maurobaggio, accoring the official Swiss defence procurement documents, the import price tag for the Gripen F itself with armament would be 114 million CHFr per plane (2.5 billion CHFr / 22 ac). I guess the 3.12 billion CHFr for Switzerland included the 230 million CHFr VAT with has the defence department to pay to the financial department. Further, the old infrastructure requires a reinvestment.
Further, 44 million CHFr per year have been foreseen for a temporary leasing of Gripen C/D till the Gripen F arrvies.

Tonnyc, are you shure that the Switzerland wanted the same as Brazil? Brazil will do the development of the Gripen F, maybe with assistance of Sweden. And usually as a development partner they will also carry the risks. Switzerland with it’s populistic “no delevopment risk”-culture”, no way. Further Brazil will buy and operate the Gripen F, Switzerland not.

And why shall Switzerland get an own assembly line? Yes, Switzerland requested it, but they will not build or develope additional aircrafts, except Pilatus. So why should Sweden do the additional effort to transfer the assembly know how to Switzerland when there is no benefit for Sweden and Switzerland? Sweden is from my point of view not a country were everyone is selfish. Selfish people do every thing for money but doesn’t really take care about the end-product. So that two airplanes are in the detail different and so have a very limited interchangeability. The mount of pure work or fake work is from my point of view low in Sweden.
To educate the swiss people in “how is the Gripen build”, they could send some people to Sweden.
Finally, for a compensating business it is unattractive to give manufacturing or assembly work to country were close to everything is expensive. At the moment I have basic concerns how compensating business with Switzerland will be done in the future on a beneficial way for both parties. But that’s an other topic.

I know several swiss people who are afraid about the result of the vote, because Switzerland needed and still need in this area a long-termin relayable fair honest partner.

Thanks for the informations.

The source of information that I used on the contract of Switzerland after a survey were basically two:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/switzerland-replacing-its-f-5s-04624/[/QUOTE]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-18/saab-loses-3-5-billion-jet-order-as-swiss-reject-gripen.html

As I am a very poor old man, in reason of that I haven’t been used to deal with the Swiss franc (CHF).

However I guess I’m not the only one since there are several variations due to value of the Swiss franc currency, in the case of Bloomberg source it had reported the contract with a value of US$ 3.5 billion( CHF 3,126 billion) on 19 May 2014.

According to 1st source:

Aug 28/12: Contract terms. The Swiss government reveals the details of their Gripen deal. Their 22 planes will all be single-seat JAS-39Es, delivered from 2018-2021 at a firm-fixed-price cost of CHF 3.126 billion (currently $3.27 billion). That total is guaranteed by the Swedish government, and includes mission planning systems, initial spares and support, training, and certification.

April 12/12: Postponed. Swiss Defence Minister Ueli Maurer says that they will postpone their order of 22 JAS-39E/F Gripen jets, so they can co-ordinate its purchase with Sweden. The minister promises that the bill will remain below SFR 3.126 billion/ $3.43 billion.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/switzerland-replacing-its-f-5s-04624/

With the price of the Swiss Franc today, according to:
http://www.x-rates.com/calculator/?from=CHF&to=USD&amount=3126000000

The value of the contract Switzerland today would be US $ 3.233 billion.

However in the case of Brazil the contract were US$ 4.5 billions, it is possible to observe in Bloomberg source, however at contract was signing the value has been corrected to $ 5.4 billion since the same would be outdated at the 2009.

In fact I do not know if the value of the contract Brazil $ 5.4 billion has been already included the cost of from funding this.

On the total value of the Switzerland contract that was voted in Switzerland: US $ 3.233 billion

1.Comparative Table Brazil / Switzerland

width: 500	class: grid	align: center
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td]Type[/td]
[td]Number of Gripen NG[/td]
[td]Amount of Contract (Billions)[/td]
[td]Unit Cost (millions)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Brazil[/td]
[td]Gripen E/F[/td]
[td]36[/td]
[td]Us$ 5.4[/td]
[td]US$ 150[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Switzerland[/td]
[td]Gripen E[/td]
[td]22[/td]
[td]US$ 3.233 [/td]
[td]US$ 147[/td]
[/tr]

By the same unit cost from Switzerland the Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:

• a new production line that will be installed in Brazil
• development of the new Gripen F in Brazil
• financial resources to keep the production line in Brazil with rate of the 3 aircraft’s per year for five years

With the second value of Switzerland contract has been provided by Eremit t would be:US$ 2,578 billions

2.Comparative Table Brazil / Switzerland

width: 500	class: grid	align: center
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td]Type[/td]
[td]Number of Gripen NG[/td]
[td]Amount of Contract (Billions)[/td]
[td]Unit Cost (millions)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Brazil[/td]
[td]Gripen E/F[/td]
[td]36[/td]
[td]Us$ 5.4[/td]
[td]US$ 150[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Switzerland[/td]
[td]Gripen E[/td]
[td]22[/td]
[td]US$ 2.578[/td]
[td]US$ 117[/td]
[/tr]

By the increased of the 28% about the Switzerland cost per unit, the Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:

• a new production line that will be installed in Brazil
• development of the new Gripen F in Brazil
• financial resources to keep the production line in Brazil with rate of the 3 aircraft’s per year for five years

In my humble opinion I think the US$ 3.233 billions value of Switzerland does not have any special requirements that also could not be applied to Brazil, since both countries has been using the F 5E / F.

Even when has been considering the value of US$ 2.578 billions for Switzerland contract, with an increase in value of 28% in each unit of the Gripen E / F to Brazil over Switzerland, in my humble opinion I think should be little likely to accomplish all that it has been planned for Brazil with contract of the US 5.4 billions.

Note: My humble opinions is not better than others, but I have been using the available information to try to understand the situation of the Gripen E / F in Brazil.

I’m not a supporter of this saying: wait and see.

After all, who expects only the best could be caught by the events.

My humble opinions may eventually proves to be all wrong, which would be better for Brazil and Sweden as the Gripen E / F.

In reason of that I think it should be better to be a disappointed pessimist than an optimist highly frustrated.

And you claim not to cherrypick your data….

Brazil’s Gripen NG procurement cost $5.4 billion for 36 aircrafts because, among other things, Brazil wants the technology transfer, domestic production, marketing rights for South America, use of Brazilian components when possible, etc. Those are what’s expensive. More than the actual aircrafts. If Brazil wants just the aircraft without all those, a better comparison would be Sweden’s SEK 16.4 billion ($2.5 billion) price tag for 60 Gripen E. This info is all over the place. If you don’t know it then you haven’t done your research and if you know it but ignored it then you are being deliberately obtuse.

Bringing up the Swiss 2009 evaluation is not a good tactic on your part, as the reason it was selected, in the words of Switzerland’s Federal Council, “With the Gripen, the Federal Council decided on a fighter aircraft that meets the military requirements, but also medium and long term for the VBS and the army is affordable because it is much cheaper not only in procurement than the other two planes but also in operating costs. The decision for the Gripen offers a guarantee that a high-performance combat aircraft can be obtained, without compromising other areas of the army and the necessary equipment.“ (well, fine, it was Google Translate, so it’s possible there’s a translation error) If you are willing to take the word of Swiss authorities for the evaluation, why aren’t you willing to take their word on their acceptance? What if I tell you that the Société Suisse des Officiers voted unanimously to support the law funding the Gripen procurement? Again, the information is widely disseminated. If you don’t know it then you haven’t done your research and if you know it but ignored it then you are being deliberately obtuse.

This information is from 2012 or 2009 :Sweden’s SEK 16.4 billion ($2.5 billion) price tag for 60 Gripen E

With this amount every Gripen E would have a unit cost of the US$ 42 Millions, in the meantime I have another number in which each Gripen E for the Royal Swedish Air Force would have a unit cost during the life cycle of the Gripen E that could reach $ 225 Million.

Under the conditions of the Royal Sweden Air Force the entire program would cost US $ 13.5 billion in the period 2023-2043, and this cost would include: flyaway cost, logistics, training and weapon systems.

As you can observe the comprehensiveness of the costs for Gripen E in Sweden would be greater than the proposed contracts for Brazil and Switzerland so far.

Both numbers could be correct, but with sure those values do not correspond to the same requirements, just the the case of Brazil to Switzerland, that despite the requirements are very different the values for each Gripen NG are almost equal.

Just for information: the value of the contract that I put on the table for Switzerland is from 2012 and not 2009.

By the same unit cost from Switzerland the Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:

Again, you don’t have all the data. The Brazilian government does. They are the ones who get to decide what’s affordable for them. Not you. If you want to decide that the Gripen is not affordable to you, that’s fine, but that only holds for you, not for Brazil.

I am sure you will continue finding some other “proof” that you are correct and everyone else, including the Brazilian government and Air Force and industry leaders and the same folks from Switzerland are wrong. Well, if that’s how you get your fun, you have a fun weekend now.

If the Government of Brazil has already has all the information as you are sure that these were not already disclosed?

You also have some ‘proof to say this’, or you are just like most of us just only trying to understand the facts here and obtain the news.

In my humble opinion there is nothing unusual to sign a contract and then find out some points that were not very detailed so far.

Such as the contract were signed for delivery of 36 Gripen E / F by 2024, but now there are several references that has been mentioning that will be 108 Gripen E / F to be acquired.

If during the competition that lasted 18 years that would be mentioned that the total of fighters to be acquired would be 108 instead from 36 the result would be same?

In my humble opinion would be: Yes

Mauro

The Brasilian MOD Budget is roughly 30 Billion US$ a year, thats five times bigger than the Swedish one…
If the Swedes can acquire 60 to 70 Gripens NG with 6.3 Billion US$ a year, there´s no valid reason for the Brasilians to have problems with 108 airframes. Another way to put it is that 24.3 Billion US$ to be spent in two decades is 4% of the Brasilian MOD´s budget (if it stays the same) for those twenty years. Another way to put it is that the Brasilian MOD Budget is roughly equivalent to Italy´s, and no one in their right mind would question the ability of the AMI to acquire and operate 108 Gripens, if that was their only combat jet.
Yes, i am entirely aware that ~68% of Brasilian MOD budget is spent with personnel (i would be surprised if something similar doesnt happen in Sweden), that a great big chunk of those 68% is for retirement, that the FAB is composed of 70 thousand chaps (why so many? never understood that one), that every year we have the same old news when the Budget is released, “we dont have money to operate our aircrafts/boats/hello´s/tanks/Ferrari´s/whatever” (we have the exact same news in every Western Country), but the fact is that Brasil is right there at the edge of the ten biggest military budgets in the world.

In fact the Military Brazil budget could be capable to finance the acquisition and operation from 108 Gripen E / F, however this number in Brazil Military Budget does not correspond to reality.

This Military Brazil budget were planned for the year, but not actually carried out since the Brazil has been incapable to use all these resources, once a share of this budget has been keeping frozen (locked) by the Government of Brazil.

Due to major structural problems of the finances from Government of Brazil, the same has been paying high bank interest rates from its domestic debt, which results in an amount that could match to 5% of GDP (or something like US $ 110 Billions) per year.

The Government of Brazil in each every year makes budgets, but it can not perform all those planned investments inside the budget, since it always has been occurred one or two facts:

Thus the Government of Brazil has always keep a share from its intire budge frozen to cover any possible holes in tax collection or in the expenditures .

The fact should be that every year such holes has been happened, and how the Military Budget are not a priority for Government of Brazil, such frozen share of this budget from Military Forces has been used for this goal.

Indeed the Military Forces can not use all resources supposedly approved, since the government has not released it effectively, as well as using those frozen funding to cover the fiscal deficit in each year.

This is a chronic problem that has been occurring for decades, however there is not much chance for this to be corrected in the short or medium term.

So in actual values Brazil’s budget has always been keeping lower than that were reported because of the problem about frozen resources.

By withdrawing the frozen part of the budget, the personnel expenses could be reach at a rate of 80% from effective budget since the Government can’t block this spending. However the other 20% of this effective budget should cover all other expenses such as maintenance of facilities and equipment; training; operations; R & D; acquisition of new equipments.

In this case when considering that Sweden would have spent 50% from budget with personnel, it could illustrated in this table:

Despite the resources for other activities is higher in Brazil almost in 80% from Sweden, the Brazil Military forces are much wider that Sweden, as well as the territory of the Brazil.

In short Brazil has a lot from more expenses than Sweden itself, which would allow the Sweden to be able to buy more Gripen NG than Brazil ,due the Brazilian plague of the frozen budget.

around 100 for AF is to be expected, since it replaces everything,
unknown is how navy carrier program pan out, but my bet is at least one carrier,
and Brazil will make an effort to get those sea gripen operational

Just to demonstrate about some difficulties of enabling such a plan of the 108 Gripen E/F for Brazil Air Force, I will use the information from Royal Sweden Air Force for the Gripen E.
And once again I will use the unit cost since I have been doing a comparative analyzes of different numbers of aircraft and contracts from: Sweden, Switzerland and Brazil.

Under the conditions of the Royal Sweden Air Force the entire program would cost US $ 13.5 billion in the period 2023-2043, and this cost would include: flyaway cost, logistics, training and weapon systems.

As you can observe the comprehensiveness of the costs for Gripen E in Sweden would be greater than the proposed contracts for Brazil and Switzerland so far.

Therefore by adopting the same values set by Royal Sweden Air Force to Brazil Air Force with an estimated number of the 108 Gripen E/F, then I would have something like this:

I have done a simplistic and optimistic analysis for the Brazil, since the Sweden will not adopted the Gripen F because of its higher cost of construction and maintenance, and it will use the Gripen D instead the Gripen F.
So I wonder:
How is possible to fit 108 Gripen E / F into the budget from Brazil Air Force today?

If anyone says that Brazil has been able to operate 108 Gripen E / F, that is because there are enough resources for such proposal at present time in the Brazil Air Force budget at least to ensure such statement.
While someone says that Brazil will have conditions in the future to operate 108 Gripen E / F, in my humble opinion this is just an enthusiastic statement.

108 birds to FAB.

Brazilian air force confirms Gripen acquisition numbers

A leading Brazilian air force figure has confirmed that 108 Saab Gripen NG multi-role fighters will be acquired for the force. Following the announcement in October that a $5.8 billion contract had been signed for the first batch of 36 aircraft, an air force representative confirmed to the International Fighter conference in London on 18 November that the full requirement will be for 108 airframes.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/brazilian-air-force-confirms-gripen-acquisition-numbers-406213/

Good news for Christmas 2014.

Anyway I’m not confident in this statement, once it has been changing the signed contract from US $ 5.4 Billion to US $ 5.8 Billion.

So the statement from a leading Brazilian Air Force figure are wrong because the correct value should be US $ 5.4 Billion for 36 Gripen E/F , or the contract has been increased at the US $ 5.8 billion for the same 36 Gripen E/F?

If the value of the contract has been leading for confusion about the numbers from a leading Brazilian Air Force figure at the present time, so imagine about new orders that would reach at total 108 Gripens in a future not yet scheduled?

What choice did they have? Russian engines are the only ones available that can handle the task at hand.

Perhaps developing a new engine for the J 31, anyway for China that has been demonstrating the capabilities to develop a 5th generation fighter, I suppose the some new engine with equivalent performance to RD 33 would not be an impossible challenge.

However China could be used so far at least for the J 31 prototype the same engine from JH 7 has been the WS 9, which are a version from RR Spey with the following specifications:
Dry thrust: 54.29 kN (12,250 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 91.26 kN (20.515 lbf) each

Still China has opted for the old Russians RD 33 when he could have used at least the WS 9 for the J 31 prototypes, until some new engine from China would be available.

This is just my opinion, and this has been described in the post below:

In my humble opinion the China have been very clever in putting these RD 33 engines in the J-31 prototypes , once these engines were designed to withstand large oscillations in airflow from MiG 29, the RD 33 has a remarkable tolerance for the blown out of the engines in high G maneuvers.

In the development process some prototypes from MiG-29 were lost because the blown out of the engines, which had led to modification of RD 33 to support these variations in airflow, with the depreciation of the fuel consumption what could be observed in the presence of smoke.

The fact is that first generation from MiG-29 as 9.12 version did not have a fly by wire system for reasons among cost and complexity of this in the 70s and 80s for Soviet Union.

As the J-31 are under development, as well as its fly by wire system, the choice of RD 33 could have allowed the development process of the J-31 with better level in security with this 5th Generation fighter, as well as a considerable reduction in the costs of the project by not has been depend over a new engine that should be: developed, manufactured and tested.

I would guess that even the MiG 35 that has a fully digital fly by wire systems and RD 33MK engines with digital FADEC systems it would be possible to note the presence of smoke during maneuvers at high G .

That could be explained because the fly by wire system of the MiG 35 could be linked with the FADEC system from RD 33 MK, and during the maneuvers would be possible that the fuel /air mixture would be increased to avoid possible blow out of the engines like the old RD 33, which would be noticed with the presence of smoke, while in straight fly the engines could return to operate in conditions of lowest rate of fuel consumption, and without the presence of smoke.

However this is just an opinion, and I do not put my hand in the flames for this.

In my humble opinion the China have been very clever in putting these RD 33 engines in the J-31 prototypes , once these engines were designed to withstand large oscillations in airflow from MiG 29, the RD 33 has a remarkable tolerance for the blown out of the engines in high G maneuvers.

In the development process some prototypes from MiG-29 were lost because the blown out of the engines, which had led to modification of RD 33 to support these variations in airflow, with the depreciation of the fuel consumption what could be observed in the presence of smoke.

The fact is that first generation from MiG-29 as 9.12 version did not have a fly by wire system for reasons among cost and complexity of this in the 70s and 80s for Soviet Union.

As the J-31 are under development, as well as its fly by wire system, the choice of RD 33 could have allowed the development process of the J-31 with better level in security with this 5th Generation fighter, as well as a considerable reduction in the costs of the project by not has been depend over a new engine that should be: developed, manufactured and tested.

I would guess that even the MiG 35 that has a fully digital fly by wire systems and RD 33MKM engines with digital FADEC systems it would be possible to note the presence of smoke during maneuvers at high G .

That could be explained because the fly by wire system of the MiG 35 could be linked with the FADEC system from RD 33 MKM, and during the maneuvers would be possible that the fuel /air mixture would be increased to avoid possible blow out of the engines like the old RD 33, which would be noticed with the presence of smoke, while in straight fly the engines could return to operate in conditions of lowest rate of fuel consumption, and without the presence of smoke.

However this is just an opinion, and I do not put my hand in the flames for this.