The only off-the-shelf purchase with a publicly disclosed cost for the Gripen E was the Swiss deal where it was priced just under $150 mil/unit. The difference with the Super Hornet (judging from the RAAF’s purchases) isn’t that large.

What you seem to ignore is that Sweden needed a partner to cover the Gripen E development cost; Switzerland decided before Brazil and was therefore going to be that partner; now it’s Brazil instead. Being a “partner” has some advantages, however also one disadvantage, which is that one is expected to cover some R&D costs. Somewhat similar to what the F-35 partners are doing.

In addition: I don’t think Saab uses the concept “LRIP” however it it seems clear that, just like for F-35 the first 100 or so Gripen E will be more expensive than the next 100. Thus one should expect future customers to pay a lower price than what Switzerland would have paid for those very-early productions units (just like those countries who bought into early F-35 LRIP units paid a much higher price than those that ordered later).

There is a lot in Ikea that is contestable in that context. Explicitly when all about their business model is to transfer cost to the customer.

I have watched extensively the scenes of the Grip E assembly and it remains to be seen for me if “Cheap” does not transfer to the same idea.

Training is not cheap, for sure but a perfectly designed assembly process is theoretically made for… chimps. 😉

Very funny.

Brazil is a partner not a regular customer. And in any case, all companies base their whole business on transferring the cost to the customer — who else should cover the costs? Show me a company that that gives away things for free…

!!! What a sad story.

However perhaps not true — read some of the comments. A large number of people are disputing the veracity of the claims.

According to the MoD’s letter to the company, the Gripen NG was found non-compliant with the IAF’s tender requirements on 51 counts, of which 43 relate to the critical Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.nl/2011/05/rejected-mmrca-vendors-fight-to-return.html

Since then has Saab/Selex made a lot of progress with the AESA. Perhaps one of the reasons why Saab think they may have a chance to return to India?

It was very unpopular only in military/strategic circles, and that too when the Rafale seem to be the way to go. The important thing is what the govt thinks. They could probably spin a story for the press if they had to; F-16V >> F-16C/D or something similar. And then drape it all in ‘Make-in-India’ dressing.

I’m not saying that the Pakistan thing is not a factor, just that its not quite as big as it used to be. Especially since the MMRCA was cancelled. Good article on the issue (cross-posting from the IAF thread).

You’re missing the crucial difference between the F-16/SH and Gripen E in the current context. In Brazil, they would have set a new greenfield project to build it locally. Its main appeal in India, on the other hand, is the unique opportunity of snapping up on the cheap, an already existing production line that’s going-out-of-business.

They’re doing something similar with the BAE M777 howitzer acquisition:

In 2010 an FMS notification for the sale of 145 guns was priced at upto $650 mil, which was subsequently revised to $900 mil in 2013. As the Indian govt/MoD continued to dither, the production line in Cumbria ran out of orders and started to shut down in late 2013. The new Modi/Parrikar govt revived the acquisition as part of their ‘Make’ initiative; under the new deal BAE is transferring its production line to Mahindra, a pvt company (though the barrels will continue to be made at a US facility). The cost? $700 million.

I think you are wrong; there is no special “appeal” with an assembly line of a product that is going out of business. Although it may be more attractive than not having an assembly line at all.

Perhaps you believe that moving the SH assembly line and assemble X SH will be cheaper than building a new Gripen assembly line and assembling X Gripen? Look again at what Brazil is paying for their assembly line, including training and 36 Gripen. Compare that to the price of SH without the assembly line.

In addition; although I doubt it, we should not discount the possibility that Saab may suggest to move the existing Gripen assembly line from Sweden to India…. From a cost-effectiveness point of view, that may make more sense, rather than having three assembly lines for such a small product.

True the source isn’t reliable, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the report, for once, is completely authentic. For better or worse, the IAF (even in previous years) doesn’t seem too enthused by the aircraft and I doubt there’d be strong advocacy from a Gripen buy from that quarter. And if its left to the MoD, the F-16 (or even SH) would have a far better chance. Doesn’t have the Gripen E’s new EW system (would rely on podded solutions) but it would be much cheaper to build locally. And where significant numbers are involved, that would take priority for the govt.

It would impinge upon the domestic program. Unlikely to acceptable to a govt on a major indigenization drive.

F-16 AFAIK is very unpopular in India due to the fact that it’s being used by Pakistan.

When it comes to costs I think they will have to look at the total cost, not just a part of the cost.

Don’t forget the SH was competing against Gripen in Brazil — as you would expect Gripen was found to be significantly cheaper. Brazil is probably a good reference point since it includes both an assembly line and TOT. Also operating costs will be much cheaper. SH is a great platform but it remains a big, twin-engine plane, and is not particularly cheap. There is a reason why it has not scored many exports. If they want to go cheap then Gripen is the way to go. … Perhaps IAF would not be very happy, but they are in any case not going to be happy with the final solution, that has been pretty clear for a long time, hasn’t it.

That and the fact the IAF doesn’t seem interested in a Gripen buy – Making Gripen fighters in India not favoured by IAF. No political pluses from the deal either.

They’d have to build a new assembly line first, with all the requisite tooling. In fact, the main appeal of the F-16 & F-18 is that the equipment at Ft. Worth/St. Louis can be shifted to India significantly reducing the capital costs involved.

So.. basically India would be underwriting a Swedish development program. Duplicating the idiocy of the FGFA project. I doubt that plan would get much traction in New Delhi. If it came down to it, it would make much more sense to scrap the MCA entirely and stick to license-building the PAK FA.

Indian news sources are very unreliable, in particular quoting “anonymous sources”. In any case, we all know what the IAF want; at least 126 Rafale. This they will not get, so they have to come up with a plan B.

LCA mk2 would perhaps be in Gripen NG class; but mk1a seems not.

I agree Gripen in India seems like a long shot, but who would have thought that MMRCA would get cancelled and that in end of March 2016 there is still no agreement to buy 36 Rafale?

This is probably old news to many, but for some reason I have not seen this officially stated regarding IRIS-T until now:

Anti-missile capability against incoming A/A
and S/A missiles

http://www.diehl.com/fileadmin/diehl-defence/user_upload/flyer/IRIS-T_e_Eurofighter.pdf

Gripen and other fighters having the IRIS-T then has one “extra” tool in the toolbox to survive. I wonder how efficient it is?