LokeBAE is involved with marketing the Gripen.
BAE owns part of Saab and used to be responsible for Gripen marketing however this changed and I think Saab is now handling the marketing themselves. Also BAE reduced it’s share in Saab.
From Wikipedias page on Gripen:
In 1995, Saab Military Aircraft and British Aerospace or BAe (now BAE Systems) formed the joint venture company Saab-BAe Gripen AB, with the goal of adapting, manufacturing, marketing and supporting Gripen internationally. The deal was to take advantage of BAe’s global marketing experience. BAe designed an improved wing, which they manufactured, producing approximately 45% of export airframes. BAe also saw the Gripen as a complementary product to its existing aircraft, fitting between its Hawk light attack/trainer and the larger Tornado and Typhoon fighters. This cooperation was extended in 2001 with the formation of Gripen International for the same purpose. In December 2004, Saab and BAE Systems agreed that from January 2005 Saab would take full responsibility for marketing of the Gripen in light of Saab’s increased export marketing capabilities.
I have seen some speculations around the fact that Saab was not too happy about losing the Austrian deal to Eurofighter…. BAE was handling that deal on behalf of Saab… The Gripen offer was simply prized too high, at the same time the Austrians got a good offer from the Eurofighter team. For BAE it must have been a win/win situation — either they would make loads of € by selling a cheap plane (Gripen C/D) at a relatively high price, or they would get that important First Typhoon export customer…. The Swedes were probably less happy about the outcome of that deal…
L
LokeAs far as I know the EF number will not be cut, with even 1 partner fully commited to T£ the penalties are to high to justify the cut, the request for pricing options is just to prove that to Grumpy Gordon, and if numbers do get cut after all the things the RAF have put up with to get its full quota I think their might be a riot
Do you happen to know how large the penalties would be if they (in a purely hypotetical situation) should decide to cut? I am just curious…
L
LokeReviewing whether a third Typhoon base is needed also likely reflects uncertainty as to the number of Typhoons the RAF will eventually receive. The four partner nations – Britain, Germany, Italy, and Spain – are trying to conclude the Tranche 3 order by around the end of the year. London has asked for a number of pricing options on airframe numbers, including taking no aircraft from this production run.
So it seems they are even looking into no T3…
To me it seems that the UK DoD is in deep trouble; they had to reduce the number of type 45 frigates from 12 to six, and several other programs are being slashed; At the same time they have decided to purchase two expensive carriers which seems to imply that they will be getting the F-35…therefore I would not be surprised if they try to reduce the number of Typhoon. Iraq and Afghanistan is also very expensive, and it does not help that the UK economy is rather weak at the moment… http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/07/03/afx5180611.html
L
LokeLoke
Be careful with that pdf, it has enough holes that you could pass the Titanic right trough it (you nailed one of the problems, they present numbers who were calculated in diferent way´s). The impossible simmilarity between the “Unit Production Cost” of the RAFALE and Gripen his just one of the errors in that document
There his a lot of official documentation (USAF and US Navy Budget, British NAO Report, etc) from 2007 (the pdf was made in 2006) who clearly shows that the pdf was wrong in several way´s. The Typhoon numbers are wrong, the same applies to the “Lightning II”, etc, etc
When one EU country buy´s fighters to a European firm (France /Dassault by example) the VAT his part of the cost, but that money goes right back to the state in the form of taxation. VAT doesn´t apply to exportations.Cheers
Sintra,
thanks for letting me know. (and thanks for not flaming me, like some experts tend to do when amateurs like me try to contribute 🙂 )
With regards to the specific qoutation for Poland, do you happen to know if that is accurate or not? I did another search and found some other sources e.g. http://www.exportnytt.swedishtrade.se/docfile/6542.doc (search for Gripen) where they refer to an offer of 48 Gripen to Poland “At stake is an order worth some 3.5 bn USD.” I also found the same 3.5Bn USD number on other old articles on this topic. The dubious report I linked to in the previous post said 3.78 bn USD.
L
LokeWhat prices have the C/D been sold at?
L
Sorry I should have googled before asking…
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf
They give the Saab bid to Poland at USD$68.9 million. Gripen International AB says “the fly-away cost of a Gripen in the market is between $35 million
and $40 million.” This was a few years ago so the dollar was presumably much stronger at that time…
I was surprised at the low “unit procurement cost” of Rafale compared to Gripen — perhaps because the Gripen number was calculated in a different manner?
EDIT: I noticed just now that the above report qoutes the offer to Poland on 48 Gripen C/D in 2002, including spare part and support equipment, probably similar to the Norwegian offer but C/D instead of NG: US$3.78 Billion. Now that was in 2002. I cannot remember how the US dollar was at that time compared to today? Although I have a feeling it was a bit stronger than today… OTOH I do not know how VAT will affect all this. Whatever, to me it seems to be roughly in the same ballpark as the Norwegian offer ?
Comments?
L
LokeI know the document and charakteristics. But thanks for the price information, this sounds indeed like system price. Someone else above mentioned the Gripen NG is offered to the same price as the C/D and that’s something I have hard times to believe for the reasons mentioned above.
What prices have the C/D been sold at?
L
LokeWhat is very interesting for me is, that most people seem to assume that the Gripen NG will not be more expensive than the current C/Ds. Honestly I have serious doubts about that. Currently there is no customer for the NG and the question is how much of the Gripen NGs technology will be incorporated into C/Ds via retrofit? It could end up as an island solution which is going to be very costly especially in terms of maintaince and support. The effective range has yet to be proven for the NG as well.
Saab has given a fixed price offer on 48 Gripen NG to Norway, NOK23 billion (approx USD$4.52 billion), i.e. US$94.17 million pr. plane. Sounds expensive, however AFAIK this includes spare parts, training, and 20-year support (no weapons though…). Saab claims their price will be half of F-35, when all costs are included (life-cycle costs).
Ferry range for Gripen NG will be a tad above 4000 km. Keep in mind that the changes will not affect aerodynamics, and the new engine is well known (F-414). Weight increase compared to C/D will be 200kg. I have seen also other ranges (CAP etc.) however I do not remember those figures off-hand. If anything the real ranges may be longer than the currently estimated. I do not think Saab would risk their reputation by giving wrong estimates on such key parameters — they never did in the past… I expect the Saab estimates to be pretty accurate since all parameters are well known at this stage.
Some other parameters: max payload will increase from 5t to 6t; pylons from 8 to 10; internal fuel increase by 40%; it is not clear what the engine thrust will be, it says “> 22,000 lbs” however if you read about the F414 you will get a rough idea of what it can become.
More info here: http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FCB6D4D6-8D7E-4824-B674-4B42B761A7F9/0/GripenNewsDemo_080414_final.pdf
(I know that the link above describes the ‘Gripen Demo’ however the specifications seem identical to what they have presented to Norway).
The Norwegian government has said that they will decide by the end of this year whether they will buy Gripen NG or F-35.
L.
LokeI think the Eurofighter consortium wins by having
– large customer base
– large economical backing (3x as much as the Rafale, probably >10x as the gripen).
It is true that the Typhoon has a larger user base, however, the foundation seems not too solid — UK in particular but also Spain and Italy seems to want to reduce the number of Typhoons, perhaps in part due to the F-35 – Only Germany seems 100% committed. I think one problem they will all face (in addition to F-35) is that many countries in particular in the West, want to scale down their airforces and reduce their number of planes, for many reasons, one being the high costs of modern war systems. In such a scenario Gripen has a big advantage due to its reliance on COTS and modular design. This last sounds like “marketing hype”, however look at how fast Saab developed the NATO-compatible C/D from the original A/B, and in spite of selling very few numbers to SA and Thailand (and leasing a few to Hungary and Czhecia) still manage to make a profit. Now it seems they are doing it again with the NG…
Capability-wise, Eurofighter and Rafale are comparable, the EF2k is a bit more of a performer. However, a nation looking for something in that class both are probable alternatives.
The Gripen will remain a niche product, but is better suited for smaller air forces, and SAAB probably does offer more for smaller customers.
I suspect that the niche for Gripen could become bigger than many seem to assume. With the Gripen NG (offered to Norway, Denmark, India, Brazil etc) the gap to Eurofighter/Typhoon is considerably reduced… Range will be roughly the same as Rafale/Typhoon, payload is less but still “acceptable” (6t, 10 pylons), avionics and networking will be quite sophisticated, IRST and AESA will be available, and the significantly lower price makes it possible for cash-strapped countries (which happen to be most countries these days!) to get the number of aircraft they actually want. Of course Saab first have to succeed in selling it — however I think that if they do get an early “first customer” they may become surprisingly successful — although for only a very short period, until F-35 becomes available to non-partners…
All three will have shortcomings compared to F-35 and I don’t think any of them will be a huge export success, the Eurofighter will not jump the 1000 airframe built mark.
With that in mind (and the attractiveness of the F-15E/SK/K/whatever) the decision to make the T3 a real fighter-bomber is more reasonable, with single/dual seat option (dual seater not just trainer), extra fuel and lots of punch. With Italy and UK already having the F-35, it would largely depend on Germany to pursue an “advanced” Eurofighter.
From the pure airframe/engine combination I think the Eurofighter has most potential.
Agree
L
LokeIt may well have been in third spot.
All I’m pointing out is maybe it was the different expectations of industrial offsets that put it there!!.IMHO Having one of the competitors pull out due to perceived bias is embarrassing for Norway, and having a three way competition is much more healthy than just a two horse race.
I agree that for the competition it is better to have 3 than two. I am not sure however if I agree that it was much of an embarassement to Norway. Some history: It was the previous, pro-American governement that entered the partner agreement with LM on the F-35 development; at that time I don’t think they really wanted to have a competition, they simply wanted to get the US stuff (as always) and being a partner had several advantages. So a contract was signed. Then they lost the next election..the new government was not too happy about the F-35 contract, however it was there already. The new government wanted to have a fair competition and actually worked hard to level the playing field. However you can do only so much… One may ask, why did not Eurofighter invite Norway to become partner, like LM? I have noticed that they have asked India to become partner…
In spite of not becoming a partner in the Eurofighter consortium, Norway still paid Eurofighter milions of dollars in an effort to level the playing field.
Another way to look at this is that a completely fair competition never exist in this field. If you still believe that, then I have some nice bridges to sell you…
Truth is, Eurofighter knew they could not compete against Gripen, that’s why they pulled out. There are still some question marks around F-35 (in particular with regards to price), and even more so when Eurofighter pulled out. With further delays and price increases Eurofighter could have looked more attractive… If anything the fact that Eurofighter decided to give up should be embarrasing to Eurofighter not Norway… Anyway, they got some millions of dollars out of this before they said good by…they could at least have thanked Norway for the money they received. Instead they attacked the governement who had paid them money and walked out.
End of last year there was a documentary on Norwegian television about this story. They were actually allowed to film during several meetings. One of the meetings where they probably should not have filmed (and definitely not shown) one of the Norwegians working on this expressed his concern about Tranche 3, what it might contain and whether it would happen at all… Almost one year later and we see that the Eurofighter consortium still has not decided what will be in T3…
The truth is that Eurofighter could not offer a competitive package, but of course they blame it on “unfair” competition, what else would you expect… that they would say “we cannot deliver a competitive package” ?
It’s not the first time a sore loser blaim it on an “unfair and biased competition” — which they can always do because all fighter competions are unfair and biased. LOL.
L
LokeAfter 40 years dealing with Turkey, i can tell you that nobody will send his men to die for you. Theoretically NATO should come running for your support, but i wouldn’t count on it. Meaning, NATO does what USA wants. Will USA risk open conflict with Russia over Norway? I doubt it. You can hope for material help and “warnings”, “bold statement of support” etc.
Do you think this would be the case even in case of a full-scale invasion of Norway? If yes, it basically means that NATO is already starting to dissolve? I did not know it was that bad… For small-scale conflicts, which is what we may face with Russia in the north, I can imagine that NATO (i.e., US) would not want to get involve but if Russia invades Norway with no reaction from NATO then NATO would lose all credibility. Are you telling me this has happened already? Greece and Turkey is a very special situation since you are both NATO members, and that would be a difficult situation to deal with in any case.
I am not sure that NATO has already become irrelevant — why then is Russia reacting so strongly to the NATO eastwards expansion? I read this morning that Russia yesterday threatened to stop doing business and shut down gas to Ukraine if they go ahead and enter NATO. Does not make sense unless NATO is credible? Or am I missing something?
If you ask me, get into the EU as soon as possible. It would increase your political shield somewhat. Guess why Cyprus wanted to get into EU… In the long run, your best policy should be get into the EU, hope that EU will unite really and have common foreign and defence policy and keep until then the Russians at check with deterrence, meaning, convince them that their casualties would be too high compared to their possible gains.
Completely agree. Alas, many Norwegians want to be independent from Brussels. I can understand some of their sceptisism but on the other hand, in the current situation we should enter EU as soon as possible.
I don’t know well what’s exactly the problem with Russia you have over there, but unless your nordic cousins are directly threatened too, i wouldn’t count on them sending their men to die either. And since as well said, Russia is a major energy exporter towards Europe, the european countries will be very divided. Probably if Russia was to decide to lay hands on resources in Barents sea, it won’t attempt an invasion of Norway. Simply a mini-war, just enough to shoot down your airforce and humiliate your army in the border, dragging you to a negotiation table, where you will be forced to make concessions that you wouldn’t do normally. It’s similar to our scenario, with the difference that Turks want soil too.
Sweden and Finland are not members of NATO and therefore feel a bit isolated, in particular these days with a more assertive and aggressive Russia. Many politicians in both countries want to enter NATO however they face a stiff opposition against this. To them, a nordic alliance could perhaps be an alternative — being non-aligned is increasingly difficult, it becomes too expensive for small countries. Also, if Russia should start to flex its muscles towards Norway that’s uncomfortably close to both Finland and Sweden.
I think you are right that Russia would not invade mainland Norway — what they want is the oil and gas in the sea, thus no need to invade Norway.
Norways current strategy is to collaborate with the Russians. Due to 30+ years of oil explorations in the North sea we have a lot of know-how in this field. Russia has the two options: Collaborate and negotiate, or become aggressive and take what they want. Norway needs to make the “collaborations” option as attractive as possible and at the same time make the “aggression” option as unacttractive as possible. Anyway, it could develop into a nasty situation.
L
LokeFor now it might I say. But nobody can ignore the best air-to-air fighter of the bunch, if the requirement for air superiority exists. And as I said, it will really depend on how Norway sees the situation with Russia.
The F-35 will clearly be the best choice for attack missions up in the Ishavet, but it’s not a fighter. And if the situation requires real a/a capability the EF2k might be in again very fast. I mean, we are talking something like 15 to 20 years here.
Unfortunately that’s not how the Norwegian government sees it… Cost seems to be a big factor. If Norway buys F-35 or Gripen I think there is a good chance we will get the 48 planes that our Air Force asks for. With the higher price tag of EF we may get only 36 or so… However in any case; do you really think that in a conflict with Russia that 36 EF would make a difference versus 48 Gripen or F-35?
Perhaps this is the rationale behind going for one of the cheaper options; in any case it will not make a difference when facing the Russian military machine. We would need a dramatic increase in defence spending, probably to Greek levels, in order to have a credible defence force on our own… Building alliances seems to be the choice of the Norwegian government. For a traditional invasion we’ve got NATO. When it comes to a potential conflict in the Barents sea, I don’t know… Perhaps Sweden will rescue us? Norway is trying to build a nordic defence alliance with Sweden Finland and possibly Denmark, not as a substitute but a supplement to NATO.
If such an alliance should be implemented (and that’s a big if) it could talk in favor of choosing Gripen, on the other hand it could also favor F-35 since the nordic countries would then have the mix of a2a and a2g planes that could be beneficial. Another way of getting this mix could be to let Denmark buy the F-35 and Norway and Sweden operate Gripen. The Danish government is more keen on the F-35 than the Norwegian government it seems… Anyway the Norwegian decision will be announced by the end of this year, the same timeframe as the Thorvald Stoltenberg report…
L.
LokeAnd then the EF2k. Multirole T3 is nice, but in my mind EADS should always keep a dedicated air superiority version, since except the F-22 there are no pure fighters in the West any more. And that might also be an export chance. Multirole-EF2k is like a “can also do” machine, invented to keep it viable for the consortium nations. Of which all except Germany will also fly the F-35 (inshallah).
Does Spain have any plans of buying F-35s? I did not know this…
Regarding Switzerland and Norway: In contrast to Switzerland Norway might actually have a need for some real armed forces, in case Russia becomes more active in the North. Apart from Canada there is no other country with so much disputed territory up there. And though I’m sceptic (like 66%) about a shooting war, there might be some pretty hairy ops up there against the Russians. Norway would (probably) not be alone, but a split EF2k for air superiority and F-35 for attack might be interesting. And Switzerland would be quite well served with Gripen NG as their only supersonic plane.
Eurofighter is out of the race… In theory it may be a possibility to go for a mix of Gripen NG and F-35. However given the sorry state of affair of the Norwegian armed forces I don’t think that will happen. Norways armed forces is in a terrible squeeze, with costs cuts and reductions every year. However due to the dramatically increased Russian military activity probably the situation will improve, from 2010 and onwards…
L
LokeThe “new aircraft” project IMHO, should be examined for 40 EF or Gripen NG for the same money and in 2012-2014 make the F-35 order.
When would you expect to get the F-35?
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/July/F-35fact.htm
Once the line ramps up to full-rate production — possibly as early as 2016 — the company estimates it will assemble about 21 fighters per month, or roughly one aircraft per working day.
Presumably the partners will get their F-35 first…on the other hand, with such a large scale production you probably would not have to wait for too many years after 2016…
L
LokeIf it gets CAESAR and Conformal tanks then it is very looking good till the JSF arrives, if Eurofighter Tranche 3 is completely canceled (very very unlikely) then things look a bit grim… but If the JSF is delayed and/or the price goes up (very likely) then further exports and enhancements will follow, especially anti shipping weapons in which there seems to be a bit of a hole in its offerings….
Norway was to be involved with that area but things changed:( The Norway situation deserves a thread all of its own, they seem to have painted themselves into a corner.
When the Eurofighter team pulled out of Norway they were invited back in again by our DoD, but probably not in a completely convincing manner. In Norway, like in many other places, it’s much more than the capabilities of the fighter that decides what we will go for; it seems the Norwegian DoD did not find the Eurofighter offer sufficiently attractive. I do not agree we have painted ourselves into a corner. The two remaining alternatives are both extremely capable.
Gripen is currently at block 18; it is being upgraded continually. There is a good chance Norway will pick it because it meets all our requirements, is cheaper than the competition and also very important to our government, the Swedes offer an industrial package which is considerably better than both the US and the Eurofighter team.
If Norway buys Gripen NG there is a distinct possibility that also Denmark will do the same.
I have spent a lot of time studying the Gripen, and there are some numbers that don’t add up. This has lead me to believe that the NG will be significantly more capable than what is commonly assumed and officially communicated. Of course it could be that I am wrong and that the official numbers really are correct. For instance official numbers would give a TW ratio of 1.06, well within the range of the EF (1.08)
Gripen will never sell in large numbers but since it has been designed in a very economical manner it does not need to sell in large number to give a low price to the end user. Contrast this to the hugely expensive development of the Eurofighter and F-35, and (to a lesser extent) the Rafale. Saab picks and choose high performance but still relatively low-priced components like the GE F-414 engine. There are two of those in each Superhornet, this has lowered the price of that engine a lot.
L.
LokeYes, but it will have to convince HAF that it can fare better than EF and Rafale and this includes the future too. An aircraft, in order to have “successful” future and good cost-effectiveness, must do exports. Otherwise it becomes obsolete or costs too much. If i have to quote a greek member who insists that he has “inside info from HAF”, the Mirage, although is appreciated for specific characteristics and weapons, nowdays, is too costly compared to F16. Because french missiles cost much more, spare parts the same, the upgrade of 2000 to 2000-5 requires 28 mln euros per plane (this is almost half a Block52+) and in HAF don’t want to see the history repeated again, only worse, given the unsuccessful export efforts of the Rafale compared to Mirage. He also claims that simply put, in order to intercept turkish planes today, it much more convenient to send F16s instead of Mirage, because of the different costs.
Now, take all this with the usual grain of salt, but that french weapons and upgrade to 2000-5 is quite costly, is a fact. And the reason for high costs, is exactly because the exports and thus mass production is limited. Now, take all this and apply it to Gripen…
Yes, exactly, not just the initial price is to be considered. That’s why the HAF committee is set to do long term study on the Sarko’s proposed deal. The issue is, that HAF won’t settle with just “an economic solution”. The primary concern of HAF is the best way to deal with the turkish F35s. HAF isn’t going to ask for a plane just because it’s cheap, if thinks that will be the least probable to have success against the F-35. Politicians can worry about the money much better than HAF, it’s their job after all.
As i said, there are only rumours. I can’t say what HAF offers are or the evaluations are.
HAF is looking for an aircraft which will be more likely to take on F35 and in the worst case scenario that won’t be able to, at least to be a very capable F-16 killer.
The first version of Gripen (A/B) was AFAIK only sold to Sweden. The second version (C/D) has so far been exported in very small numbers to SA and Thailand (and Leased to Tscheckia and Hungary); in spite of this the price has been surprisingly low… Saab has been extremely good at picking components and bundling in a package which is cheap and easy to upgrade — COTS is a keyword. Think PC versus the “old” way of building computers that were extremely expensive both to buy and maintain. I would not worry about Gripens future… also look at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/047zojsh.asp
Of course you would need the capabilities; however I do believe that Gripen C/D and also the NG will have the needed capabilities. I will even claim Gripen would offer the best tactics to deal with F-35!!!
Before you think I am completely crazy please read on a few more sentences…
The way I see it, none of the mentioned fighters will stand a good chance in a 1-1 with the F-35 due to its VLO and excellent sensors. However it will have some weak points… To win against the F-35 (assuming no access to F-22) I suggest you need to go for quantity and not quality. It will be dirty and ugly, but it should work. A very simplified and unrealistic example: Assume your opponent is sending 100 F-35s at you. In such a scenario, would you prefer meet him with 75 EF or 150 Gripen NG? Keep in mind that the F-35 has a very limited internal storage and can bring few missiles; also I strongly belive that the kill rate for BVR when attacking a 4.5 gen fighter will be much lower than what some people claim… My point is that in any case you will suffer heavy losses however with 75 EF you will lose (almost) all your fighters, with 150 Gripen the 100 F-35 will not have enough missiles to take them all out. Guess what happens when the remaining F-35 tries to escape, moving slowly towards their home base, hot engines facing the remaining Gripens?
I think this is the (only) way to defeat the F-35 using 4. or 4.5 gen fighters.
You may argue that for such a tactic one would not need Gripen NG; one could use one of the late blocks F-16. I agree and I would recommend to Greece (not that I think anybody in power would listen 🙂 to actually forget about both Rafale and EF and instead concentrate on choosing between F-16 and Gripen, and buy them in large numbers. Gripen would have an advantage in that your opponent would not know it whereas he knows the strenghts and weaknesses of F-16 very well. Also the maintainance and upgrade of Gripen is generally cheaper than for F-16. You could buy a mix of C/D (available today) and NG. The Gripen for Norway will be available in 2015 because that’s what Norway asks for; if Greece asks for a Greec NG earlier they will get it. The changes to the airframe are after all quite minimal and testing is well underway.
F-35 is a game-changer however there are ways to change the game back…
L.
Sign In
