Spitfire9Gripen NG price is around 125 mln $ per unit. Now compare it to 7.5 bln $ for 36 SH.
I think you are saying Gripen E unit price = deal price / no of aircraft. The unit production cost of Gripen E should be below $70. In other words if Brazil decided to buy 37 Gripen E instead of 36 the contract price should increase by less than $70 million.
Spitfire9@halo, @eagle thanks for listing some of Gripen’s advantages over the heavier twins
I however disagree with your perception that the Sea Gripen’s chances of being built are now “not probable, but..”..IMO, they are now “probably, maybe if..” where in you fill the constraints into the blanks. The best chance that Embraer has of actually being involved in the design and development and testing of a fighter (before they look at a next generation fighter possibly) are likely with the Sea Gripen. They can be involved from the get-go, frame the requirements and actually own the IP alongwith SAAB.
But SAAB announced they had completed the design of a possible Sea Gripen version earlier this year so I don’t see how Embraer could contribute to the design if the job has alrready been done. As to the probability of it being developed and built, if anyone can do that without it costing a fortune and greatly increasing the price compared to terrestrial Gripen, it is SAAB.
Spitfire9The Saudis have been making payments towards the cost of UK assembly. From what I’ve gleaned, it looks as if the areas not yet settled are exactly how much the Saudis should pay BAe for the assembly work which was scheduled to be done in SA but is now being done by BAe in the UK
Sounds about right to me – as the client you fail to do what you were supposed to do thus making it impossible for the contract to be observed by the supplier (short of BAE delivering kits for 48 aircraft to be stored in warehouses somewhere in Saudi Arabia). In order to actually get the 72 Typhoons assembled, BAE has to do it – which was not in the contract, so the cost of doing this was not agreed.
Spitfire9So, UAE… First Gulf F-35 Customer? 😉
If they refuse Rafale because of the cost then state that they do not wish to order Typhoon (IMO probably because of the cost) I don’t see them choosing to order an even more costly aircraft.
Spitfire9Looks good. And you can plug a USB memory stick into the end of the flight deck!
Spitfire9Seems its over in UAE, but it could be another move like they did for RAfale 2 years ago…
http://otp.investis.com/generic/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=288&newsid=382532
From the BAE Systems release:
BAE Systems and the UK Government have been in discussions with the Government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) regarding a range of defence and security capabilities including the potential supply of Typhoon aircraft. The UAE have advised that they have elected not to proceed with these proposals at this time.
Same as they said to Dassault? “You are too expensive…” Next stop Boeing?
BAE Systems and the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are actively engaged in negotiations regarding settlement of contractual pricing obligations under the Government to Government Salam Typhoon agreement.
This mess was, I think, caused by the Saudi side wanting local assembly for 48 of the Typhoons they ordered. I think BAE Systems will have ordered the parts for 48 aircraft only to discover that in fact Saudi Arabia had let them down by failing to take steps to organise local assembly. I don’t suppose there will be any follow on order unless this mess is sorted out to Saudi Arabia’s satisfaction.
In my experience of dealing in Arabia some buyers were pukka businessmen. Others could be astonishingly incompetent and unreliable, fail to do things properly or fail to do them on time and then turn round and blame the supplier (who had done exactly what was in the contract) for all the problems that ensued. I don’t envy the BAE Systems guys who presumably are now having to try to resolve the problems.
Spitfire9Competitors love talking about Gripen as inferior, and in some aspects it is indeed true but there are also many very important areas outside the pure cost where it is superior to the competitors including SH and Rafale.
Genuine enquiry this (because I don’t know the answer): disregarding price and operating cost in what ways is Gripen superior to SH and Rafale?
Spitfire9One question : it looks like the Gripen E is some kind of a true “open source” fighter which appeared to be a great asset for Brazil and Switzerland and arguably helps to further bring down the cost of this single engine lightweight jet.
With Brazil (and Switzerland ?) having a share in the program, The engine being from the US, the radar and IRST being italo-british, the EW coming from Israel and so on…Which value/share of the contract and intellectual property is going to SAAB/Sweeden ?
Perhaps SAAB sees its future more as a designer cum systems integrator. European labour costs are high. To me it would make sense to shift assembly to a lower cost location (eg Brazil).
I think it was said that an order of min. 60 a/c was required to make it viable, and we can also see support of this on orders.
On sub-systems, i think it would be roughly the same, a minimum of roughly 60 IRST units for the company providing that sub-system to profit after research are deducted, and so on.
A contract with Brazil should bring useful economies of scale. Over time I would see Brazil going from 3 existing fighter types to just 1 and Brazil possibly becoming the biggest Gripen E operator. It is a very large country so while Gripen E may be far more capable than F-5 and AMX I don’t see these being replaced on a 1:2 basis (for example like Holland replacing its F-16 aircraft with F-35). I guess that 75+ aircraft might be required to replace the 100 or so fighters Brazil has been operating from bases around the country.
Spitfire9From a question and answer session with the Brazilian Ministry of Defence:
(Source: Brazilian Ministry of Defense; issued Dec. 18, 2013)
(Issued in Portuguese only; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)
8 – What is the function of the new fighters in the context of the Brazilian air defense?
The primary task of the FAB, in the broader context of national defense, is to maintain sovereignty over national airspace to defend the country and to prevent the use of national airspace for hostile acts contrary to national interests. To accomplish this task, the Air Force must have the capacity to monitor, control and protect of airspace with the capabilities of detection, interception and destruction that implies. The Gripen NG fighters are supersonic airplanes that fulfill several missions, such as interception, interdiction and eventual destruction of targets that can undermine national sovereignty. The aircraft are designed for use in air-to-air, air-to-sea and air-to-ground missions. They are also equipped with an in-flight refueling system that will allow the defense of the airspace in even the most remote parts of Brazil.
Sounds like Gripen E has the qualities needed by the Brazilian military. Why pay more for the greater capability offered by F/A-18 or Rafale if Gripen’s capability is seen as sufficient?
Spitfire9So where does this leave the Brazilian navy? Is there much lifetime left on their Skyhawks? Will they remain relevant for much longer?
SAAB set up a small design centre in the UK to complete their preliminary Sea Gripen design. It was reported to have completed the design earlier this year. If Brazil wanted Sea Gripen, too, would 4-5 years from go ahead not be sufficient time to for SAAB to get it into production?
Spitfire9And if you set the 39E and F-35 side by side, it’s rather obvious to the meanest intelligence that one is a “fighter” in the way we have understood that term since the 1960s, and the other is a marginally supersonic-dash-capable bomber with some self-defense capability.
Oh dear! I await innumerable responses from the F-35 lobby claiming that Gripen E would be completely outclassed by F-35 in A2A.
Spitfire9The full story on Flight Global regarding the Brazilian Gripen NG purchase, written by ME! 🙂
Congratulations/parabens!
Spitfire9Precisely. The F-35’s ‘unproven’ status is hardly an indictment of its effectiveness vis a vis the Eurocanards.
Indeed so we have to fall back on opinion which appears to rank the Eurocanards above F-35 in A2A. Right? Wrong? It is unlikely we will ever know since it is unlikely that these aircraft will ever confront each other in anger, using everything at their disposal to win in the confrontation.
Spitfire9I’m sorry.. have the Eurofighter and Rafale proven their worth in air-to-air combat?
I do not think that either have ever been in a combat theatre with enemy fighters still active in which case the opportunity to show their abilities against real opposition has not arisen.
Spitfire9Agreed totally. While myself being more attracted to Raffie purely by the looks of it, the Tyffie is a fine bird, especially admirable in A-A.
Would a new stealthy airframe with Typhoon systems too much to ask from BAe?
Yes, much too much to ask. Who would be in the market to buy it post 2020? Germany, Italy, Spain, UK would not buy it and I think that pretty much all other potential buyers would have re-equipped their air forces with new fighters in the period 2005-2020.
Sign In
