That are nominal claims under optimum conditions. In practise we will see the Gripen NG close to the F-18C in range & payload by similar flight performances.
The MTOW by similar technology is the main yardstick about that.

Edit: MTOW is not similar! Hornet has a larger MTOW than Gripen.

Hornet is also 3 tons heavier when empty!

Should’nt that make a difference ?

Gripen NG is a small and light fighter therefore I would expect it to have excellent range and endurance in a light (e.g. a2a or recce) config, and that the range drops much faster than larger a/c in a heavy strike config.

So the question also becomes what config the Swiss are looking for. I thought “air policing” was the main aim and for that I would be very surprised if the NG would not have excellent range and endurance.

And the problem is that following that full fledged technical evaluation of 2009 the follow-on evaluations seem to have focused on one option only, the further developments of the Gripen. Developments of the other platforms seems not to have been taken into account. That is what comes out of the press conference.

So, taking into account the developments after the technical evaluation is not dysfunctional but when it does so for only one platform and when the military is prevented from looking into some possible options (such as whether 16 Rafales can do the same or a better job than 22 Gripens), it certainly is.

Can you provide a link where it says that they did not assess further Rafale and Eurofighter? Since the main focus of the press conference was the choice of Gripen it is natural that this was discussed the most. Did any of the journalists ask question regarding further assessment of other aircraft after 2009?

Also can you provide a link to a credible report (no anonymous sources please) that says that the AF wanted to assess Rafale in smaller numbers but Maurer stopped this? And if this is the case, what did Maurer answer when he was asked about that in the press conference yesterday? Surely somebody did ask questions around that if this information was known before the press conference?

Firstly, the material that has been left out of the technical evaluation is because it includes classified data (pertaining to the F18). What we have is comprehensive in the sense that it includes the summaries of the different sections.

How do you know the left-out material was left out because it contained F18 classified material and not for other reasons?

Secondly, I could adopt the same approach you have taken above in challenging you to prove a negative: since you have not seen the follow-on evaluation, how do you know the process is not dysfunctional? And, again, it does look dysfunctional to me as when you listen to the press conference the only option that seems to have been furthered hinged on the developments of the Gripen (and I am not only entering into the fact that these developments to come where assessed in the 2009 technical report and that even with them, the Gripen was falling short).

Nobody has seen the latest reports, since they were not leaked. Although it’s not an evidence, please consider why the 2008/2009 reports were leaked; to mess up and if possible stop the deal with Gripen. Now, if further reports later on demonstrated that e.g. the numbers had been fudged, or that even taking into account Gripen development since 2008/2009 Gripen still does not meet minimal requirements, it’s clear that leaking those later documents would be much more efficient than leaking these old and out-dated documents.

Perhaps the newest documents were not leaked because they did not fit with the agenda of those behind the leaks?

I honestly don’t understand why you keep talking about Gripen “falling short” in 2009; this is less relevant today for an aircraft that will be delivered some years into the future.

Anyway, perhaps Gygax and Maurer are lying, but perhaps not, I have not seen any strong indications yet that they are, all I have seen is a huge effort to interfere with the process and discredit Gripen on the basis on some out-dated reports. Also I think their story sounds credible and fits with some other facts.

Let’s wait and see what the investigation shows. They looked rather relaxed and smiling before the press conference yesterday but perhaps they are just very good actors.

According to information reaching the Maurer’s Gripen E / F in the final report of the Evaluation of the “operational effectiveness” of a 9-point scale a score of 5.81 points. In the “operational suitability” of the Gripen reached 6.87 a ‘satisfactory’ and in the overall score is also a “satisfactory” with 6:36 points. These values ​​are significantly higher than those mentioned in the published reports on Sunday. There was always worse than the Gripen, the cut off score of 6.

The report was created in 2008 with the type of the Gripen C / D. How has the development of the airplane affecting leave be calculated.

Feedback from Sweden about the changes to the model development steps towards E / F have now shown that these assumptions will be exceeded, said Air Force Chief Markus Gygax.

Google translated from: http://www.tagesschau.sf.tv/Nachrichten/Archiv/2012/02/14/Schweiz/Armee-Spitze-haelt-geschlossen-an-Gripen-Entscheid-fest

Perhaps somebody who speaks German can verify this translation or do a better one.

One should keep in mind that so far all the reporting have been done by “regular” journalists (at least the reports I have seen). And they are basically clueless. In general they don’t know what questions to ask, and they may not always understand what is important and what is less important.

I am also surprised that people don’t put more emphasis on what Gygax is saying. In most western countries an Air Force Chief of course needs to work with whatever politician happens to be in place and be cooperative, but there are limits and normally an Air Force Chief would not tolerate instructions to tell lies, not for something that is so important. So either he is a corrupt liar, or he is telling the truth and the updated information shows that Gripen will be able to meet minimal requirements.

If he were told to lie, why did he not just call in sick? Or held his own press conference? Instead you are telling me that he his risking his own career to save the career of a lying politician? I think the alternative explanation is more credible.

I will not comment on Maurer; I don’t know him however in general I am distrustful of politicians. Professional military people from Switzerland, OTOH, I tend to trust more in this context (until proven otherwise).

Perhaps I have missed something but from the evaluation :

1) On purely operational suitability the gripen failed in every category even with the improved version. Usually the consensus is that price is an important factor but you have to meet the minimum performance requirements at least.

2) Dassault’s new offer was with a rafale with only a 6% higher price tag than the gripen. I know than the gripen is cheaper to run and that they have lower their prices but switzeland is a rich country. If they have the will they can perfectly run the rafale.

http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/air-defense/actu/0201896316319-regain-d-interet-pour-le-rafale-depuis-sa-selection-par-l-inde-288669.php

http://www.20minutes.fr/ledirect/879831/combat-suisse-prete-examiner-offre-dassault

http://www.blick.ch/news/politik/der-gripen-erfuellt-alle-anforderungen-id1766990.html

Another question: How can the “phenomenal” progress since 2008 to explain the Gripen?
Gripen is the jump to the next class takes place, says Maurer. Other types have also been incorporated in the meantime, new equipment, but not such a “leap” made.

Another question: In the November 09, there were doubts about the air policing capability. What has changed since then?
Gygax: In the meantime, the aircraft was developed. Planned further developments, where they had been skeptical had, meanwhile, proved to be more likely.

In other words: Gripen development since 2009 has made it clear to the Swiss that the upgraded Gripen will meet the minimal technical requirements… making the older reports irrelevant.

Why is this so difficult to understand for some people? Please go back and look at the 2009 report. It is clearly stated that the updated parameters have been weighted by the risk of the suggested changes. That was back in 2009. Since then Switzerland has received updates on the progress of the Gripen development work and this has reduced the risk and therefore increased the parameter values.

Since some people here seem to not want to understand this let’s try a simple example:

Back in 2009 Saab told the Swiss that the updated 2015 system would have endurance of X hours. IF the Swiss had entered this into their formula for calculating the score, they would have gotten a score equal to or larger than 6. However since a lot of development work needed to be done, the Swiss decided to multiply the value X with, say, 0.6 to account for this risk. This would give a new, lower endurance value which would result in a lower score (say, 4) and therefore below the minimum threshold.

Then in 2011 Saab gives their last update. Risk has been reduced and therefore the risk weighting factor changes from 0.6 to 0.95. The score changes from 4 to 6.

It seems many French (and a few Swiss) are claiming the process has been “messy”, “poor”, or even worse than that, when all the official information we have received so far seem to indicate the exact opposite.

Had they ignored all the progress that has been made since 2009, there would have been good reason to say that the process was not sound. It would have been incredibly stupid to close they eyes and say “we pretend that nothing has changed since 2009”.

Also note that to do the above they do not need to do a new evaluation; they just need to update the risk estimates and calculate a new score. For sure they have formuale that does this, so it’s just to enter the updated numbers and get the new scores out.

It still surprises me why this is so difficult to understand, in particular because it says in the 2009 report that this is how they did it!?

Could expand on this? Are you saying that there was an updated report made by the Air Force? If this is the case, can you provide your source because I have not heard this from anywhere so far.

Again, where do you draw this from? The only report that we have so far says indeed that the Gripen would be the most improved aircraft among the three tested with the planned improvements but that it started from so far back that this would still not enable it to reach the grade of 6

Sekant the report from 2009 has been invalidated by further Gripen development. This was explained in the press conference today.

Unlike the leaked 2008/2009 reports, those other reports have not been leaked, and most likely never will be. THey will not be leaked because it does not fit the agenda of the person(s) that leaked the two first reports.

So either you trust Gygax and his people or you insist that they are lying and that Gripen has not been developed since 2009… It’s up to you.

Google translated from: http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/GripenGeheimbericht-war-nichts-Neues/story/14248049

Note that the below is written in “reverse order”, so if you want to read the press conference in the right order, start with the last paragraph, and then read the paragraph above, etc.

VBS leader Maurer says that the Federal Council will seek to optimize the cost of Gripen package. “The price will be pushed below three billion francs.” There have talks with the Swedish producers expired. If other manufacturers showed more favorable offers, they would possibly look at this. At the moment, but nothing to speak of the Gripen.

Beyond the ‘Sunday newspaper’ allegations and transported to the Gripen are disruptive in the opinion of VBS chief masons from different sides. It is quite understandable, “that some people prefer a Ferrari than a VW want.” The disruptive action would continue. In such a business, this is normal. In the procurement of fighter aircraft, it is not just about money.”This is a matter of prestige.”

The poor marks for the Gripen relate to the elderly, according to Defense Minister Maurer Gripen model CD. Switzerland wishes to buy the newer model EF. The report that was published in the ‘Sunday paper’ is, originated in 2008. Meanwhile, however, the newer type of the Gripen EF stand up for discussion. How has the development of the airplane affecting leave, estimated. “The key is the development potential of the next 30 years.”

After the speeches by Federal Councillor Maurer and the top representatives of the army, the journalists the opportunity to ask questions. Air Force chief Markus Gygax says that common ground since 2009 that the Gripen is suitable for air policing duties. This is the total income from various sub-reports. “Each aircraft makes its development through – this is not unlike the Gripen” Says VBS leader Maurer adds: “The Gripen is not a new development, but an existing fighter jet being developed continually.” And then says Mason, “The Gripen is not something out of the piñata. “

Defence Minister Ueli Maurer holds despite criticism firmly believe that the Gripen to Switzerland would be a suitable fighter aircraft. The report that the aircraft has failed in tests, he referred to as irrelevant. The Gripen satisfy the technical requirements, Maurer told the media in Bern. It was in the overall assessment rating of “satisfactory” achieved, regardless of financial considerations. The aircraft will fulfill the pre-defined specifications in full.

Only a partial report

The evaluation report published Sunday media if it were merely a part of the report. This was in the synthesis and application to the Federal Council for the Gripen incorporated. But it is not relevant. The Federal Council has had in his decision for the Gripen from partial report noted Maurer said. Took his statement the previous day, which he knew not even the report, he returned: “I really believed, as if someone had dug up something new,” he said. Was “of course” he was aware of the report.

Investigation for violation of military secrets

Maurer also denied that the grading had been changed in the course of the evaluation. These were “malicious allegations” that he “in the strongest terms” reject. The Attorney General has opened an investigation for violation of military secrets. In addition, Maurer said, aircraft purchases would give rise to more great discussions, as are money and prestige in the game. This was “courant normal.” (Vin / sda)

The next speaker will be Air Force chief Markus Gygax. The Gripen meets the requirements of the Air Force – regarding, for example aerial reconnaissance. He has proved itself, in various European countries like Hungary in the air policing tasks. This aircraft is fit for the future, he could be equipped with modern weapons. New elements could be incorporated in the Gripen. The Gripen was to serve the Air Force for the next 30 years.

Now defense chief says Ulrich Appenzeller. He explained how the evaluation process had gone. “It was a professional procedure done,” he concluded.

“The Gripen has the best Leistungs-/Kostenverhältnis out,” leads the VBS-chief continued. For the first time the army had not selected the fighter-type, but the Federal Council. The Federal Council has decided that not only military but also political considerations must be taken into account with respect to the purchase of a new fighter jets.

“It was not about to choose the fastest or best aircraft,” says Maurer. The Federal Council has decided on a fighter-type “of our needs.” The Gripen fulfills the military specification, which was defined by the Federal Council, in full. The Gripen satisfy the technical requirements, even if he is not the most expensive aircraft type.

The press conference begins. VBS leader Ueli Maurer comments on the Gripen decision. He says that the alleged secret report, reported the Sunday press, the Federal Council was aware as early as November. “Gripen secret report was nothing new.” Maurer also clarifies that there is no official offer from another provider.

Put great pressure, the defense minister must explain to 14h on the purchase of new fighter aircraft. Il devrait préciser «pourquoi le Gripen est la solution optimale pour la Suisse». It should clarify “why the Gripen is the optimal solution for Switzerland.”

According to the invitation to the press conference in Bern, the clarification of Ueli Maurer should also address the factors that led the Federal Council to opt for the Swedish air and on the evaluation procedure of devices designed to replace Tiger.

The defense minister will not come alone but surrounded by senior officials of the army: the army chief Andre Blattman, the Air Force Markus Gygax, one of the Ground Forces Dominique Andrey and of arming Ulrich Appenzeller.

http://www.lematin.ch/suisse/Ueli-Maurer-sexpliquera-cet-apres-midi-devant-la-presse-/story/17382544

I think this can be an interesting press conference…. Jackonicko, will you attend? 🙂

Maurer stated publically, when he announced his choice that “all three contenders mets the requirements” yet, that report says clearly that the gripen does not

If he says now that he doesn’t know what that report contains, how could he claim that the aircraft meet the requirements? unless he decided just to take for granted whatever PR people said to him regardless of the work done by the SwAF

I suggest you re-read what Jackonicko wrote above. The conclusions in the reports from 2008/2009 may not be relevant anymore. Also note that in the 2009 report it says that the information from the vendors have been “adjusted” with a risk factor. So if e.g. Saab gave information that would give the updated Gripen a score of 6 in a2a, they may have chosen to change that to a lower number to take into account the risk. However, as Jackonicko points out above, a lot has happened since 2009. In particular the risks that were there in 2009 have been reduced. This could change the picture sufficiently to allow them to say that the MS21 does meet minimal technical requirements.

except that it never was a requirement. It met all the technical requirements, and had there been a requirement to fit 22 frames into a fixed price (non negotiable) do you really think Dassault would have competed and then given the price 30% above? They’d either propose a price whithin the acceptable price range or not even bother competing since being priced below what they consider acceptable would mean loosing money

There is always room for negotiations course however there are also limits. And the Swiss clearly want and need a minimum number of a/c.

I think Dassault got two surprises; the first was that the Swiss did not want to stretch the budget as much as Dassault expected when all this started some years ago (perhaps due to the economical crisis which few could predict at that time). The other surprise was that Switzerland would delay this sufficiently to allow a dramatically updated Gripen to be introduced. Dassault probably expected the Gripen C/D to not meet the strict Swiss criteria, however how could they predict that the Swiss would go for the MS21?

Anyway, it’s all politics in the end…