TonnycNot sure but IMO this is simply a completely unreliable trash-report … why on earth should Argentina buy Su-24 ??? For what !?
For those not familiar with UK tabloids, The Daily Express is a tabloid similar to The Daily Mail. They are not reliable news source. Trash-report is a good description.
TonnycPlease fix your table, Gripen NG is now officially limited to about 5 tonnes (weapons weight). See previous post citing Saab PDF :
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?116825-Saab-Gripen-amp-Gripen-NG-thread-3&p=2163982#post2163982
Because : 16.5 ton. MTOW – 8.0 ton. empty mass – 3.4 ton. internal fuel = 5.1 ton. of external load.
This is a misinterpretation of what constitutes a limit. Nothing stops a Gripen from carrying 7 tons of external load (assuming the structure and pylons are build to handle that load). It just means that it needs to take off with less internal fuel. There might be circumstances where a reduced range is acceptable, but if not, aerial refueling can fill the tanks once airborne.
No guys from Saab will show up at the hangar and say “stop, you are officially prohibited from doing that”. Air forces and airlines all over the world fly with less than a full tank. Sometimes they even do this in order to be able to carry more cargo/passengers.
TonnycThis information is from 2012 or 2009 :Sweden’s SEK 16.4 billion ($2.5 billion) price tag for 60 Gripen E
With this amount every Gripen E would have a unit cost of the US$ 42 Millions, in the meantime I have another number in which each Gripen E for the Royal Swedish Air Force would have a unit cost during the life cycle of the Gripen E that could reach $ 225 Million.
Comparative Table Sweden / Brazil / Switzerland
width: 500 class: grid align: center [tr] [td][/td] [td]Type[/td] [td]Number of Gripen NG[/td] [td]Amount of Contract (Billions)[/td] [td]Unit Cost (millions)[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Sweden[/td] [td]Gripen E[/td] [td]60[/td] [td]Us$ 13.5[/td] [td]US$ 225[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Brazil[/td] [td]Gripen E/F[/td] [td]36[/td] [td]Us$ 5.4[/td] [td]US$ 150[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Switzerland[/td] [td]Gripen E[/td] [td]22[/td] [td]US$ 3.297[/td] [td]US$ 150[/td] [/tr] Under the conditions of the Royal Sweden Air Force the entire program would cost US $ 13.5 billion in the period 2023-2043, and this cost would include: flyaway cost, logistics, training and weapon systems.
As you can observe the comprehensiveness of the costs for Gripen E in Sweden would be greater than the proposed contracts for Brazil and Switzerland so far.
Both numbers could be correct, but with sure those values do not correspond to the same requirements, just the the case of Brazil to Switzerland, that despite the requirements are very different the values for each Gripen NG are almost equal.
Just for information: the value of the contract that I put on the table for Switzerland is from 2012 and not 2009.
Comparative Table Brazil / Switzerland
width: 500 class: grid align: center [tr] [td][/td] [td]Type[/td] [td]Number of Gripen NG[/td] [td]Amount of Contract (Billions)[/td] [td]Unit Cost (millions)[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Brazil[/td] [td]Gripen E/F[/td] [td]36[/td] [td]Us$ 5.4[/td] [td]US$ 150[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Switzerland[/td] [td]Gripen E[/td] [td]22[/td] [td]US$ 3.297[/td] [td]US$ 150[/td] [/tr] By the same unit cost from Switzerland the Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:
- a new production line that will be installed in Brazil
- development of the new Gripen F in Brazil
- financial resources to keep the production line in Brazil with rate of the 3 aircraft’s per year for five years
If the Government of Brazil has already has all the information as you are sure that these were not already disclosed?
You also have some ‘proof to say this’, or you are just like most of us just only trying to understand the facts here and obtain the news.
In my humble opinion there is nothing unusual to sign a contract and then find out some points that were not very detailed so far.
Such as the contract were signed for delivery of 36 Gripen E / F by 2024, but now there are several references that has been mentioning that will be 108 Gripen E / F to be acquired.
If during the competition that lasted 18 years that would be mentioned that the total of fighters to be acquired would be 108 instead from 36 the result would be same?
In my humble opinion would be: Yes
Wow, you are a very excellent wonderful person full of insight. Please contact the nearest Brazilian official and turn all this information to them so they can fix their program according to your superb wisdom. I am sorry I can not do that, I have a few very important anime to watch this weekend. Please consider running for president, as Brazil sorely need your genius. No, wait, bring back the monarchy and crown you emperor, as you deserve no less. Have a fun weekend.
TonnycWhy would a better comparison be with the Swedish internal order for Gripen Es (all rebuilt IIRC) and not the cost quoted to the Swiss for the Gripen? The latter would logically be a closer estimate to the price paid by an export customer.
Swiss wanted a lot of the same things that Brazil wanted, although not all of them. For example, Swiss wanted their parts used in the Gripen E. Not just the ones that they buy, but all Gripen E, including future ones. They got some technology transfer, though limited only to the parts they will make (arguably they don’t need nor care for a complete tech transfer). Their industrial offset was supposed to be 100%. They originally wanted assembly to be done in Switzerland, but later they said that would be too expensive and compromised, and final assembly was to be done in Sweden but RUAG employees would be part of the team. It was said that Saab will lobby the Swedish Air Force for the purchase of Pilatus trainers in return. There are probably other things I forget at the moment.
In short, the Swiss procurement had a lot in common with Brazil’s. The Swedish Air Force procurement on the other hand is more a “bare bones” purchase. BlackArcher’s contention is that the aircraft is not affordable, and to try and prove his point he insists on using the Brazilian and Switzerland numbers, conveniently ignoring the fact that those numbers include a lot of things that are not aircraft. A different customer who does not want tech transfer, big industrial offsets, parts production, etc. will see a very different set of numbers. One that is closer to the Swedish Air Force numbers.
Edit: looks like VNomad disagrees with me. Oh, well.
TonnycDon’t be silly. Obviously the Brazilian govt and FAB knew have access to data that we don’t, and that has been factored in when making the decision to sign the deal. But that doesn’t change anything. The contract cost is high, however much spin you may try to put on it.
This is not a 5th gen fighter we’re talking about. It is a derivative of an existing 4th gen fighter. And it is a decidedly light to medium weight single engined fighter, not a medium to heavy weight twin engine like the Rafale or Super Hornet which cost more to manufacture and correspondingly bring more heft, capabilities and range vs payload.
So, while just dividing the total program cost by the units purchased to arrive at a flyaway cost figure that one can assign to a Gripen E may not be correct, the plain fact is that the total program cost is high.
I’m not confusing affordable and cheap. I know what they mean. But when 36 units of a type with some ToT cost you $5.4 billion (almost certainly without weapons included) then one must understand that very few nations in the world can even afford a couple of squadrons of such aircraft. That is relatively unaffordable for many nations that would have been possible Gripen E customers. And that was the USP of the Gripen- a western fighter, cheaper to buy and operate than even late model F-16s. That is clearly no longer the case.
And calling something relatively affordable must take into account the capabilities it brings as well. Those fighters that are relatively unaffordable when compared to the Gripen E (Rafale,Typhoon and even the Super Hornet), bring in relatively greater capabilities, as was clear by the Swiss evaluation results, which factored in the Gripen NG eventually.
And you claim not to cherrypick your data….
Brazil’s Gripen NG procurement cost $5.4 billion for 36 aircrafts because, among other things, Brazil wants the technology transfer, domestic production, marketing rights for South America, use of Brazilian components when possible, etc. Those are what’s expensive. More than the actual aircrafts. If Brazil wants just the aircraft without all those, a better comparison would be Sweden’s SEK 16.4 billion ($2.5 billion) price tag for 60 Gripen E. This info is all over the place. If you don’t know it then you haven’t done your research and if you know it but ignored it then you are being deliberately obtuse.
Bringing up the Swiss 2009 evaluation is not a good tactic on your part, as the reason it was selected, in the words of Switzerland’s Federal Council, “With the Gripen, the Federal Council decided on a fighter aircraft that meets the military requirements, but also medium and long term for the VBS and the army is affordable because it is much cheaper not only in procurement than the other two planes but also in operating costs. The decision for the Gripen offers a guarantee that a high-performance combat aircraft can be obtained, without compromising other areas of the army and the necessary equipment.“ (well, fine, it was Google Translate, so it’s possible there’s a translation error) If you are willing to take the word of Swiss authorities for the evaluation, why aren’t you willing to take their word on their acceptance? What if I tell you that the Société Suisse des Officiers voted unanimously to support the law funding the Gripen procurement? Again, the information is widely disseminated. If you don’t know it then you haven’t done your research and if you know it but ignored it then you are being deliberately obtuse.
Again, you don’t have all the data. The Brazilian government does. They are the ones who get to decide what’s affordable for them. Not you. If you want to decide that the Gripen is not affordable to you, that’s fine, but that only holds for you, not for Brazil.
I am sure you will continue finding some other “proof” that you are correct and everyone else, including the Brazilian government and Air Force and industry leaders and the same folks from Switzerland are wrong. Well, if that’s how you get your fun, you have a fun weekend now.
TonnycI’m not cherry picking any data whatsoever. I’m using the total program cost versus the number of aircraft being acquired to state that the Gripen is by no means, an affordable fighter. That’s all.
You claim that there isn’t enough data to jump to conclusions so in a way you are stating that there may be more to it than meets the eye, so far..but there is nothing to back that up either.
So on what basis can you suggest that a program cost of $150 million per Gripen (assuming its not just acquisition cost) makes it affordable?
On the basis that Brazil signed the contract? I am sorry, do you have some data that the Brazilian government does not have?
Brazilians with more expertise and more experience and access to far more data than you and me pored through the deal. They decided to sign it. I assume that they know what they are doing. You on the other hand, obviously don’t, since you believe that they somehow missed the fact that $5.4 billion divided by 36 equals $150 million.
You probably somehow conflated affordable with cheap. Don’t. And keep in mind that both terms are relative and subjective.
TonnycIf you want to do a test, I suggest you invite a bunch of Swedes for a simple lunch, after all the Swedes I have met were extremely polite and funny, but when the bill comes you tell me what happened.
I’m just suggesting this test, so do not send me the bill.
If you invite someone it’s considered polite to pay the bill. After all, you invited them, not the other way around. I fail to see what this test shows, other than maybe you have a different definition of polite and expect the people you invited to pay for your meal. In that case, may I invite you to lunch, Mr. Maurobaggio? I know this excellent Chinese restaurant that does a great Peking Duck. Their price is reasonable too, so I’m sure it will not burden your pocket unduly.
TonnycTonnyC I think it was, who was trying to defend the cost of the program..it is undoubtedly a costly acquisition, although we all agree that the specifics of the program aren’t very clear as yet.
I said you can’t just divide the package cost with the number of units and conclude anything from the resulting number. You said you know that already. I later elaborated that we have no idea what is in the package, and you concurred. Yet despite agreeing with me on those two critical points you then ignore them both and still insist on saying that it’s too costly, conveniently ignoring others who have brought up data regarding the cost of Rafale and F-18.
Here’s the difference between your position and mine, in summary:
Yours: You have decided apriori that Brazil’s Gripen acquisition is too expensive and is cherrypicking data to support your decision.
Mine: We don’t have enough data to decide. Let’s not jump into conclusions.
Yours: Tonnyc didn’t support me, therefore he’s defending the cost of the program.
TonnycYes I know you cannot do that. But perhaps we could find out what this package consists of to make the costs so high. And what do you mean by “conclude anything from the resulting number”? This $5.4 billion is as high a figure as was being talked about for Rafales!
We’ll have to wait until Brazil and Saab see fit to release the details, but it will be hard to tell how much go to what. We know that it must include some logistical support, but we don’t know how much and how long, for example. We know that it includes some IP, but I don’t think we’ll ever know how the IP is priced, etc. We currently have no idea how much weaponry is included there. Etc.
So you say that that it was as high as Rafale’s offer. It is also higher than the supposed $4.5 billion that FAB originally said. FAB says that it’s due to negotiations regarding updates in the design, but they are not saying what those updates are. Do we know what the updates are? We don’t. Do we know whether Rafale would need those updates had it been chosen? We don’t know because we don’t know what those updates are. If Rafale ends up needing those updates, how much will the price go up? We don’t know, because we don’t know what those updates are. If we don’t know about the details we can’t really say much about the cost beyond “that’s a lot of money” and that isn’t very useful, because it isn’t about whether it’s a lot of money or not (defense isn’t cheap, it always requires a lot of money), but what Brazil is getting for that money.
Mind you, I would love it if Brazil gives us more details. That’s why I check this thread every day.
Tonnycthat unit cost is truly staggering! Found it hard to believe that Brazil agreed to pay $5.4 billion for 36 Gripens with some ToT and help in setting up a separate assembly line. Even taking into account the costs of the assembly line distributed over a small order of 36 jets (and I’m sure that only a portion of those costs are included, since there will be costs that Brazil will have to absorb, and not pay to Saab), $150 million unit price for the Gripen E makes it as expensive as an F-35!
And then forum posters talk about it as being an affordable Western solution. Strange indeed.
You have been around long enough to know that you can’t just divide the package cost with the number of units and conclude anything from the resulting number.
TonnycFrom gripenblogs.com
Gripen Draws Attention At Indo14
.jpg)
Chief of Indonesian Air Force takes a ride in the Gripen simulator
Last week, Saab participated at Indonesia’s premiere international tri-service defence expo & forum – INDO DEFENCE 2014 at stand D 025 and D052 and it displayed a Gripen Fighter Model and a Gripen GCS Simulator among other products.
Saab is working on the details of its Gripen offer to present to Indonesia which is looking to modernize its fighter fleet.
According to an IHS Jane’s report, there are indications that a request for proposal could be issued by Indonesian Air Force in the coming weeks.
Indonesia aims to have 200 fighter jets by 2024 to form a minimum effective force and an initial requirement has been drawn up for 16 multirole aircraft to replace the ageing F-5s.
Unverifiable anecdote: according to an Indonesian member of an aviation WhatsApp group who claims he was there, the Chief messed up the sim landing and crashed. 🙂
TonnycYou might be shocked to receive this news, so take a long breath before reading this….
Thank you for that insightful information, maurobaggio. Certainly I am not the right person to answer your doubts. Please find someone else, preferably elsewhere. I apologize for the inconvenience.
TonnycNote: I’m still waiting if some good soul will clarify my doubts about the Gripen F.
Nobody here can, because your doubts are not about the Gripen per se, but rather about Brazil’s political will and defense policy. If you are that worried, you probably should find a Brazilian politician and tell him/her about your concern. It’s not hard, their office contact info is usually public to allow people to easily find them and tell them about their concerns. It’s off-topic here, because this thread is about the Gripen. While we don’t mind getting occasionally side-tracked, I personally prefer if the thread stays on-topic in the main.
TonnycThank you for that wonderful insight, maurobaggio. Let us move on.
Gripen gears up for Indonesia – Indo14-Day3
Industrial co-operation is a key factor of any proposal, and under Indonesian law at least a 30 per cent direct offset is mandatory. The selection criteria for the new fighter are weighted 30 per cent for aircraft/ system performance, 30 per cent for acquisition and life-cycle costs, and 40 per cent for industrial co-operation. Saab has an excellent track record in delivering on its offset commitments and is able to offer full technology transfer where applicable.
Budget was said to be $1 billion for 16 aircraft. Looking at past procurement, weapons are usually covered in a separate deal (which means separate budget). Logistics are sometimes covered in a separate contract, but not always. Other candidates are Su-35 and F-16 block 52+. Despite Eurofighter’s showing at Indo Defense 2014, given the budget it’s probably out of the race.
TonnycI wouldn’t be so sure about taking the Swiss decision as a benchmark Tonnyc, yes they have moved to using the PC-21 for BFT, AFT and finally LIFT but the school is rather out on it’s success. There have been rumbles from the Swiss Pilotenschule that pilots are arriving at the OCU unprepared for the performance jump. Leading to changes being needed in the OCU burning more hours on more expensive fighter airframes.
320kts to 360kts is a bit sedate for various training exercises and might not provide enough work load for the trainee to weed out the unsuitable for higher performing aircraft. Many a promising student who saled through the AFT stage was washed out at LIFT because they couldn’t handle the workload of a low level 500 kts nav exercise. Dropping the jet based LIFT means that rather than finding this out at LIFT on a cheaper jet trainer this happens at the OCU costing time and money. If a pilot can’t handle the load at LIFT there is a chance to push them down the multi engine transport route or onto helicopters.
Thanks. This is the first time I heard of Swiss Pilotenschule’s complaint. It is certainly something to consider.
I also read that Chile is using their Super Tucano to train for F-16 (os super tucano permitem que os pilotos façam instrução num cockpit totalmente digital, em preparação para os F-16). Does anyone know what their experience is?
I’m prepared to admit that Brazil might need a lead-in fighter-trainer jet. Won’t be the first time I’m mistaken and won’t be the last either. I still suspect that maurobaggio’s concern isn’t actually about the Gripen though, since all the things he’s griping about will still be there even if the F-18 or the Rafale was chosen instead.
Sign In
