Gripen seminar

– Gripen E rollout 2016

– Mid-2015 target for Brazil contract to become effective

– First Gripen E delivery to Swedish air force 2019

– production learning curve to optimal production reduced from 180 aircraft to 30

– new aircraft development time reduced from 15-20 years to as little as 5 years for SAAB thanks to model-based design and development system

– Gripen E programme on schedule and on budget. Limiting factor is payment milestones (SAAB do not move forward to do further unfunded work if ahead of schedule)

– Bulgaria showing interest in Gripen (I presume C/D)

– Slovakia timescale: aim is to agree a deal this year (C/D)

“India will overall spend around $25 billion on the FGFA project if it goes ahead with its plan to induct 127 such fighters, as earlier reported by TOI.

Meanwhile, India is ready to forego the earlier plan for a 50:50 design and work-share agreement with Russia on its under-development FGFA called PAK-FA or Sukhoi T-50.”

What’s going on? India neither co-designs nor co-develops the FGFA but pays $25 billion for 127 aircraft… not that I can see how there could much work to do designing the FGFA since the T-50 has already been designed.

Nope, i took the same price Norway should have payed so its a medium price including systems surrunding such a buy.

But that was nearly 7 years ago and the price was for a package including 48 aircraft (so supporting systems would be a lower proportion of the cost than for a package including 24 aircraft).

I suppose that we will have to wait and see if SAAB makes an offer to another country to get an idea of current Gripen E price for a straighforward purchase, which was not the situation in Switzerland or Brazil.

@Maurobaggio
“I guess that losing a contract of US$ 3.6 billion could be very funny, after all the Chinese must be laughing a lot about this funny side.”

There where never a contract. And the price would have been around 1.3b$ since Argentina arn’t a developer country. (look at my earlier post.)

Saab jumped in their chairs when the question came….

The flyaway cost of 24 Gripen E would be a little more, perhaps but then there would the cost of a simulator, initial spares, training mechanics, training some pilots before aircraft were received, manuals etc in the contract. Nowhere near US$ 3.6 billion but certainly a lot more than US$ 1.3 billion IMO.

I think the Gripen NG is a cool plane and will no doubt serve its operators well. I do find some of the claims made about its performance and cost amusing though.

The Swedish situation seems to be very strange. The government seems to expect SAAB to design and build fighter aircraft at the cost agreed between themselves and SAAB. SAAB seems to accept this strange way of handling procurement in contrast to how many other contractors in other countries prefer to operate – they do not feel bound to design and build fighter aircraft at the cost agreed with their government. I find it amusing that the Swedes should do things in such an unusual way when many governments are quite prepared to be taken for a ride by the contractors they choose to use.

One of the funny side effects of the disciplined approach adopted in Sweden is that costs are kept low. Claims of low costs may amuse some people but low costs are hardly surprising, really.

Gripen E is even cheaper due to the much cheaper engine and better composites (among many other things).

What about the Gripen E AESA? Is it more expensive to buy than the conventionial radar it will supercede? IIRC AESA’s are cheaper to maintain, being fault tolerant (loss of T/R modules does not stop it working) so overall does AESA reduce Gripen lifetime cost as well as increasing capability?

By the way, I read in a link somewhere here that at the time of the article being written in 2013, the first Gripen E was scheduled to fly in 2015. Anyone know if that is still scheduled, please?

The Rafale went IOC 13 years after its first flight and could finally self designate a LGB 17 years after its first flight.

The F-35 will go IOC in 2015, 9 years after its first flight, and will be able to self designate LGBs from day one.

Of course around here people complain that the F-35 program is moving slowly. :rolleyes:

I think that what matters to the body awarding a contract is that the contractor does the job to provide the capability required at the cost agreed at the time agreed. If France (the principal where Rafale is concerned) required the aircraft to have A2A capability initially and that was what was provided by Dassault, I do not see that doing what was asked was in any way a failure by Dassault.

LM, on the other hand, seems to have failed to deliver what was contracted on time and on cost. Over and over. That is not only a headache to the USA (the principal) eg where is our A-10 replacement? where is our F-18 replacement? but also to its other customers eg where is our F-111 replacement? or where is our F-16 replacement? or the cost has risen so much we can no longer afford it. The chaotic unreliability of LM has caused major headaches for several countries. I think people around here would be ignoring reality if they did not complain that the F-35 program was moving slowly.