the jet's lifespan of 30 years.

SLOWING PRODUCTION TO MAKE ORDERS LAST

Boeing executives deny they are in a dogfight with Lockheed's F-35, and say the two jets will be compatible for defense needs on board U.S. aircraft carriers for decades.

But even before the Brazil loss, Boeing was boosting its lobbying efforts to get U.S. lawmakers to buy more F/A-018s or EA-18G electronic attack planes, known as "Growlers."

It also is cutting costs on the production line, investing in automation and slowing output of the F/A-18 to make the orders last longer as it tries win more sales against the F-35.

Boeing still has orders for 73 more F/A-18s and 45 more EA-18Gs, which will carry it to the end of 2016. For Saudi Arabia it is building 84 F-15s, enough to keep production running through 2018.

F/A-18 production is slowing from four planes a month to three to preserve the line, said Mike Gibbons, F/A-18 program manager. Boeing needs to build around two planes a month to maintain it, he said. [ID:nL2N0JT03T] That would require orders for 60 additional planes from the Navy to carry production through 2020, when countries in the Middle East and others such as Canada and Denmark would need to replace their jets.

Boeing had hoped orders from Brazil, Malaysia and other countries could fill the gap. Now Brazil is a lost cause, and Malaysia recently said it was postponing its fighter competition.

The Gulf holds promise, but Boeing's F/A-18 could face rivalry there from the F-35 around 2020, when the Pentagon is considering allowing sales to the region.

The U.S. Navy is a different story. Officials laud the jet's performance and the ease of maintenance. They say Boeing's reliable F/A-18 deliveries have allowed the fleet to maintain enough fighters on carriers to cover delays in the F-35C, which is not slated to be ready for operational use until 2018 or 2019.

They say they are studying options to keep the Super Hornet line running, although there is no formal requirement to replace older Hornets and no money to pay for new planes.

That is why Boeing is turning to lawmakers to add funding for extra F/A-18 planes, which they have done in the past.

DEFENSE HAWKS DOWN

Behind closed doors on Capitol Hill, congressional aides briefed on the program say Boeing is pushing a proposal to replace 44 of the 280 F-35 C-models the Navy plans to buy with Super Hornets, a move it argues could save the Navy $2.3 billion over several years.

Boeing has stepped up marketing activities over the past year, bringing a trailer-sized simulator to Capitol Hill, showcasing the Hornet at a variety of foreign air shows and helping organize a 35th anniversary party for its first flight at a Maryland naval air base this month.

The company is also promoting what it calls the "Advanced Super Hornet," a package of upgrades that would improve the plane's range, avionics and other capabilities. But company officials say upgrades alone will not support the production line.

Earlier this month, Randy Forbes, a Virginia Republican and member of the House Armed Services Committee, urged Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to keep the F/A-18 line running, calling reliance on a single tactical aviation supply line too risky. [ID:nL2N0JL00N] Other lawmakers have sent similar letters.

How much traction the Boeing proposal will ultimately get in Congress remains unclear.

U.S. lawmakers, keen to maintain well-paying jobs in their home districts, have often added funding to weapons programs, frequently defying the Pentagon's wishes and even an occasional presidential veto threat. Such earmarks have grown rarer, however, in the current budget environment, and military officials say training, maintenance and staffing shortages are putting lives at risk.

Boeing's support in Congress has also waned in recent years after the deaths of some key backers, including Senator Ted Stevens and Representative John Murtha. Others lost their seats to Tea Party candidates who care more about cutting federal deficits.

F-35 PICKING UP MOMENTUM

Another obstacle is the Pentagon's $392 billion commitment to the F-35 fighter and its efforts to lock in U.S. and foreign orders that will help drive down the cost of the most expensive U.S. arms programs.

The new warplane is several years behind schedule, and its cost is nearly 70 percent higher than projected, but government officials say Lockheed is now making progress, completing flight tests and resolving technical problems. The Marines are slated to start using the plane in combat in 2015.

Pentagon leaders have made clear that the F-35 is their top acquisition priority, and that they will resist any Navy moves to order more legacy warplanes like the F/A-18.

The cost of the F-35 is also dropping, according to program manager Lorraine Martin. Last week she said a conventional takeoff A-model would cost around $75 million in 2019, putting it on par with current planes like the F/A-18 and negating one of Boeing's key selling points.

Boeing says the F/A-18 costs about $51 million, including engines and radar, but congressional aides say the price is closer to $70 million when targeting pods and other equipment that is standard on the F-35 are added.

In the end, one of Boeing's biggest problems may be one faced by all companies as they near the end of production of a product, said one industry executive.

"When buyers think you are wounded they run away. No one wants to be the last buyer of any particular airplane."
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
480
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
F-14D said:
...and that's the point I'm making. The story says, "Brazil's former president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, wanted to buy Dassault’s Rafale fighter jets in 2009 instead of the F/A-18". What it overlooks is that President da Silva wanted to buy the Rafale not instead of the F/A-18, but of the Gripen NG, which is the one that the people who would actually be using whatever was selected wanted. We still tend to look at the world through US-colored glasses.

Globalsecurity.org has an excellent summary and analysis of events that occurred between the years 2008 to 2012 concerning the F-X2 program. The Reuters story oversimplifies the competing goals of the F-X2 program and the political situation in Brazil. It appears that the head of the Força Aérea Brasileira (Brazilian Air Force) wanted the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and that experts believed that it was superior in terms of capability of the competing platforms. But Boeing told Embraer that it was not economical to manufacture or assemble F-18s in Brazil. So very few jobs would be created in Brazil if the F/A-18 Super Hornet were chosen for F-X2. The Saab Gripen seemed to be the superior proposal in terms of technology transfer and job creation in Brazil. There is also great amount of anti-American sentiment in Brazil that would make the choice of a United States aircraft politically difficult. So there is probably a political advantage in choosing to work with a company in politically neutral Sweden.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brazil/fx-br-4.htm
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
480
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
pedrospe said:
In my opinion, the rafale was the best aircraft, not only it has greater capabilities than the grippen, but he has the french experience in both land and sea based aircraft, Brazil is buing an aicraft for the airforce, but he also has an eye for a future naval fighter, and a new aircraft carrier, so if Brazil had bought the rafale ,they could have had technology transfer from french industries, to help shape their possible future naval fighter and a new aircraft carrier, and they would have a common aircraft for the airforce and the navy.




regards


pedro

Possibly, but there was grumbling in Brazil about the cost of both the Dassault Rafale and the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet. Opponents argued that the Rafale and Super Hornet were Mercedes when Brazil only needed a Beetle. There were also concerns about the whims of the French government.

An editorial in liberal Folha de S. Paulo (06 January 2010) noted ".....announcing the preference for the French model when the bid was still underway was not only disrespectful but a lousy way of trying to reduce the price...... Maybe Brazil will acquire more knowledge, profits and technology by choosing the French option, but it may be dangerously dependent on the whims of French government. The debate in these terms is legitimate and there are good arguments on both sides. But any decision cannot be made without a rigorous technical evaluation."

An op-ed in liberal Folha de S. Paulo (07 January 2010) by Eliane Catanhede notes: ".....a U.S. or French representative - I'm not disclosing who - used a provocation similar to one used by French Minister Herve Morin against the [Swedish] Gripen NG: 'Does Brazil prefer a Mercedes or a Beetle?' The answer seems obvious but is not. A rich and 'bellicose' country that invades Pakistan and Afghanistan with no timidity certainly [in an allusion to the U.S.] prefers the Mercedes. But in Brazil, good-natured and with a tight budget, it is an expensive and nonsensical luxury. Maybe it would be more adequate, as the FAB (Brazilian Air Force) is saying, to have a Beetle: a smaller plane, lighter, for half the price, with lower maintenance costs and an ability to perform well in a possible attack....the plane would also provide technology more directly, with ramifications for private companies and good opportunities for business .....the price factor is not an irrelevant one. The Lula Administration ends in one year but the debt will remain......for 30 years.....And who is going to pay? FAB, which concluded the last generation Beetle is good enough for a country like Brazil."

An op-ed in liberal Folha de S. Paulo (08 January 2010) by columnist Eliane Catanhede opined: "...The question in place [at the moment] is whether the partnership between Brazil and France is enough to justify the purchase of the Rafale fighter plane.... The GOB seems to be divided between those who want to support the Air Force's report [which indicates preference for the Swedish jet] and the pro-French who support the Rafale at any cost and see only the political aspects.....In the end, what does 'strategic' really mean. The alliance between the Sarkozy and Lula's Administrations or an Air Force package between two countries that will last for the next 30 years and will have industrial and technological impact?"

Source:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brazil/fx-br-4.htm

Plus Saab has been developing the Sea Gripen since 2011.
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,306
Reaction score
122
I think people are seriously underestimating the technology in, and the capabilities of, the Gripen.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
kaiserbill said:
I think people are seriously underestimating the technology in, and the capabilities of, the Gripen.

I agree.

It also looks like the article is not a total impartial analysis. For example, "... F-18, and most experts believe it to be technologically superior.", and, "... the Super Hornet was clearly Brazil,s best option...". Although they do note that, "The GOB seems to be divided between those who want to support the Air Force's report [which indicates preference for the Swedish jet] and the pro-French who support the Rafale at any cost...". One of the criticisms of Rafale has been, BTW, is that it has higher than expected support costs. The article also says, "Sweden's defence needs are too small to be the anchor customer for further production of the Gripen". Probably true but that ignores exports. Saab has said that between the Swedish and Swiss orders, they've recovered their development costs. Future sales will be profit.

While the SH may indeed be a good deal for the USN, it's telling that outside of the special case of Australia, no one else has bought it. Even in Brazil the article indicates that it was ahead politically, not from a cost/benefit perspective.
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
13
I'm glad the Gripen NG got the contract. Serves the US right for failing to see the importance of affordability. Maybe the US will learn from this.
 

Rlewis

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 12, 2012
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
kcran567 said:
I'm glad the Gripen NG got the contract. Serves the US right for failing to see the importance of affordability. Maybe the US will learn from this.

http://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/replacing-the-cf18-part-ii-the-gripen-ng

Unfortunately the Gripen suffers from a problem shared by many western fighters: an inefficient production scale. With only two confirmed clients and relatively small orders, Saab cannot create manufacturing learning curves or economies of scale that would drive down costs. Moreover the NG is in a very early stage of development, with over 70% of the aircraft’s systems requiring development from the Gripen C. Consequently there is significant discrepancy in the projected flyaway and operational costs. Saab AB has suggested the aircraft’s costs will be approximately USD $80 million (2012 dollars), but the Swiss government’s fixed cost is approximately $105 million. Similarly operational costs has been touted by as an area where the Gripen NG may offer a strong competitive advantage due to Saab’s risk adverse development approach. Yet while the manufacturer has claimed the operational cost as USD $10,000, the Swiss military has pegged the cost at approximately $21,000.
 

kaiserbill

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,306
Reaction score
122
Uh... that blog article must be taken into context.

It is primarily a not very well hidden comparison between the Gripen and the F-35, and specifically for a Canadian scenario.

It is also confusing in the way it meanders over different specifics, such as stating that the Gripen NG has to carry its load externally, thus compromising low observability.
When mentioning the Super Hornet, suddenly this is no longer a topic...

It's a confusing article to say the least, and I picked up 2 obvious glaring errors in it whilst briefly perusing it.
 

Rlewis

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 12, 2012
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
kaiserbill said:
Uh... that blog article must be taken into context.

It is primarily a not very well hidden comparison between the Gripen and the F-35, and specifically for a Canadian scenario.

It is also confusing in the way it meanders over different specifics, such as stating that the Gripen NG has to carry its load externally, thus compromising low observability.
When mentioning the Super Hornet, suddenly this is no longer a topic...

It's a confusing article to say the least, and I picked up 2 obvious glaring errors in it whilst briefly perusing it.

Oh ok thank you, my point was that price wise the aircraft are not that far off, compared to what kcran567 said
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,197
Reaction score
116
The relationship between production rate and cost is not as simple as the author makes out. Remember that Saab boss Hakan Buskhe stated flat-out at Paris that they had reduced their costs on the JAS 39C/D while going from 28/year to 8-10/year, and that the JAS 39F would be less expensive again.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,958
Reaction score
445
Website
beyondthesprues.com
LowObservable said:
The relationship between production rate and cost is not as simple as the author makes out. Remember that Saab boss Hakan Buskhe stated flat-out at Paris that they had reduced their costs on the JAS 39C/D while going from 28/year to 8-10/year, and that the JAS 39F would be less expensive again.


Interesting how when someone at Saab says something about cost reduction it is taken as gospel but when someone at LM does for the F-35 it is marketing spin that should be viewed with suspicion...
 

Racer

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
82
Reaction score
3
It could be because the guys from Saab do hold up with what they promise? Whereas LM... ;)
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,695
Reaction score
463
Timely delivery, on budget, KPIs.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
Rlewis said:
kaiserbill said:
Uh... that blog article must be taken into context.

It is primarily a not very well hidden comparison between the Gripen and the F-35, and specifically for a Canadian scenario.

It is also confusing in the way it meanders over different specifics, such as stating that the Gripen NG has to carry its load externally, thus compromising low observability.
When mentioning the Super Hornet, suddenly this is no longer a topic...

It's a confusing article to say the least, and I picked up 2 obvious glaring errors in it whilst briefly perusing it.

Oh ok thank you, my point was that price wise the aircraft are not that far off, compared to what kcran567 said

One of the most closely guarded secrets has always been what an aircraft costs, because what's included and assumptions made, which may not be constant. For example, F-35 prices for export are based on achieving a certain production rate, that rate assumes export sales. However, countries are saying, "OK we want our F-35s when you get to that production rate, not now", setting up a catch 22. In reality, F-35 prices are still extremely fluid (just ask Canada), whereas Saab is offering guarantees based on agreed upon delivery dates. And a Gripen E is going to cost a lot less than an F-35 to operate, by anyone's measure.

It won't do everything a F-35 will, but does it do what is needed is the question.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,064
Reaction score
769
F-14D said:
just ask Canada)

Sorry, I can't let that stand. Canada did not find F-35 costs to be "fluid" it just decided to publicly lie about the costs it had been given and then got found out. It then over compensated by creating the largest possible number for the programme that even included aircraft disposal.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,966
Reaction score
81
JFC Fuller said:
F-14D said:
just ask Canada)

Sorry, I can't let that stand. Canada did not find F-35 costs to be "fluid" it just decided to publicly lie about the costs it had been given and then got found out. It then over compensated by creating the largest possible number for the programme that even included aircraft disposal.

I think the issue is simpler - the decision to go with an expensive product without competition and before the military's specifications were ready. The fact that the airplane is new (and unproven in Canadian conditions) and that the government repeatedly lied about costs just adds to the suspicion that government officials are under 'contractor influence'. So it is basically systematic doubt that the procurement is rational and unbiased.

The Gripen is cheaper, allows us to maintain our fighter infrastructure, and is clearly adaptable to cold weather conditions. However, it is also a single-engined design - so expect a frosty reception from traditionalists.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
GTX said:
Define "a lot" :eek:

Next to what an aircraft actually costs, probably the most closely guarded secret and hardest to pin down is true operational costs. Among other things it's measured in different ways at different times by different people. Heck! USAF itself even changes over time how it calculates it. So, we can only compare over ranges of estimates.

Using that, if we takes USAF's estimate of F-35 hourly costs, which I assume is at maturity and not the unusually high number at service entry, and compare it with the most pessimistic estimate of JAS-39E operating costs, F-35 is more than 50% more expensive per hour. If you take the most optimistic number expressed for the new Gripen, it's over 6 times as expensive.

Granted, the two a/c are not equivalent, but no one ever said they were.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
Avimimus said:
JFC Fuller said:
F-14D said:
just ask Canada)

Sorry, I can't let that stand. Canada did not find F-35 costs to be "fluid" it just decided to publicly lie about the costs it had been given and then got found out. It then over compensated by creating the largest possible number for the programme that even included aircraft disposal.

I think the issue is simpler - the decision to go with an expensive product without competition and before the military's specifications were ready. The fact that the airplane is new (and unproven in Canadian conditions) and that the government repeatedly lied about costs just adds to the suspicion that government officials are under 'contractor influence'. So it is basically systematic doubt that the procurement is rational and unbiased.

The Gripen is cheaper, allows us to maintain our fighter infrastructure, and is clearly adaptable to cold weather conditions. However, it is also a single-engined design - so expect a frosty reception from traditionalists.

I used "fluid" in a somewhat sarcastic vein. What I was addressing is how estimates of F-35 costs keep varying for everyone. While new orders are being trumpeted, the fact the numbers of aircraft being bought by existing customers are dropping relative to original expectations doesn't get such prominence. The usual reason given is the plane's changing costs, which is the "fluidity" I was referring to, which adds to the "Catch-22" situation I mentioned earlier. As far as the internal Canadian issues mentioned, I wasn't commenting on those (although I agree with the description), because I ascribe that to typical government actions taken to justify a decision they had already made.

It would seem that the traditionalists would have the same engine concerns about Gripen or Lightning II (does anyone actually call it that?).
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,958
Reaction score
445
Website
beyondthesprues.com
F-14D said:
Granted, the two a/c are not equivalent, but no one ever said they were.


Therefore you aren't "comparing apples with apples" and thus such comparisons are largely meaningless unless you offer a common basis for comparison. I might as well compare a Smart Fortwo with a Porshe Cayenne. One will definitely cost a lot more to acquire and operate than the other, but to compare the two is ridiculous given the different capabilities of the two.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
133
GTX said:
F-14D said:
Granted, the two a/c are not equivalent, but no one ever said they were.


Therefore you aren't "comparing apples with apples" and thus such comparisons are largely meaningless unless you offer a common basis for comparison. I might as well compare a Smart Fortwo with a Porshe Cayenne. One will definitely cost a lot more to acquire and operate than the other, but to compare the two is ridiculous given the different capabilities of the two.

But in this case the "apple" is the mission requirements that the aircraft needed to meet, not the aircraft itself. Using your car analogy, the Porsche definitely does more than the Smart, but if your need is to move two people on their daily commute in an urban area the Porsche can do that, but you also pay a lot more for gangs of stuff you may not need or particularly want to pay for.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
41
Continuing with the car analogy:

Mission, deliver a few packages into gang territory (GT).

First up, Smart Cars (SmC): 8 SmCs leave the dock and proceed towards the GT. On the way they meet up with a police escort that will chase any Gang Members (GM) away that harass the SmC. Meanwhile, on the other side of the GT, several of your friends are driving near the GT blasting “Jamming” music to distract and confuse GMs in the GT. Some of the GMs evade the cops or are in hiding and surprise the SmC. This causes a few of the SmCs to flee before they can deliver their packages. The rest of the SmCs manage to deliver their packages, unite with the rest of their friends and the cops at a local pit stop outside of the GT since they did not have the room to bring lunch with them. They then get back on the road and return to the dock.

Next up, the Porche: 4 Porche Cayenne SUVs slip into the GT unnoticed since they had info on the GMs locations. On the way they discover more, previously unnoticed GMs and “deal” with them or avoid them. They all deliver their packages and return to the dock. On the way back, they the eat lunch on the road since they had the room to spare and don’t have to stop.

So let’s compare:
8 SmC + 1-2 Cop Escorts + 1-2 "Jammers" + the need to stop for lunch
Vs
4 Porche Cayenne
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,252
Reaction score
155
I'm pretty sure the -39 plays well with NATO comms/datalinks, or else it would be a non-starter on the international market. Other than that, it would probably avoid 'first day of war' type missions when other coalition LO aircraft are available.
 

Similar threads

Top