F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

[marsavian]

How about a F-16V/Super Hornet ?

Good choices but it maybe politically that a country does not want to abide by US ITAR/foreign policy, e.g. Egyptian Rafale Scalp veto. Technically Gripen has internal IRST/ DFCM ECM, 200 Deg AESA and ramjet Meteor missiles so in a cleanish air to air configuration (no EFT) probably has less RCS than a pod carrying teen fighter with a similar combat configuration. Of course for stealth F-35 is unrivalled but there must be a political reason why F-35 is not being offered in the first place which might have a knock on effect on avionics/weapons fit for any teen fighters supplied.

The US teen fighters OTOH have more power/range/weapons/commonality/support but Gripen proponents claim it is a better dogfighter which is impossible to prove seeing how variable ACM ROE/starting conditions can be. Each jet has its strengths and weaknesses and the choice for each country is never cut and dried with often strange particular requirements cropping up for some countries.

[ricnunes]

How about a F-16V/Super Hornet ?

Good choices but it maybe politically that a country does not want to abide by US ITAR/foreign policy, e.g. Egyptian Rafale Scalp veto. Technically Gripen has internal IRST/ DFCM ECM, 200 Deg AESA and ramjet Meteor missiles so in a cleanish air to air configuration (no EFT) probably has less RCS than a pod carrying teen fighter with a similar combat configuration.

Let me tell you this:
- Any country that is "vetoed" (can I borrow your term? ) the access to the F-16V and/or Super Hornet will also be vetoed to the Gripen BS as well, and why? Because it has lots of (vital) US components on it, like for example and for starters the engine which is basically the same engine which equips the Super Hornet.
Actually I would say that in terms of being "possibly vetoed" the Gripen BS will likely suffer more compared to the F-16V and Super Hornet and why? Because besides having lots of vital US components it also have lots of vital UK components as well.
For example Argentina was reportedly interested in the Gripen BS but then dropped this interest because the UK clearly stated that it would veto any Gripen BS sale to Argentina - In this case because of a main reason started with "Falk" and ending in "Lands".

So and resuming, while the F-16V and Super Hornet could face a veto from the USA the Gripen BS could face a veto from either or both USA and UK.

And with this, the Gripen BS name really fits as glove to the aircraft don't you think?

[XanderCrews]

The Swiss were actually quite close to doing exactly that -- if they did not have their unique system of referendums on all kinds of stuff then their politicians would have ordered the Gripen E, and given their budget constraints it is highly unlikely they would have complemented the Gripen E with another a/c and they would then have ended up in the situation where they would have replaced the Hornet with Gripen...

That did not happen of course due to the referendum outcome.

It will be interesting to see what they go for in the next round.

I guess our defintions of "quiet close" really differ considering they never even replaced the F-5s with Gripen Es in the first place. They "almost reached step 5, even though they had not even started step 1!" Yes of course, of course.

Might be another big pointer to to why you CAN'T logically do such a thing if not for politics. IF the Swiss could pick an All Rafale force I'm betting they would like that. Seeing as that is what they prefered, and it makes even more sense if replacing the Hornets with the F-5 replacement was considered. So again, I think it speaks to why they should not have pursued Gripen Es yet again. WE knoe they preferred the Rafale, but politicians picked Gripen. The Swiss people basically figured that out as well.

Secondly I'm pretty sure the way the swiss are set up, the F-5s are flown by a kind of "reserve" force if you will. I forget the exact details, but they have a specific concept.

[XanderCrews]

So and resuming, while the F-16V and Super Hornet could face a veto from the USA the Gripen BS could face a veto from either or both USA and UK.

And with this, the Gripen BS name really fits as glove to the aircraft don't you think?

That was one of the funny thing about the Gripen NG Norway. "the US Rigged it"

Honey if we rigged it, we would just tell Saab to find a New Engine if they want to sell to Norway. Done in one move

[garrya]

Look, lets be straight and honest here:
WHO IN ITS RIGHT MIND would trade F-16s (or F/A-18s) for Gripens??? Really?? I don't want to offend anyone but it takes someone either completely delusional or completely clueless to even consider such a possibility

IMHO, if you have a fleet of F-16A/B or C/D it may worth replacing them with Gripen E/F. New aircraft with internal IRST, GAN AESA, Brite Cloud decoys, ramjet AAM sound nice and it is relatively cheap, could be a fair alternative to F-16 block 60.

[XanderCrews]

Sounds like the Grippen in any form isnt' a substantial improvement over late model F-16/18's. Which is surprising to me, given the many years that've transpired since the F-16/18 first flew and the Grippen's much later development.

Does anyone think Grippen is a good buy... for any country?

Legacy yes,

NG?... not really no.

IMHO, if you have a fleet of F-16A/B or C/D it may worth replacing them with Gripen E/F. New aircraft with internal IRST, GAN AESA, Brite Cloud decoys, ramjet AAM sound nice and it is relatively cheap, could be a fair alternative to F-16 block 60.

I don't think its terribly more cheap thats one of the main problems, and if you already have the F-16 infrastructure in place, why change? F-16V

[XanderCrews]

Ideally the Gripen E/F should have had the F414 EPE, that would have helped I think.

Anyway let's wait and see how much impact the increased weight and size will have on performance.

Ime betting a lot. It weighs as much as an F-16 but with 30 percent of the thrust. Think thats going to have an affect on the road side ops?

If they go EPE it adds cost. The TBO decreases. They picked the engine and then the airplane ballooned to 8000 KG and now they are stuck with it.

this is one of the problems I have with the Gripen NG. I think its suffered from a lot of creep but here we are.

[ricnunes]

Look, lets be straight and honest here:
WHO IN ITS RIGHT MIND would trade F-16s (or F/A-18s) for Gripens??? Really?? I don't want to offend anyone but it takes someone either completely delusional or completely clueless to even consider such a possibility

IMHO, if you have a fleet of F-16A/B or C/D it may worth replacing them with Gripen E/F. New aircraft with internal IRST, GAN AESA, Brite Cloud decoys, ramjet AAM sound nice and it is relatively cheap, could be a fair alternative to F-16 block 60.

Err, F-16V??

And why would you update an existing F-16A/B/C/D to Block 60 if you again, have the F-16V (also known as block 70)?
The F-16V with its SABR radar (actually a version of the F-35's APG-81 which fits in the F-16), integrated EW systems and lots of other updated system and wide array of weapon support that probably no other fighter in the world can match and above all, it's vastly cheaper to update from existing F-16A/B/C/D to F-16V and even likely cheaper to purchase new built F-16V than to purchase new built Gripen BS which and like XanderCrews said, for countries that already operate the F-16, updating to F-16V would become ever cheaper since there would be a F-16 infrastructure already in place.

Also and like XanderCrews said, the MAIN problem with the Gripen BS, err I mean Gripen NG, is that it's an expensive aircraft! While it's hard to assess the Gripen NG actual price/cost one can get from the Brazilian contract that each Gripen NG costs Brazil and amount of USD $130 Million each - Yes, this contract includes some pilot and ground crew (mostly mechanics) training but nonetheless this is a clear indication that we are before a very expensive aircraft (opposed to what is often claimed regarding the Gripen NG).

So lets see:
You could buy an expensive Light Fighter aircraft (Gripen NG) or you could buy a cheaper Medium Fighter aircraft (F-16V), Gee let me think...

[aprichelieu]

Was the Norwegian tender a walkover?

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08OSLO670_a.html

...
Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Kevin M. Johnson
for reasons 1.4 b and d

1. (C) Summary. After an extensive, coordinated USG effort,
the Norwegian Government decided to buy F-35s in the Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF) program, instead of the Saab Gripen.
This first foreign JSF sale is an important step for the
program as it will likely have a domino effect on other
potential purchasers. The sale was not an easy one, however,
and we outline a number of lessons learned that may prove
helpful as other countries make their choice. End Summary.
...
The US believed it was a very tough competitor here.


Did the US rig the Norwegian tender?

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08ST ... 494_a.html

Classified By: Ambassador Michael Wood for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

Summary
-------
1. (S) Embassy Stockholm recommends we postpone a response
to the Swedish request for release of AESA radar for Swedish
Gripens until after Norway's selection of its next fighter
jet, currently slated for December 2008. In informing Sweden
of this delay, we should consider offering U.S. support for
the enhanced Nordic military cooperation proposals, and also
consider a SecDef visit in the fall, per GOS request. End
Summary.

Conclusion: The US rigged the tender.


Did the US apply political pressure on the Norwegian Government?

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08OSLO670_a.html

-- We needed to avoid any appearance of undue
pressuring (which was construed as &threatening8 Norway in
its sovereign decision-making process), but we couldn,t let
stand the view that the choice didn,t matter for the
relationship. We opted for &choosing the JSF will maximize
the relationship8 as our main public line. In private, we
were much more forceful.

Conclusion: The US applied a lot of pressure.

Pricing: According to the tender, the JSF would be cheaper than the figures quoted by LM.
The cost of acquiring 48 Gripen and maintaining them for 30 years, would be higher than the cost
for Sweden to develop the Gripen, purchasing 204 aircraft and maintaining them for 30 years.
After more than 30 years of operation, of around 250 aircrafts, 9 Gripen has been lost in accidents
due to technical problems and pilot mistakes.
In the tender, Norway expected to lose 24 aircrafts in accidents in 30 years, and the cost if Gripen was based on that.

And no, Gripen is not 50% of the value at 90% of thecost.
The Gripen E is estimated anywhere between 72-85M$. Sweden has a semi-fixed price of $72M, but it depends on the exchange rate. Other orders will include their share of the development cost.

Only idiots take a contract value and divide it between the number of aircraft.
That way, the Indian Rafales would cost $240M.
Brazil is paying for ToT, including training of engineers. It also includes development costs for Gripen F.
They need about 100 aircraft, and the follow on aircrafts will not cost $130M.
Incidently, the Super Hornets were quoted several billions more than the Gripen.
One could come to the (flawed) conclusion that a Super Hornet is at least $150M...

The F-35 is maybe only 10% higher, that is correct.
With a life expectancy of 8,000 hours, a difference in the CPFH of $10,000 means that the
lifetime cost is increased by $80M.
The F-35 was advertised to have CPFH of $42,160 in 2015.
Gripen C CPFH has been announced as $5-10,000. One of the design requirements of the Gripen E, was that it should be cheaper to operate than the Gripen E.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... fl-421499/

It certainly looks like the F-35 operations will be more than 3x the cost of Gripen operations.
Those damaging figures were not shown to the Norwegian Parlament, to ensure that they did not mess up the relations with the US.

If the Norwegian Government had the magical ability to predict their future needs 30 years ago.
I.E: Norwegian Air Force operations 1988-2018, and they could choose the F-35A or Gripen E to be delivered in 1988,
the F-35A capabilities would have been way overkill.

There are certainly a lot of value in having the US as a partner.
Assume someone does a SAS style attack and blows up a significant number of Norwegian F-35s.
Only the US has the resources to replace them quickly.

The bottom line is that the Norwegian Industrial/Military complex presented flawed data to the politicians ahead
of the decision, because they were afraid that the immensly higher cost of the F-35 program would
turn away the politicians who would rather sacrifice the capabilities of the Air Force in ”unlikely corner cases”
(Like full-fledged war between NATO and Russia, or the SAS style attack above)

[SpudmanWP]

1. CPFH is $29k, not $42k (per FY2018 SARS) while an F-16C is $24k.

2. There is NO WAY IN HELL a Gripen C's CPFH is $5k-$10k if it includes all of the same items as the F-35/16 above.

3. All companies & governments put pressure on during a bid, Saab & Sweden are no exception.

[XanderCrews]

Was the Norwegian tender a walkover?

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08OSLO670_a.html

...
Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Kevin M. Johnson
for reasons 1.4 b and d

1. (C) Summary. After an extensive, coordinated USG effort,
the Norwegian Government decided to buy F-35s in the Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF) program, instead of the Saab Gripen.
This first foreign JSF sale is an important step for the
program as it will likely have a domino effect on other
potential purchasers. The sale was not an easy one, however,
and we outline a number of lessons learned that may prove
helpful as other countries make their choice. End Summary.
...
The US believed it was a very tough competitor here.


Did the US rig the Norwegian tender?

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08ST ... 494_a.html

Classified By: Ambassador Michael Wood for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

Summary
-------
1. (S) Embassy Stockholm recommends we postpone a response
to the Swedish request for release of AESA radar for Swedish
Gripens until after Norway's selection of its next fighter
jet, currently slated for December 2008. In informing Sweden
of this delay, we should consider offering U.S. support for
the enhanced Nordic military cooperation proposals, and also
consider a SecDef visit in the fall, per GOS request. End
Summary.

Conclusion: The US rigged the tender.


Did the US apply political pressure on the Norwegian Government?

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08OSLO670_a.html

-- We needed to avoid any appearance of undue
pressuring (which was construed as &threatening8 Norway in
its sovereign decision-making process), but we couldn,t let
stand the view that the choice didn,t matter for the
relationship. We opted for &choosing the JSF will maximize
the relationship8 as our main public line. In private, we
were much more forceful.

Conclusion: The US applied a lot of pressure.

Pricing: According to the tender, the JSF would be cheaper than the figures quoted by LM.
The cost of acquiring 48 Gripen and maintaining them for 30 years, would be higher than the cost
for Sweden to develop the Gripen, purchasing 204 aircraft and maintaining them for 30 years.
After more than 30 years of operation, of around 250 aircrafts, 9 Gripen has been lost in accidents
due to technical problems and pilot mistakes.
In the tender, Norway expected to lose 24 aircrafts in accidents in 30 years, and the cost if Gripen was based on that.

And no, Gripen is not 50% of the value at 90% of thecost.
The Gripen E is estimated anywhere between 72-85M$. Sweden has a semi-fixed price of $72M, but it depends on the exchange rate. Other orders will include their share of the development cost.

Only idiots take a contract value and divide it between the number of aircraft.
That way, the Indian Rafales would cost $240M.
Brazil is paying for ToT, including training of engineers. It also includes development costs for Gripen F.
They need about 100 aircraft, and the follow on aircrafts will not cost $130M.
Incidently, the Super Hornets were quoted several billions more than the Gripen.
One could come to the (flawed) conclusion that a Super Hornet is at least $150M...

The F-35 is maybe only 10% higher, that is correct.
With a life expectancy of 8,000 hours, a difference in the CPFH of $10,000 means that the
lifetime cost is increased by $80M.
The F-35 was advertised to have CPFH of $42,160 in 2015.
Gripen C CPFH has been announced as $5-10,000.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... fl-421499/

It certainly looks like the F-35 operations will be more than 3x the cost of Gripen operations.
Those damaging figures were not shown to the Norwegian Parlament, to ensure that they did not mess up the relations with the US.

If the Norwegian Government had the magical ability to predict their future needs 30 years ago.
I.E: Norwegian Air Force operations 1988-2018, and they could choose the F-35A or Gripen E to be delivered in 1988,
the F-35A capabilities would have been way overkill.

There are certainly a lot of value in having the US as a partner.
Assume someone does a SAS style attack and blows up a significant number of Norwegian F-35s.
Only the US has the resources to replace them quickly.

The bottom line is that the Norwegian Industrial/Military complex presented flawed data to the politicians ahead
of the decision, because they were afraid that the immensly higher cost of the F-35 program would
turn away the politicians who would rather sacrifice the capabilities of the Air Force in ”unlikely corner cases”
(Like full-fledged war between NATO and Russia, or the SAS style attack above)

Ive seen it all already, I know what actually happened. Good luck. please keep wasting your time

If the Norwegian Government had the magical ability to predict their future needs 30 years ago.
I.E: Norwegian Air Force operations 1988-2018, and they could choose the F-35A or Gripen E to be delivered in 1988,
the F-35A capabilities would have been way overkill.

LOL is this like... fan fiction? What plane not invented in 1988 would they have picked is relevant? and if so who cares?

I could go on and on, namely that again the Gripen E is not looking to be the same cost at the C including in operation. but I'm just going to tell you

1.again that you don't know what you are talking about

2.That its been covered by HB pencil

3. I already listed every excuse you were going to use. Do you know why? because I knew you would use them. They have become the stuff of internet myth and legend.

Even Loke agree that the Gripen Ng in its VERY early form was not going to happen.

[magitsu]

How gullible can one be? Gripen clearly isn't anything like 3x cheaper. We just need to consider the fact that Denmark, Norway and especially Finland have been able to fly F-16 and F-18s (much larger, two engines - 16.9 tn loaded weight vs 8.5 tn) with equal or better availability. Swedish AF is the wealthiest of these.

[garrya]

Err, F-16V??
And why would you update an existing F-16A/B/C/D to Block 60 if you again, have the F-16V (also known as block 70)?
The F-16V with its SABR radar (actually a version of the F-35's APG-81 which fits in the F-16), integrated EW systems and lots of other updated system

Because F-16V Block 70/72 is a modular upgrade for legacy F-16 A/B/C/D to create a new baseline ( similar to MLU program). But it is inferior to block 60
_ F-16V have to use SABR because legacy F-16 lack cooling system for AESA radar, by contrast, block 60 has an extra cooling vent, AESA radar perfomance is affected by cooling.

_ F-16 block 60 has internal FLIR while F-16V block 70 doesn't

_ F-16 block 60 is equipped with the new F-110 GE-132 with higher thrust than F-110 GE-129 or F-100 PW229 whereas F-16V upgrade doesn't include engine change.

F-110 family.PNG (131.83 KiB) Viewed 95888 times

F-110 engine version.PNG (78.99 KiB) Viewed 95888 times

_ F-16 block 60 use MIL-STD-1773 fiber-optic data bus which is 1000 times faster than MIL-STD-1553 data bus on legacy F-16 (F-16V still uses the same data bus)
_ F-16V uses AIDEWS as its internal jamming system, that is the same jamming used on some F-16 block 50/52, whereas, F-16 block 60 internal jamming system (Falcon edge) is designed for it only, likely with better capability.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produ ... ities.html
http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article4621.html
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ks-153414/

[kimjongnumbaun]

I'm pretty sure what was offered to Norway was the Gripen C with MS20 or MS21 proposed upgrades, not some special variant.

Wrong; the Gripen N had relocated the landing gear from the fuselage to the wings. In Gripen C the landing gear retracted into the fuselage. When the landing gear was relocated to the wings this freed up space that allowed Gripen N to get 40% increase in internal fuel compared to Gripen C.

BTW the Gripen N offered to Norway was 7,200 kg empty weight:

https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/for ... /a/534264/

No doubt the acceleration will suffer when empty weight increases by 800kg; OTOH the avionics will be better.

Ideally the Gripen E/F should have had the F414 EPE, that would have helped I think.

Anyway let's wait and see how much impact the increased weight and size will have on performance.

Uh, you're wrong. Your article shows a Gripen C. You are describing a Gripen E.

[tsl256]

Why is LM marketing only about the block 70 and not the block 60 if the block 60 is so much better.