F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 352
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post15 Jun 2017, 21:21

loke wrote:To reduce the noise level on this forum, why don't you just respond to posts and posters on this forum?


So and again, all the F-35 critics and/or "Eurocannards" fans can make all the noise they want when criticising the F-35 (and praising the "Eurocannards") but I can't make any "noise" by criticizing a Eurotrash, err I mean "Eurocannard" project.

Like I said before to the other pal of yours which posted a similar "view": GO FLY A KITE!

Oh and by the way, my post was a reaction to your (and not only) news of the Gripen E first flight. So as you can see, my post was a response to your post :wink:

loke wrote:Brazil is a large country that has a need for at least 100 a/c; It seems highly unlikely that they will stop at 36 a/c...


LOL, and I highly doubt that Brazil will ever order more than 36 aircraft.

To back up my claim I have on my side: HISTORY!

For example during the cold war era, in terms of supersonic fighter aircraft Brazil only ordered a top of 32 Mirage III.

Later Brazil also ordered the F-5 which still operates today and that was a cheap aircraft to purchase (unlike the Gripen E/F) and to maintain but even so, the "large" country of Brazil ordered "only" 57 aircraft tops.

Currently the Brazilian Air Force only operates (in terms of supersonic fighter aircraft) 43 (forty three) modernized F-5s (F-5EM).

So looking at these hard numbers, how on hell can someone (YOU in this case) expect that Brazil will order more than 36 Gripen E/F aircraft. And to join this argument we also have the following facts:
- Brazil is suffering a terrible economical crisis/recession which is now on it's 12th quarter in a row!
- What Brazilian government (and very often corrupt) officials say and reality are two very different things!
- Gripen E/F is a VERY EXPENSIVE fighter aircraft! Just look at the Brazilian (36 aircraft) Gripen E/F acquisition contract cost.

Resuming, there's a snowball chance in hell that Brazil will ever order 100 (one hundred) Gripen E/Fs


loke wrote:...and with an established Gripen assembly line it is highly likely that they will order more Gripen and not switch to another a/c. There are some other future opportunities in South America; in particular with Brazil/Embraer as a partner the chances are good that they will find some customers in SA. Some of those may opt for the simpler and cheaper Gripen C instead, but some may go for Gripen E. On verra.


Just because the Brazilians assembled a manufacturing line, which will by the way assemble/manufacture the twin-seat variant, the Gripen F this doesn't mean that there will be more manufactured aircraft than (initially) planned. That depends on the market!
The Gripen F manufacturing line in Brazil is a POLITICAL (and only political) decision/move and definitely not an ECONOMICAL one.


loke wrote:Gripen also still has some chances in Africa and E Europe, but this is most likely Gripen C opportunities.

Then there is of course Asia. Still some opportunities there.

If you look at how Saab has sold previously (Draken/Viggen) then perhaps you start to appreciate that seen from the Saab perspective they are quite up-beat about Gripen's chances. As percentage of total a/c sold I believe the Gripen has already outpaced the previous Saab fighters in the export market.


So if this theory of yours was to be any correct then the Super Hornet would be a major export success since it's considerably cheaper and much more capable than the Gripen E/F.

Well, honestly I don't see a bright future for the Gripen E/F export market specially with all the competition out there which is just as expensive but more capable.
There's also the F-16V which is less expensive than the Gripen E/F and also likely more capable than it. And so on...

Finally I find funny that you imply that the Draken and Viggen were export successes. This couldn't be more far from the truth!
The Viggen was a total failure in terms of exports - NO Viggens were ever exported! And the Draken was only exported to Austria, Denmark and Finland, so personally I can hardly call this an export success.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4863
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Jun 2017, 22:21

loke wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
loke wrote:
The internet is vast, and most of it is crap. We know that already.



And Why do you think the most crap comes from Gripen fans?

Just curious

Can you please let me know how you reached that conclusion? Your personal experience, perhaps? Objective or subjective? Biased or unbiased? Did you count the number of lines or what?

I have been visiting some forums where almost all of the crap came from Rafale fanboys -- on another forum most of the crap came from Typhoon fanboys. On a third forum the PAK FA crap level was unbelievable. On a fourth the Gripen fanboys wer producing the most crap. In addition it also changes over time; some fanboys dominate a forum for a while and then some others "take over". Etc.

In spite of visiting several forums over the years would not be able to draw a conclusion like the one you did above.


I guess "crap" in this case is a total lack of even the basics. It's not a vs b and b is better because b has x
Less cost-- They don't know even know how the numbers are drawn.

So it's the most ignorant it would seem. I give a lot of credit to the saab "study" that put 4700 CPFH out there. They have no idea about anything

So I would say why do the most ignorant and intellectually lazy gravitate towards the Gripen?
Choose Crews
Offline

magitsu

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post15 Jun 2017, 23:04

loke wrote:Production numbers of Gripen E will be low by the standards of large manufacturers however Saab is a small company compared to LM and others; if they score a few exports they are happy.

I've heard it mentioned that this type of airplane development projects need to sell around 400 units to break even.
Offline

loke

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 216
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post16 Jun 2017, 08:33

ricnunes wrote:
loke wrote:To reduce the noise level on this forum, why don't you just respond to posts and posters on this forum?


So and again, all the F-35 critics and/or "Eurocannards" fans can make all the noise they want when criticising the F-35 (and praising the "Eurocannards") but I can't make any "noise" by criticizing a Eurotrash, err I mean "Eurocannard" project.

Like I said before to the other pal of yours which posted a similar "view": GO FLY A KITE!

Oh and by the way, my post was a reaction to your (and not only) news of the Gripen E first flight. So as you can see, my post was a response to your post :wink:



Did you read your own post? Did you read my post? I am sorry but it seems we have a breakdown in communication.
Offline

loke

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 216
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post16 Jun 2017, 08:35

magitsu wrote:
loke wrote:Production numbers of Gripen E will be low by the standards of large manufacturers however Saab is a small company compared to LM and others; if they score a few exports they are happy.

I've heard it mentioned that this type of airplane development projects need to sell around 400 units to break even.

Would you care to elaborate?

My understanding is that Saab (a commercial entitity) reach break-even with their current two customers.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2034
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post16 Jun 2017, 10:18

loke wrote:
magitsu wrote:
loke wrote:Production numbers of Gripen E will be low by the standards of large manufacturers however Saab is a small company compared to LM and others; if they score a few exports they are happy.

I've heard it mentioned that this type of airplane development projects need to sell around 400 units to break even.

Would you care to elaborate?

My understanding is that Saab (a commercial entitity) reach break-even with their current two customers.


I'd say all fighter programs are structured so that commercial companies don't make loss because of them. Otherwise it would be very difficult to find a company that would be willing to do them in the future. Basically most of the money comes from taxpayers of each country, although companies definitely spend money also. I think the break-even point magitsu is referring is roughly the point where aircraft exported can cover the development costs. Government usually takes part of the profit from export orders in some form (fees or taxation). Of course this varies wildly with each product and their development cost. Evolutionary products like Super Hornet or Saab Gripen E/NG are cheaper to develop and thus the break-even point is likely lower. Revolutionary products like F-35 are more expensive to develop and the break-even point requires more units sold.

Let's say development cost for a fighter is 10 billion, then 400 exports would mean each aircraft would cost would increase 25 million over pure manufacturing cost to break even. If the development cost is 60-70 billion instead like in F-35 case, the cost would increase over 150 million if the 400 exports were meant to reach break-even point. Basically I think that no fighter development program after 1990 has reached this point as either the export numbers are too small or the development costs are too high. This is also why Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale are so expensive. Both had pretty high development costs and relatively small production numbers and even lower export numbers. Saab Gripen probably has had the lowest development costs as it relies a lot from off-the-shelf components (like engine and sensors especially in E/NG model) and aims for lower performance goals. This is also why it will be very difficult to compete with F-35 despite it having high development costs as it will be produced in very high numbers also. Of course high development costs usually also mean high performance.
Offline

loke

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 216
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post16 Jun 2017, 11:57

hornetfinn wrote:
I'd say all fighter programs are structured so that commercial companies don't make loss because of them. Otherwise it would be very difficult to find a company that would be willing to do them in the future. Basically most of the money comes from taxpayers of each country, although companies definitely spend money also. I think the break-even point magitsu is referring is roughly the point where aircraft exported can cover the development costs. Government usually takes part of the profit from export orders in some form (fees or taxation). Of course this varies wildly with each product and their development cost. Evolutionary products like Super Hornet or Saab Gripen E/NG are cheaper to develop and thus the break-even point is likely lower. Revolutionary products like F-35 are more expensive to develop and the break-even point requires more units sold.

Let's say development cost for a fighter is 10 billion, then 400 exports would mean each aircraft would cost would increase 25 million over pure manufacturing cost to break even. If the development cost is 60-70 billion instead like in F-35 case, the cost would increase over 150 million if the 400 exports were meant to reach break-even point. Basically I think that no fighter development program after 1990 has reached this point as either the export numbers are too small or the development costs are too high. This is also why Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale are so expensive. Both had pretty high development costs and relatively small production numbers and even lower export numbers. Saab Gripen probably has had the lowest development costs as it relies a lot from off-the-shelf components (like engine and sensors especially in E/NG model) and aims for lower performance goals. This is also why it will be very difficult to compete with F-35 despite it having high development costs as it will be produced in very high numbers also. Of course high development costs usually also mean high performance.

OK, this makes sense. I thought he was referring to "break even" for the company.

Anyway, you are right that Gripen E is a low-cost (and therefore also "low performance") system. I doubt it will score any exports in Europe (perhaps with the possible exceptions of a few small countries that for various reasons don't want to consider F-35, and still want to retain an air force). No doubt both Finland and Belgium will go for F-35 (I still don't understand why Saab does not withdraw from Belgium, like Boieng did). Saab's best possibility in Europe may actually be in Austria, it seems they still regret the purchase of Typhoon, and for political reasons I doubt they will go for F-35, it will probably be seen as "too offensive" by the Austrian population. (Of course an Austrian contract will be some time into the future...) Perhaps also Switzerland is a possibility for Gripen E, for similar reasons.

Their best chances of obtaining export agreements may be in India and perhaps also South America.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2034
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post16 Jun 2017, 12:52

Definitely agree with that loke. I also agree that F-35 will take over the fighter market as a whole and Saab should concentrate on their niche market.
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 255
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post16 Jun 2017, 16:27

hornetfinn wrote:Definitely agree with that loke. I also agree that F-35 will take over the fighter market as a whole and Saab should concentrate on their niche market.


The F-35 will always be the fighter to beat because of its immense technical superiority. But domestic politics will play a big role in future Western European procurements, as we see starkly in Canada. In Europe, who could have predicted Swiss voters canceling the Gripen order in a referendum?

We don't know who the US will be willing to sell the F-35 to in the 2020's. The Democrats voted lock step against a Saudi munitions deal just recently so Congress could scuttle F-35 deals. Apparently the Gulf states and India are not eligible for now.

The Gripen is well in play for a big Make in India order, where the closest competitor in terms of product characteristics is the F-16. I wouldn't call a huge country like India a "niche market" in the world fighter market, but India is probably the only big deal possibility for Gripen. Otherwise, look for Gripen to sell ten to one country, ten to another country, and so on, competing with used F-16s and trainer designs upgraded to fighters like the FA-50 sold to the Philippines. The fact that Gripen is not making any sales in the Gulf indicates buyers view it as a discount option.
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 255
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post16 Jun 2017, 16:36

ricnunes wrote:Resuming, there's a snowball chance in hell that Brazil will ever order 100 (one hundred) Gripen E/Fs.


Brazilian domestic politics are obscure enough that we shouldn't be making strong statements like a "snowball chance in hell". Given its population, I find it entirely plausible that some Brazilian politician would eventually budget the money for one hundred Gripens assembled in a local factory. Far crazier decisions have been made. Brazil only got rid of its aircraft carrier a few months ago despite most outsiders presumably thinking for quite a while that it makes little sense for Brazil to operate an aircraft carrier given Brazil's lack of maritime fighting and international defense commitments as well as Brazil's low defense spending overall.

Qatar has only 12 fighters currently but has placed orders for 24 Rafales and 36 Eagles, whether or not that makes any sense whatsoever from an outsider military expert point of view. Singapore is another country with a massive air force for its size.
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 732
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post16 Jun 2017, 19:44

ricnunes wrote:It's so "funny" so see many people having double standards:
- When the Gripen NG (or even any other non-F-35 fighter aircraft) suffers delays, everything is normal (or they even ignore this fact) and when the problem (which caused the delay) is apparently solved these same people rejoice all over the place.
- But when it comes to the F-35, and when it suffers delays these same "double standard" people jump in and criticize all over the place and when the problem (which caused the delay) is actually solved these same people claim that this is a lie or a LM PR "stunt" :roll:

So many people with double standards, I must say... :doh:

Oh and by the way, a first flight doesn't mean entering in service. Just check the time between the first flight and entering in service of any other fighter aircraft.
What this (Gripen E/F first flight) just means, is that:
- There's still a LOOONNG path to "travel" in order for the Gripen E/F to reach something like an IOC.
- This only proves that the program is suffering considerable/big delays. A two (2) year delay in order to perform something basic such as a first flight is NOT a good sign for the program, period! :wink:


But anyway, thanks for the news!


This!!! Spot on!
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4863
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post16 Jun 2017, 21:36

Thought Brazil has already back down from the 100 number..
Choose Crews
Offline

loke

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 216
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post19 Jun 2017, 13:10

XanderCrews wrote:Thought Brazil has already back down from the 100 number..

Where did you see that?
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 352
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post19 Jun 2017, 20:29

talkitron wrote:Brazilian domestic politics are obscure enough that we shouldn't be making strong statements like a "snowball chance in hell". Given its population, I find it entirely plausible that some Brazilian politician would eventually budget the money for one hundred Gripens assembled in a local factory.


Together with the obscure Brazilian domestic politics you also have another factor which I'll repeat again:
- LACK OF MONEY! No eggs, no omelets, period!

Brazil never had more than 80 (eighty) 2nd/3rd Generation Supersonic fighter aircraft combined (Mirage III and F-5) so why would on Earth anyone expect that suddenly Brazil would order 100 (one hundred) or so 4th Gen Supersonic fighter aircraft??

Basically no other country in the world had more 2nd/3rd (combined) generation fighter aircraft than 4th generation aircraft.
Just as a small example lets look at Canada for instance. Canada operated 400 or more 2nd and 3rd fighter aircraft combined (between CF-104, CF-5 and CF-101). When Canada adopted a 4th gen fighter aircraft (CF-18 Hornet) which replaced ALL previous 2nd and 3rd gen fighter aircraft, how many were ordered?? 138 fighter aircraft (CF-18s). And this was during the Cold War.

So and again why would Brazil order more 4th (or 4.5th for the "purists") than a combined number of 2nd/3rd gen fighter aircraft when basically nobody else did this??

I bet with anyone a very good bottle of Scotch that Brazil will NEVER order 100 Gripen E/Fs!
So yes, there's "snowball chance in hell" that Brazil will ever order 100 Gripen E/Fs. I have no problem repeating this statement over and over again! :wink:


talkitron wrote:Far crazier decisions have been made. Brazil only got rid of its aircraft carrier a few months ago despite most outsiders presumably thinking for quite a while that it makes little sense for Brazil to operate an aircraft carrier given Brazil's lack of maritime fighting and international defense commitments as well as Brazil's low defense spending overall.


This only backs up what I'm saying! Brazil doesn't have the money no matter what! On top of that there are all sorts of crazy projects (such as that ridiculous Nuclear Sub project) and coupled with brutal corruption so you'll never have the money for such "stunt" (this coupled with the reasons above).

And if there's a need to support the local aviation industry then you'll have native projects such as the KC-390 or the Super Tucano (which IMO will become the Gripen E/F supporter) or even if the Super Tucano is deemed to not have the necessary performance (i.e. not jet powered) then I'm sure something like a light jet trainer converted to carry weapons will fill in the role.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 352
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post19 Jun 2017, 20:33

loke wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Thought Brazil has already back down from the 100 number..

Where did you see that?


Perhaps because the only REAL PLANS that Brazil has regarding the Gripen E/F is buying 36 aircraft, no?

All the rest is only "chitchat" and "wet dreams"...
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests