F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

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

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6417
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 21:56

lukfi wrote:That's interesting, because unless they have a very unorthodox definition of TCO down under, that should include the cost of acquisition. In 2014, Australia bought 58 F-35As at a contract price of US$11.5 billion, or about $198M per aircraft (in addition to 14 aircraft ordered earlier). I assume this price is for the aircraft itself plus some costs directly connected to it, like some tooling and maintenance, and all of this should be included in the TCO. Assuming that the RAAF flies each of the aircraft to its 8000-hour lifetime, this comes out to $24,784 per flight hour. Just for acquisition and some maintenance that most probably does not cover its whole lifetime.



it wa actually 131 million per aircraft according to the ANAO. The Aus contracts included rebuilding airbases and such in them, and this is also included some of the more expensive LRIP models

As a CPFH figure the US$28k does not sound unreasonable, but it is suspiciously low. It's lower than the CAPE estimate and RAAF also owns some F-35A from earlier production batches which are supposedly more expensive to operate than the latest ones. That's not saying the number is wrong, it could very well be that RAAF includes different stuff in it than USAF/F-35 JPO/CAPE.


its only "suspiciously low" to you.


In the article that @XanderCrews posted, it says that Sweden offered a guaranteed price, yet Norway ignored it. Am I reading it wrong? Because as such it doesn't make any sense.


Norway did not believe they could make good on their promises.

.


Saab on several occasions has openly lied about the cost to operate their aircraft but that's fine for some reason? and implying they might be lying again means "We are getting dangerously close to tin foil hat territory here"???

really?

what I said and I'll try to make this clear was Norway believed that if Norway was right, Saab simply couldn't afford it. It was a gamble. and Saab is not a charity. They won't go out of business to keep their promises to Norway would they?

You are saying that Saab offered a contract for aircraft
servicing at a much lower price that it actually costs, guaranteeing the price and taking the risk upon itself, while having no intention to actually uphold that? This is wild conjecture.


not really no. are you really trying to imply for example if the Norwegians were correct and not saab, and it turns out the aircraft are far more expensive to maintain, That saab would automatically pay for even triple the cost of their own estimates for 20 years straight no matter the cost?

You know how I know you are not familiar with the concept of contracts and limitations included therein?

its not a "blank check" for obvious reasons.

Image

There has to be limits or theres simply no reason to even bother fixing anything. Just order another one on Saabs dime. Saab isn't that naive. sorry. Theyve had to work with some shady countries before, "within limits" is the part they leave out of the presser.


After 20 years, costs can skyrocket with any aircraft, especially if structural issues are discovered and it becomes clear that the airframe won't last the advertised amount of hours unless expensively overhauled. But that's not what the Norwegians were worried about. They were worried that it might be expensive to upgrade a fighter whose production run is limited, or that Saab as a smaller company than LM could go bankrupt (would Swedish gov't allow that?) and Gripen operators would be left without manufacturer support. This leads me to believe that the decision was mainly political, which is not unusual in weapons purchases.


So when expense comes up, which has been my point all along that morphs into "political"?? sure, why not?

Worldwide, it is probably no surprise if Brunei or Saudi Arabia have cheap fuel. It would surprise me if the price was much different for two countries in central Europe.
And we are in agreement that there is more to CPFH than fuel. But you keep refusing to acknowledge that the personnel costs, which are a major part of aircraft operation, also vary greatly between countries.


I'll gladly acknowledge that, when you acknowledge that the Gripen A/B/C/D prices have no bearing on E/F prices.


The leaked report from the fly-off was only part of the homework. I'm too lazy to look for a source for this, but I read somewhere that other comparisons were made, comparing economical and political aspects. These were not leaked but they influenced the decision, too. We know that Gripen's results in the fly-off were, ahem, less than great. Which means that for it to be selected anyway, it must have been by far the cheapest. Did the Swiss get their homework wrong, indeed?


Well according to Gripen fans the Swiss picked the Gripen E based purely on its superb performance andnot just cost. Turns out, it was purely on cost. oh well. and of course we are talking the cost to buy not operate.

As you are trying desperately to prove with the F-35, cheaper to buy doesn't mean cheaper to fly correct?

I've already explained the problems with the $27k CPFH estimate:
1) It's not directly comparable with American F-35 numbers because personnel cost in Switzerland is higher, and any aircraft the Swiss will eventually operate will cost them more that it would another country because of that.
2) The fuel cost is way too high compared to other countries. You are unable to explain why should the Gripen E need so much more fuel than a Gripen C or an F-16. Another possibility is that Switzerland's jet fuel is so wicked expensive that the cost can't be directly compared to any other country's CPFH.


the fuel rabbit hole is all your own. Youre the one obsessed with it, and I'm the one saying its but one aspect.


Well of course, because for the purposes of comparing with USAF numbers, the Swiss estimate is bogus. So please stop comparing it. Or if you do, don't tell me I'm the one clinging to falsehoods and dubious propaganda.


I don't think its bogus for 1. As I said before there are several real world reasons to think the Gripen E is going to cost a lot of money to maintain. the flyaway cost alone is reason to be worried. a "cheap light fighter variant" that costs more than an F-35? a few years ago saying an F-35 would cost under 85 million got you laughed at on a lot of forums, and the idea a Gripen E would cost more than an F-35 ever was considered an absolute absurdity.

Funny how the "absurd" becomes reality with just a few years passing.



We were talking about "official numbers", I took that to mean numbers from real operation in an air force. Saab surely has some estimates, they know that certain maintenance procedures must be done after x flying hours and they know how many man-hours that takes. It's not a number from thin air, but the actual number may be different due to some operating conditions.



just throw that in with all the other saab estimates. remember when they estimated it would cost more than F-35A? I don't and yet it does.

crazy.

"official numbers" in my definition would be all the boring budget documents and audits etc that are then published by governments operating the aircraft preferably with everything included or good hints of what was paid for (some even go line by line) that one could hopefully post to "prove" beyond company claims what was really going on.

But to botch a plane in terms of operational costs, something else would have to go wrong. Like, a part that turns out to fail often and so it has to be checked and replaced more often than anticipated.


or the part itself simply costs more to begin with. like what if the flyaway of a Gripen E was 85 million? have we considered that crazy possibility?

Imagine if Gripen E parts cost just like the flyaway cost, 1/3 more then a Gripen C. Then add 10 percent for the small production run. We are now at 43 percent more CPFH. Remember when Saab liked to say a Gripen C was "half an F-16 CPFH?" thats 93 percent of an F-16's CPFH. (THIS IS JUST AN HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE)

if a widget on a Gripen C cost $50, but the "NG" Widget on a Gripen E costs $100 and the MTBF is the same, you still pay twice as much. thus its costs more for even normal operations.

And remember that the Gripen E costs more than F-35, F-16, and Super Hornet. Thats not a good sign by any stretch.

Does anyone else just sit back for a second and go "Holy Sh!t, the famously uber ultra expensive F-35A actually costs less than a Gripen E?"

anyone else or is it just me? Does that not give anyone else pause and bad feeling in the tum tum about what the Gripen E will cost to operate or is that just me? because it costs more than an F-35 flyaway.

anyone?

Every Gripen smack talker for the last 10 years should be forced to eat crow live on youtube for bragging for years on end about the cost comparison only to find out-- surprise. It costs more than an F-35 of all things.


But there is no such indication. Theoretically, replacement parts could become expensive due to their limited production run, but that would only materialize in the future and if Saab fails to sell the Gripen E to anybody else.


Thats an interesting way of putting it LOL. The parts will only become expensive if saab fails to sell more.

Another way might be like this:

The parts are expensive unless Saab gets more sales.


No, I didn't. The only direct comparison between Gripen and Hawk I posted was from the SAAF, which says the Gripens are 60 % more expensive to fly, roughly as one would expect.


That only raises further questions and creates more dubiousness about the SAAF numbers, which i maintain are irrelevant in the first place, as Gripen E has about no parts commonality, and a smaller order book to begin with.


good god in all my years "lets listen to what the south africans of all the honest folks, have to say about an airplane that bears no relation to what we are talking about outside of a name."


Earlier in this thread i talked about "Gripen hypnosis" and I'm watching it first hand.


Sorry mate, but obviously you haven't been reading too much of our discussion even before that. We were discussing the fuel cost estimate from Switzerland, which is a tiny neutral country so they definitely aren't planning to operate from forward bases,


Image

k

This would hint that the Gripen F would not simply be a twin seater variant for training, but something along the lines of a Growler. But it will probably take years before a final Gripen F rolls of the production line.


thats a safe bet.
Last edited by XanderCrews on 06 Feb 2020, 22:12, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6417
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 22:08

charlielima223 wrote:
According to Skoberg, offering a subset of Gripen Fs means Saab has “a very sophisticated and powerful approach when it comes to EW in the HX programme.” And he adds: “If it weren’t for the cost-efficiency of the Gripen E, we wouldn’t have GlobalEye in there.”



oh yeah gotta have GlobalEye too.

loke wrote:
Anyway, good that they are building new a/c in Europe, think about the "New Generation Fighter vs F-35" thread, for sure it will be hundreds of pages even before the first prototype takes off :D



Thats the way it was with Gripen NG on several forums. only had to wait 10 long years. :mrgreen:
Choose Crews
Offline

operaaperta

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2017, 21:42

Unread post06 Feb 2020, 22:20

Lukfi wrote-

Another thing I found interesting in the document you posted is that one flight hour of a Hornet apparently costs almost the same as of a Hawk 127.


The only direct comparison between Gripen and Hawk I posted was from the SAAF, which says the Gripens are 60 % more expensive to fly, roughly as one would expect.


Join the dots on that one.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6417
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 Feb 2020, 04:05

operaaperta wrote:Lukfi wrote-

Another thing I found interesting in the document you posted is that one flight hour of a Hornet apparently costs almost the same as of a Hawk 127.


The only direct comparison between Gripen and Hawk I posted was from the SAAF, which says the Gripens are 60 % more expensive to fly, roughly as one would expect.


Join the dots on that one.



Image
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

lukfi

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2020, 19:41
  • Location: LKKB

Unread post08 Feb 2020, 10:30

XanderCrews wrote:what I said and I'll try to make this clear was Norway believed that if Norway was right, Saab simply couldn't afford it. It was a gamble. and Saab is not a charity. They won't go out of business to keep their promises to Norway would they?

It would make sense if the price was in fact not guaranteed. But yes, claiming that you know better than the manufacturer how much it costs to maintain a plane (not just what marketing says, but what they are willing to actually put on a contract) is tin foil hat territory.
And yes, it was a political decision. Just like "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM", nobody ever got fired for buying weapons from the largest military power in the world.
Worldwide, it is probably no surprise if Brunei or Saudi Arabia have cheap fuel. It would surprise me if the price was much different for two countries in central Europe.
And we are in agreement that there is more to CPFH than fuel. But you keep refusing to acknowledge that the personnel costs, which are a major part of aircraft operation, also vary greatly between countries.

I'll gladly acknowledge that, when you acknowledge that the Gripen A/B/C/D prices have no bearing on E/F prices.

I won't acknowledge something that isn't true. While there may not be much part commonality between them, they are aircraft of similar design and similar size and their maintenance concepts won't be much different, and fuel consumption should more or less scale with size and weight.
Well according to Gripen fans the Swiss picked the Gripen E based purely on its superb performance andnot just cost. Turns out, it was purely on cost. oh well. and of course we are talking the cost to buy not operate.

Cost vs. performance trade-off, more likely. Do you believe that the Swiss would be so stupid to only consider the cost to buy but not to operate? (That would bode well for the F-35, wouldn't it :D ) Do you think they did not estimate the operational costs of the Rafale and Eurofighter as well?
cheaper to buy doesn't mean cheaper to fly correct?

Exactly! Cheaper to buy literally only means it's cheap to make, and that might mean some spare parts are also cheap to make, so there is some effect on the operational costs. But there are more factors at play that outweigh the price of spares. A part with the same MTBF is twice as expensive, but other things (personnel, consumables) still cost the same.
So yes, it is just you who obsesses over the flyaway cost.
"official numbers" in my definition would be all the boring budget documents and audits etc that are then published by governments operating the aircraft preferably with everything included or good hints of what was paid for (some even go line by line) that one could hopefully post to "prove" beyond company claims what was really going on.

Yes, and obviously these documents don't exist for the Gripen E.
Imagine if Gripen E parts cost just like the flyaway cost, 1/3 more then a Gripen C. Then add 10 percent for the small production run. We are now at 43 percent more CPFH. Remember when Saab liked to say a Gripen C was "half an F-16 CPFH?" thats 93 percent of an F-16's CPFH. (THIS IS JUST AN HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE)

Well there's your problem right there, you suck at basic math :mrgreen: In your hypothetical example the Gripen E would be at 71.5% of an F-16. That wouldn't be bad at all.

Thank you for the great picture of a Swiss F-5E. That would be operating from improvised/dispersed air bases but only domestic ones where you can bring the fuel very easily. It's not like when you're waging war in Bumfuquistan and have to ferry fuel halfway across the world using cargo airplanes.
operaaperta wrote:Join the dots on that one.

Even when two numbers are coming from one air force they may not be comparable?
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 628
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post08 Feb 2020, 13:20

The one reasonable simplification I've always liked is that if Gripen is so cheap to use, how come Finland can afford to run basically similar amount of F/A-18? Finland even has a smaller defense budget (3.2B) than Sweden (5.7B).

Gripen C/D 72
F/A-18 62 (64, 2 crashed)

So even if there is a difference, it can't be a very drastic one since they end up affording them anyway. The difference in size, payload and capability aka performance is probably bigger.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6417
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post08 Feb 2020, 16:42

lukfi wrote:It would make sense if the price was in fact not guaranteed. But yes, claiming that you know better than the manufacturer how much it costs to maintain a plane (not just what marketing says, but what they are willing to actually put on a contract) is tin foil hat territory.


That would mean Norwegian air force was Tin Foil hat

And yes, it was a political decision.


thats why cost came up so much right?

I won't acknowledge something that isn't true. While there may not be much part commonality between them, they are aircraft of similar design and similar size and their maintenance concepts won't be much different, and fuel consumption should more or less scale with size and weight.


And theyll be 1/3 fewer made, and the costs are vastly higher already, and its at F-16 weight...


Cost vs. performance trade-off, more likely. Do you believe that the Swiss would be so stupid to only consider the cost to buy but not to operate?


aren't you the one trying to convince everyone their CPFH estimate was wrong?


Exactly! Cheaper to buy literally only means it's cheap to make, and that might mean some spare parts are also cheap to make, so there is some effect on the operational costs. But there are more factors at play that outweigh the price of spares. A part with the same MTBF is twice as expensive, but other things (personnel, consumables) still cost the same.So yes, it is just you who obsesses over the flyaway cost.


No, not just me. LOL for over a decade people have been pointing to the F-35s purchase price as reason to be assume operational costs will be expensive

That magically changed when suddenly the Gripen E cost more than an F-35 flyway.

entire articles have been writen against the F-35 on the basis that the purchase cost, flyway cost is too pricey. Now its suddenly cheaper than the competition and none of that matters?

LOL

"it is just you that obsesses over the flyaway cost" :roll: LOL yes, because the F-35s cost has never come up as reason not to buy it all these years. :roll:

now anyone point out the flyaway cost of the Hyper expensive F-35, is less than the "cheap light fighter" is just "obsessed"?

Wasn't it Gripen Fans cosntantly making everything about cost?? :mrgreen:


2009-2019 Yes, the F-35 is too expensive. people should buy the Gripen NG. cost is everything. The Gripen is cheaper to buy

2020 -- Why are you F-35 fans so obsessed with what things cost?

Gee what changed?! :devil:

Yes, and obviously these documents don't exist for the Gripen E.


runaway fighter, we have no idea what it costs. call the CBC.

pretty crazy that Sweden just flies around with no budget or costs.

so the Flyaway costs are more than F-35 and "we don't know what the operational costs will be"
but they will be cheaper, despite what an actual Gripen E customer claimed?

this is ridiculous.

Well there's your problem right there, you suck at basic math :mrgreen: In your hypothetical example the Gripen E would be at 71.5% of an F-16. That wouldn't be bad at all.


Wasn't really paying much attention, still obsessed over the 27,000 Swiss Estimate.

Thank you for the great picture of a Swiss F-5E. That would be operating from improvised/dispersed air bases but only domestic ones where you can bring the fuel very easily. It's not like when you're waging war in Bumfuquistan and have to ferry fuel halfway across the world using cargo airplanes.


not how the US calculates fuel costs, but thats a nice reach.

Even when two numbers are coming from one air force they may not be comparable?


Why thats almost as foolhardy as trying to use SAAF numbers to predict the cost of the Gripen E for a country that already says they use their own CPFH metrics...

Image
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

lukfi

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2020, 19:41
  • Location: LKKB

Unread post08 Feb 2020, 20:00

magitsu wrote:The one reasonable simplification I've always liked is that if Gripen is so cheap to use, how come Finland can afford to run basically similar amount of F/A-18? Finland even has a smaller defense budget (3.2B) than Sweden (5.7B)

Defense budget ≠ fighter budget. The fact that country X can afford to fly aicraft Y says absolutely nothing about the costs of aircraft Z. It could however be used as an argument for or against some of the HX program candidates. Positioning the Gripen strictly as the low-cost choice may not work well.

XanderCrews wrote:And remember that the Gripen E costs more than F-35, F-16, and Super Hornet. Thats not a good sign by any stretch.

Weren't you the one convincing me in the Canada thread how expensive the Super Hornet actually is and how the $65M number was a complete lie?
XanderCrews wrote:That would mean Norwegian air force was Tin Foil hat

First of all they were working with incorrect numbers. They expected to buy F-35s at $52M apiece. Who wouldn't want that? Their lifecycle cost calculation for the Gripen was inflated due to perceived risk of buying from a small supplier.
thats why cost came up so much right?

Are you talking about the F-35 now? The contract price ended up around $160M per plane + equipment and training.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norw ... SKBN1DA26A
https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/G1oQ ... paa-bakken
Cost vs. performance trade-off, more likely. Do you believe that the Swiss would be so stupid to only consider the cost to buy but not to operate?

aren't you the one trying to convince everyone their CPFH estimate was wrong?

Either wrong, or at the very least not comparable with anything else. Which would show if we had the estimates for other planes calculated using the same inputs and assumptions. Are you honestly making the argument that after the Swiss did a fly-off and thorough evaluation of other aspects but completely omitted operational costs? Well you can be pretty much sure they didn't omit it, and chose the Gripen because it was cheaper overall to own and fly.
No, not just me. LOL for over a decade people have been pointing to the F-35s purchase price as reason to be assume operational costs will be expensive
entire articles have been writen against the F-35 on the basis that the purchase cost, flyway cost is too pricey. Now its suddenly cheaper than the competition and none of that matters?

I don't care that much what "people" have been telling you. I'm not "people". As far as I can tell, in the times when the F-35 was expensive to purchase it was also supposed to be very expensive to fly - which wasn't based only on the high purchase price.
now anyone point out the flyaway cost of the Hyper expensive F-35, is less than the "cheap light fighter" is just "obsessed"?

You should let go of the idea that flyaway cost is a direct indicator of operational costs. For instance, MiG-29 is supposedly very cheap to buy vs. an F-16 or Gripen but counter-intuitively much more expensive to operate. And not just because it has thirsty engines. Different aircraft have different design philosophies when it comes to maintenance. If you like, look up some information on the Gripen and its maintenance concept.

BITE (built-in test equipment) - components have integrated sensors and the plane can report which ones need replacing. This btw means that some components don't have to be replaced preventively but either when they fail or when the diagnostics report that they may soon fail.
LRU (line replaceable unit) - many of aforementioned components can be replaced in roadside base conditions by one trained mechanic and a few conscripts with minimal training.
Some components are called SRU (shop replaceable unit) and those have to be replaced in the hangar by skilled personnel.

The MiG-21 was reportedly designed for practically no maintenance by unskilled personnel and it was sent to the shop after accumulating some flying hours. I stumbled on this information by accident and so I didn't study how other fighters do it. But you might have come across something similar about the F-16 or F-35 and can understand the point. And the point is, both the Gripen C and E were designed with the same maintenance principles and that's why information on the existing C/D fleets is relevant to the discussion about Gripen E.
pretty crazy that Sweden just flies around with no budget or costs.

They know very well what the whole Gripen program costs them. But they don't have an operational fleet of Gripen E at the moment, which could be used as a baseline to predict how much would it cost for other potential customers. We have official predictions.
but they will be cheaper, despite what an actual Gripen E customer claimed?

Did the actual Gripen E customer also calculate F-35 CPFH using the same methodology so we'd get a comparable number?
Offline
User avatar

lukfi

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2020, 19:41
  • Location: LKKB

Unread post08 Feb 2020, 23:07

In addition to the discussion we are having, I'd like to talk some more about the value proposition of the Gripen as I see it, and Czech Air Force experience with the plane.

The main selling point is low cost of operation. This is a big deal particularly for smaller and poorer air forces. It means that with a tight budget, your pilots can fly more, or sometimes that they can fly at all. And that they can invest more money into actually using the plane's full capabilities.

Austria bought the Eurofighter Typhoon and didn't have money to fly it. Serbia's MiG-29 fleet was suffering from insufficient maintenance, malfunctions and lack of upgrades and was no match for Western fighters in the 1999 Kosovo war. Both Slovakia and Poland are struggling with keeping their MiG-29s operational. According to an article published a few days ago by Onet.pl, only between 30-40 % of Polish F-16s are combat ready at any given time. (That's still way better than USN's F-35C, but still.) And F-16s are supposed to be easy to maintain, with so many flying throughout Europe, spare parts should be cheap as chips!

On the other hand, do you know which small and poor air force has absolutely no problems keeping its fighters combat ready and can afford to send 5 of its total 14 supersonic aircraft to Iceland or Baltic Air Policing, while guarding its own airspace at the same time? You guessed it: the Czech Air Force, flying the JAS-39C/D.

I haven't been able to find precise numbers, like what is the sortie rate or mission capability rate. But public statements of Army officials have been very positive towards the Gripen. Reliability and ease of maintenance are often cited.

This is an interesting article, written by a respected Czech defense analyst: https://echo24.cz/a/i9V3d/z-otloukanka- ... -superstar
Translation by Google Translate with my corrections, emphasis mine
(…) according to some comparisons the first version of the Gripen JAS-39A/B lagged behind modernized versions of the famous American aircraft F-16.

Perhaps that is why the Gripen's arrival in the Czech Air Force was accompanied by some skepticism (and it should be honestly admitted that some doubts were also expressed by the author of this article). After eleven years, however, it is absolutely clear that Gripen has proved its worth in our country. The somewhat disdainful attitude towards the Swedish plane has also begun to change worldwide as several facts have come to light. E.g. the fact that Sweden reported absolutely true figures in terms of operating costs, which are significantly lower than those of Typhoon and Rafale twin-engined airplanes.

Directly glaring is the contrast with the cost of older machines, which is most outstanding when comparing the Czech and Slovak Air Force. The operation of the few remaining MiG-29s consumes our neighbors most of their defense budget.


Another article tries to compare the F-35 total ownership costs with what we are paying for leasing the Gripens:
https://www.armadninoviny.cz/americane- ... -stat.html
A fleet of 24 F-35A aircraft (based on Danish estimates) is expected to cost $3B to buy and $10B to operate over 30 years, this number includes direct costs of flying and regular maintenance but also training, servicing and upgrades throughout the fleet's lifetime. In USD, per plane and per year, the ownership cost (including depreciation) would be around $18M.

We are currently paying $5.3M each year for each single Gripen, which includes not only leasing the aircraft itself but also training, servicing and upgrades. It's not an all-inclusive number like the one for the F-35A, so let's throw in some money for personnel, fuel and everything else. Let's round it off at $7M. At 150 hours/year this would put its CPFH (excluding training and servicing!) at $11,300 which may be a little harsh but we're talking ballpark numbers.

The comparison is harsh for the Gripen because leasing it is more expensive than owning it, when you average it out throughout the lifetime. (Oh and the lease includes tax, which we are essentially paying to ourselves; without it it's some 20% cheaper, but that may be included in the F-35 number as well, I'm not sure.) Additonally, the less planes you operate the more expensive each individual one is, and the numbers are for 14 Gripens vs. 24 F-35As, so the Gripen is again at a disadvantage. The F-35 on the other hand may be disadvantaged because the estimate comes from the Danish who have more expensive personnel. So the comparison is not perfect, but it looks like owning a Gripen costs about 40% of what an F-35A is projected to cost. And that's total cost, despite the F-35A being so cheap to buy!

Now, this is of course for the C/D model. The Gripen E will be more expensive to buy (but then again buying is cheaper than leasing) and to fly. Even if the TCO somehow ended up being 50 % more than the Gripen C, we are still in the ballpark of half an F-35.

Even if the F-35 was twice as valuable than a Gripen E, a small air force will not go under a certain number of aircraft. Bulgaria bought just 8 F-16s. At that size, it's barely enough to fulfill domestic air policing duties, with no hope of ever taking part in foreign missions, not even Baltic/Iceland air policing. If CzAF ever wants to fight abroad, it would need 24 fighters. Getting just 12 F-35s does not make sense, getting 24 Gripens for a similar price instead… maybe?
Offline

hkultala

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 08:02

Unread post08 Feb 2020, 23:30

irt wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Blast from the past:

Switzerland will pay far less for the 22 fighter jets it is planning to buy from the Swedish company Saab than Sweden itself would pay for the aircraft, the Swiss public broadcaster SF reported.

Switzerland is to buy the JAS-39 Gripen combat jets for 100 million francs (82.9 million euros, $107 million) each, SF reported late Sunday, citing unnamed sources in both Switzerland and Sweden.

That price is between 15 to 30 percent below the level Sweden itself has agreed to pay for the planes, according to the broadcaster's sources.

Stockholm has said it plans to buy between 40 to 60 Gripen jets, but has not said revealed how much it will pay for each.

A spokesman for the Swedish defence ministry refused on Monday to comment on the SF report.

Switzerland announced in August that it had agreed to the highly controversial deal to replace its aging Northrop F-5E/F Tiger fighters, with deliveries set to start in 2018.

It said the deal was worth 3.13 billion Swiss francs, but that amount included related services and it was unclear how much Switzerland would actually pay for each jet.

Swiss defence ministry spokeswoman Sonja Margelist declined to specify the amount paid per plane, saying her ministry would only speak about the full amount of the deal.

The Swiss Gripen purchase, which is part of a larger order for the planes to be shared with Sweden in a bid to cut production costs, is controversial in Switzerland because it will require spending cuts in other areas.

Defence Minister Ueli Maurer has countered the criticism by insisting that the Gripen "was the cheapest" option compared with the French Dassault Rafale and the EADS Eurofighter.

The deal must still receive a green light from the Swiss parliament and could possibly still be derailed by a popular referendum.

The agreement has also been criticized in Sweden for handing over very pricy merchandise at discount rates.

"Switzerland has no plans whatsoever to contribute to Gripen's development costs," Anna Dahlberg, a commentator with the Swedish daily Expressen,
lamented after the August announcement, pointing out that "the country chose Gripen simply because it was the cheapest alternative."


3.13 billion divided by 22 would be 142.2 Francs ($151.9 million each) if you went with that most basic of "cost of the contract divided by airplanes"

so we have F-35A down to $77.9 million in 2019

Based on the Gripen C/D fighter aircraft, Saab says that the US$85 million Gripen E or Gripen E/F (2017)

https://newatlas.com/saab-gripen-e-first-flight/50063/

This sure is "interesting."


:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: So do we think the Gripen E will ever be as cheap as the F-35A? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Sweden paid SEK 36.8 billion for 60 Gripen E.. That is ~$3.9 billion for 60 jets..
Brazil paid SEK 39.6 billion for 36 jets.. That is ~$4.2 billion.
South Korea paid $6.4 billion for 40 F35.
SAAB offered india the Gripen E to india for "half the price of Rafale"
Poland gets an offer for F35 for $6.5 billion for 32 jets.


Price for polish F-35's was $4.6 billion, not $6.5 billions.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24612
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Feb 2020, 01:39

GrIPping STUFF for the GRIPPERS from 2015 against PLAAF. BEST READ AT SOURCE...
PLAAF Senior Pilot Reveals Poor Performance in Joint Exercise With RTAF
08 Feb 2020 Reuben F. Johnson

"An early December 2019 report from inside of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) reveals previously unreleased technical details of People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) Russian-built Su-27s losing a majority of engagements in a November 2015 joint exercise with the 701 Fighter Squadron of the Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF). This Thai unit operates eight Saab JAS-39C and four JAS-39D Gripens. The engagements, known as Falcon Strike 2015, were the first of three such exercises and were detailed in a lecture given by one of the PLAAF’s most heavily decorated pilots...

[THEN LOTS OF DETAILS]

...In subsequent exercises the PLAAF fared better by sending the Chengdu J-10A - and then in 2019 the J-10C - in place of the Su-27. Li pointed out that the J-10C was more of a match for the JAS-39C/D in that “its active array radar significantly improves detection distance and multi-target attack capability, the DSI (divertless) air intake of the J-10C reduces the radar intercept area while the PL-15 missile increases the range, making it an over-the-horizon platform.”

Li also commented that the next-generation version of the Gripen, the JAS-39E, is likely to feature even more advanced combat performance. His interest in the aircraft parallels a larger body of analysis within the PLA intelligence community that has had a fixation on the design and development of the Gripen as a template for PRC industry to follow."

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... rcise-rtaf
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

operaaperta

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2017, 21:42

Unread post09 Feb 2020, 01:56

Lukfi Wrote-

If you like, look up some information on the Gripen and its maintenance concept.

BITE (built-in test equipment) - components have integrated sensors and the plane can report which ones need replacing. This btw means that some components don't have to be replaced preventively but either when they fail or when the diagnostics report that they may soon fail.
LRU (line replaceable unit) - many of aforementioned components can be replaced in roadside base conditions by one trained mechanic and a few conscripts with minimal training.
Some components are called SRU (shop replaceable unit) and those have to be replaced in the hangar by skilled personnel.


Lukfi this highlights the problem with how the Gripen has been lionised online and the ignorance/naivety of its fan boys. What you describe is common practice on all teen series fighters and did not begin with Gripen the ‘Smart Fighter’. The Hornet has been doing Built-in-test on all its systems since it’s very first introduction back in early 80s. The LRU/SRU concept also has been around forever, replace the LRU at flight-line level, send the LRU to an ILM facility where it is run on an Automatic Test Station (ATE) and where the faulty SRU is identified and replaced. Roadbase ops, Phhhhhh, I see your roadbase , and raise you an aircraft carrier. The Hornet was designed to be maintained on a pitching flight deck in the wind,rain and salt, or in a cramped pitching hangar deck. Its also designed to be maintained by the ‘worst enemies, best allies’, the US Marines, deployed in forward remote bare base locations if need be.

Please let the ‘designed for roadbase ops’ meme go.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24612
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Feb 2020, 02:11

'operaaperta' Nice characterization there. BZ. :mrgreen:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

lukfi

Banned

  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 16 Jan 2020, 19:41
  • Location: LKKB

Unread post09 Feb 2020, 22:33

operaaperta wrote:What you describe is common practice on all teen series fighters and did not begin with Gripen the ‘Smart Fighter’. The Hornet has been doing Built-in-test on all its systems since it’s very first introduction back in early 80s. The LRU/SRU concept also has been around forever, replace the LRU at flight-line level, send the LRU to an ILM facility where it is run on an Automatic Test Station (ATE) and where the faulty SRU is identified and replaced. Roadbase ops, Phhhhhh, I see your roadbase , and raise you an aircraft carrier. The Hornet was designed to be maintained on a pitching flight deck in the wind,rain and salt, or in a cramped pitching hangar deck. Its also designed to be maintained by the ‘worst enemies, best allies’, the US Marines, deployed in forward remote bare base locations if need be.

OK, that's fair :thumb:
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6417
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post09 Feb 2020, 23:12

lukfi wrote:
Weren't you the one convincing me in the Canada thread how expensive the Super Hornet actually is and how the $65M number was a complete lie?


Without getting into nitty gritty of US arms export policy, and the Canadian contract. its general practice to charge a tax for FMS sales, along with the rule that they must pay R&D fees as well. just going by simple flyaway cost as far as the US is concerned, A Gripen E actually costs more than an F-16, F-15A, F-18E/F and even a Growler.

all those airplanes cost less than 85 million flyaway.

A part of what lead to the canadian confusions was that the F-35 cost comparison was the whole enterprise (APUC), while the Canadian media was parroting 65 million flyaway and people not realizing one comparison was the flyaway cost, the other was the entire acquisition cost.

First of all they were working with incorrect numbers. They expected to buy F-35s at $52M apiece. Who wouldn't want that?


theres really more context to it than that. right down to the part where the Norwegians expected cost overruns...

I really had no idea that Article would give such fits in terms of understanding. Maybe I just read between the lines more.

Their lifecycle cost calculation for the Gripen was inflated due to perceived risk of buying from a small supplier


exactly.

thats why cost came up so much right?
Are you talking about the F-35 now? The contract price ended up around $160M per plane + equipment and training.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norw ... SKBN1DA26A
https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/G1oQ ... paa-bakken



playing games with the cost comparisons is what got you burned on your Australian claims earlier remember? when you didn't realize their contract included upgrading runways and base facilities as well.

You either don't understand how these contracts work or are written or you're attempting to be deliberately deceptive.

If we are going to compare flyaway we need to compare flyaway for example. You don't get to compare flyaway vs total acquisition costs (which will clearly be far higher), and even then as you should have learned its far more than just the airplanes usually.

Either wrong, or at the very least not comparable with anything else. Which would show if we had the estimates for other planes calculated using the same inputs and assumptions. Are you honestly making the argument that after the Swiss did a fly-off and thorough evaluation of other aspects but completely omitted operational costs? Well you can be pretty much sure they didn't omit it, and chose the Gripen because it was cheaper overall to own and fly.


Cheaper than a Typhoon and a Rafale? shocker.

Moreover you need to be careful with your argument there. "its totally cheap if you aren't a first world air force like the Swiss, in which case its like super expensive" is a bizarre selling point but don't let me stop you.

If what makes it cheap is the nation that operates it and not the airplane itself, there is nothing special about it. But you knew that I bet?


I don't care that much what "people" have been telling you. I'm not "people".


oh but you are, you've come in here posting the same drivel, assumptions, lies, propaganda, marketing, cliches. as so many others. Stuff thats been debunked for years in some cases. Rather than read the thread and use resources posted over in that time period you've instead come in and started posting the same tired out and debunked garbage, you've clearly acquired from other areas of the web.

you're absolutely those people. Every post is the same stereotypical cliches posted from biased blogs to youtube comment sections.

"muh stealth skin" :roll:

People can accuse F-16.net of being fanboys, or an echo chamber, I'm sure there are indeed some elements of truth to that, however F-16.net in some cases is one of the few areas on the Web thats basically been telling "the other side of the story" for whats been the 15 years and running concentrated onslaught against the F-35. Its been one of the few bastions against the Bull$hit.

Youre posting the biased CBC piece for example .

You didn't come in here with an open mind or to learn or hear the other side of the story. You brought "baggage" and then plopped down and started spewing what you "thought" and turns out-- you didn't really know what you were talking about. And as I tried to explain we actually have people who have "been there done that" here. This is not an Playstation forum.

As far as I can tell, in the times when the F-35 was expensive to purchase it was also supposed to be very expensive to fly - which wasn't based only on the high purchase price.



"as far as I can tell" yes exactly. take a BITE of humble pie. tell us more about the Stealth Skin

the best part about that ignorant maintenance statements was you had no idea just ignorant it was.

Image


Welcome to the 80s.


You should let go of the idea that flyaway cost is a direct indicator of operational costs.


Was never my idea to begin with, I was the one railing on the people who thought that.

BITE (built-in test equipment) - components have integrated sensors and the plane can report which ones need replacing. This btw means that some components don't have to be replaced preventively but either when they fail or when the diagnostics report that they may soon fail.
LRU (line replaceable unit) - many of aforementioned components can be replaced in roadside base conditions by one trained mechanic and a few conscripts with minimal training.
Some components are called SRU (shop replaceable unit) and those have to be replaced in the hangar by skilled personnel.

The MiG-21 was reportedly designed for practically no maintenance by unskilled personnel and it was sent to the shop after accumulating some flying hours. I stumbled on this information by accident and so I didn't study how other fighters do it. But you might have come across something similar about the F-16 or F-35 and can understand the point. And the point is, both the Gripen C and E were designed with the same maintenance principles and that's why information on the existing C/D fleets is relevant to the discussion about Gripen E.


This pretty much confirms my point that you have no idea about the world of aviation maintenance.

yes, the F-16 was doing it decades before the Gripen in fact. operaaperta covered it well.

If you want to get really nasty about it the F-35 is already moving beyond those maintenance practices--They're considered 4th generation and outdated, and the F-35 operators are moving beyond them. Awesome that the Gripen E is still keeping the 1980s alive. Thats 30 years ago, if they are going to carry it over on the E, they're desperately behind.

You fell for it. Saab repackages something that everyone else does, its so boring and benign that no one even bothers to talk about it. And they take it and make it sound like its unique to them and they invented it. :roll:

omg BITE!! whoa!!

Saab is famous for this. They love to list the "turnaround time" of a gripen for example "10 minutes". It had a smaller full tank, and 2 fewer pylons than an F-16!!-- of course its going to have a faster turnaround unless the F-16 is using more ordies and other crew-- but that really cuts to the heart of the matter. The amount of personnel, load out, their training and experience etc make the entire thing an absolutely ridiculous metric. how did they come up with it? is it 2 ordies or 20? what Its like saying a car with a red steering wheel "drives faster" the turnaround time of an airplane has far less to do with an airplane and much more to do with the situation, load, training, experience, hell even the weather has an effect on that. Do we really think the act of buying a Gripen made the SAAF a pit crew of aviation ordnance complete with 10 minute turns?

The israelis used fast turn arounds with well trained crews in their air wars in 67 and 73 as well. The US Navy has done it too with "flex deck" and they do it with actual things like heavy bombs and much more fuel in a far far more complicated and stressful environment. Oh and theyve done it in combat.

but they will be cheaper, despite what an actual Gripen E customer claimed?

Did the actual Gripen E customer also calculate F-35 CPFH using the same methodology so we'd get a comparable number?[/quote]

Hopefully soon. If its lower I win, if its higher I'll copy and paste your excuses.
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests