F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

[hornetfinn]

But then look at the breakdown of some of the other aircraft costs in the Swedish Armed Forces 2005 Annual Report - notably the JA 37 Viggen, particularly its Maintenance Costs. 679k SEK for 14 Viggen flights is only USD 78,000. As the Swedish Defense Annual Reports separately cover personnel costs, does this confirm that the CPFH for the Gripen C just includes Maintenance Assets and Fuel costs, but excludes personnel costs and other base costs?

If you apply that same criteria to the F-35A, you should only include Unit Operations and Maintenance costs from the 2020 DoD report to the US President. That would result in a current Basic CPFH for the F-35A of USD 15,429 (BY2012) compared with the Gripen of USD 4,700 (BY2012), using Jane's criteria.

I think even those F-35A numbers include more than what is included in JAS Gripen costs. Here is interesting document about USAF O&S breakdown (table in page 273):
https://www.dau.edu/library/arj/ARJ/ARJ ... tschel.pdf

So with F-35A O&S maintenance section includes depot level maintenance and aircraft, engine and missile overhaul. It also includes contractor logistics support. Unit operations include training munitions and support services. That Jane's CPFH comparison stated that JAS Gripen costs include fuel, lubricants and direct maintenance and support to perform just one flight hour. It didn't include depot level maintenance or systems overhauls. Nor did it include contractor logistics support or training munition etc AFAIK. I think there is too much difference in what is included in each figure that it's basically meaningless comparison. We'd need to do the accounting the same way to get even remotely accurate figures.

[linkomart]

The costs cited in the swedish reports contains costs for fuels, lubricants, spareparts, upgrade parts, repair parts in short all the parts consumed by the airfirce.
The costs for hangars, airstrips, tools, personell, weapons is not included.
I am a but unsure about software, but it is a small part at least 2005.

best regards.

[kimjongnumbaun]

The last time that Swedish Defense Forces specifically defined their CPFH for the Gripen was in their Annual Report from 2005:
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteasset ... vuddok.pdf

Looking at the Gripen (A&C) CFPH for BY2005 it was 35,882 SEK, this equals 43,195 SEK or USD 4,970 today. This is in the same ballpark as the Jane's 2012 CPFH for the Gripen C of USD 4,700 (BY2012).
https://www.ftm.nl/upload/content/files ... 281%29.pdf

So far so good.

But then look at the breakdown of some of the other aircraft costs in the Swedish Armed Forces 2005 Annual Report - notably the JA 37 Viggen, particularly its Maintenance Costs. 679k SEK for 14 Viggen flights is only USD 78,000. As the Swedish Defense Annual Reports separately cover personnel costs, does this confirm that the CPFH for the Gripen C just includes Maintenance Assets and Fuel costs, but excludes personnel costs and other base costs?

If you apply that same criteria to the F-35A, you should only include Unit Operations and Maintenance costs from the 2020 DoD report to the US President. That would result in a current Basic CPFH for the F-35A of USD 15,429 (BY2012) compared with the Gripen of USD 4,700 (BY2012), using Jane's criteria.

Janes didn't include intermediate maintenance or depot level maintenance, and even their report was a guess because Saab didn't release any numbers, which makes the $4700 CPFH as good as toilet paper.

But let's play devil's advocate and say that the Gripen is 3 times cheaper to fly than the F-35. Can 3 Gripens beat an F-35 in combat? Unless the F-35 pilot is brain dead, no. To add insult to injury, if the Gripen is 3 times cheaper to fly, name a single air force that employs 3 times as many Gripens to a similar country that operates the F-35. Weird. You'd think if they were 3 times cheaper you'd see air forces flying thousands of Gripens. Thailand flies 8. Brazil 28. Sweden 74. "Super Power" Japan has 147 F-35s on order.

The F-35 will likely kill all 3 Gripens by itself. Does the $4700 CPFH for the Gripen include both airframe and pilot losses in combat? We're just scratching the surface, because once we include support aircraft to ensure mission success, the CPFH for the Gripen goes up exponentially. Amateurs try to do a straight line CPFH analysis because they are in the weeds. Professionals are looking at it from the mountain top.

[magitsu]

Good point. I've always considered the matter from that angle too. If Finland has been able to fly 64 F/A-18 while Sweden has ~80 Gripens (hard to pinpoint the costs from the mothball fleet) then they cost nearly as much (Fi has significantly smaller defense budget due to having half the pop of Sweden). The difference in efficiency can easily be higher. Norway's F-16 fleet is a similar comparison, even smaller but wealthier, numbers were originally big, but one of them should be significantly less costly than F/A-18.

Simplest reason, and enough to dismiss the 4700 is that not even the first E test plane was flying at that point. When we know its dimensions, weight and all avionics are different.

[Corsair1963]

The last time that Swedish Defense Forces specifically defined their CPFH for the Gripen was in their Annual Report from 2005:
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteasset ... vuddok.pdf

Looking at the Gripen (A&C) CFPH for BY2005 it was 35,882 SEK, this equals 43,195 SEK or USD 4,970 today. This is in the same ballpark as the Jane's 2012 CPFH for the Gripen C of USD 4,700 (BY2012).
https://www.ftm.nl/upload/content/files ... 281%29.pdf

So far so good.

But then look at the breakdown of some of the other aircraft costs in the Swedish Armed Forces 2005 Annual Report - notably the JA 37 Viggen, particularly its Maintenance Costs. 679k SEK for 14 Viggen flights is only USD 78,000. As the Swedish Defense Annual Reports separately cover personnel costs, does this confirm that the CPFH for the Gripen C just includes Maintenance Assets and Fuel costs, but excludes personnel costs and other base costs?

If you apply that same criteria to the F-35A, you should only include Unit Operations and Maintenance costs from the 2020 DoD report to the US President. That would result in a current Basic CPFH for the F-35A of USD 15,429 (BY2012) compared with the Gripen of USD 4,700 (BY2012), using Jane's criteria.

Janes didn't include intermediate maintenance or depot level maintenance, and even their report was a guess because Saab didn't release any numbers, which makes the $4700 CPFH as good as toilet paper.

But let's play devil's advocate and say that the Gripen is 3 times cheaper to fly than the F-35. Can 3 Gripens beat an F-35 in combat? Unless the F-35 pilot is brain dead, no. To add insult to injury, if the Gripen is 3 times cheaper to fly, name a single air force that employs 3 times as many Gripens to a similar country that operates the F-35. Weird. You'd think if they were 3 times cheaper you'd see air forces flying thousands of Gripens. Thailand flies 8. Brazil 28. Sweden 74. "Super Power" Japan has 147 F-35s on order.

The F-35 will likely kill all 3 Gripens by itself. Does the $4700 CPFH for the Gripen include both airframe and pilot losses in combat? We're just scratching the surface, because once we include support aircraft to ensure mission success, the CPFH for the Gripen goes up exponentially. Amateurs try to do a straight line CPFH analysis because they are in the weeds. Professionals are looking at it from the mountain top.

Keyword should be which is the most "cost-effective" type.....

[spazsinbad]

An emerald green griffin? AirForces Monthly Sep 2020 Issue 390 PDF article attached below
"Ireland has previously had to rely on French, Norwegian and British jet fighters to intercept Russian strategic bombers. Now it’s thinking about its own air combat interceptors...."

[hythelday]

An emerald green griffin? AirForces Monthly Sep 2020 Issue 390 PDF article attached below
"Ireland has previously had to rely on French, Norwegian and British jet fighters to intercept Russian strategic bombers. Now it’s thinking about its own air combat interceptors...."

I started a dedicated thread back when the news first emerged:
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=57104&p=441604&hilit=Ireland#p441604

[spazsinbad]

OOOPS - scusi - missed it.

[energo]

Janes didn't include intermediate maintenance or depot level maintenance, and even their report was a guess because Saab didn't release any numbers, which makes the $4700 CPFH as good as toilet paper.

The Jane's numbers are also concerning the Gripen C, not the Echo. If, by following Jane's premises that a heavier and more complex aircraft will be more costly to operate, then the Gripen E will be more costly than the C. SAAB, of course, has stated that it will match the C, which might or might not turn out that way.

I'm sure it has been posted elswhere on the forum (potentially even by myself), but the 2012 Swiss parliamentary discussion provides an interesting clue on the complexity of the matter:

The operating costs per hour are not explicitly mentioned in the template. Taking into account the listed annual costs for staff (24 million), maintenance (51 million) and fuel (21 million), these are significantly more than Saab presented to journalists in earlier presentations. The calculation of the operating costs per hour is based on a flight operating time of 180 hours per year in Switzerland.
With 22 grips, this results in costs of CHF 24,242 per flight hour. On the occasion of a presentation in Sweden, Saab stated a price of less than 10,000 francs. There is still a need for explanation here.

24,242 Swiss Franc is roughly 26000 USD.

Defence's response was that it didn't offer a comparable picture:

For a relevant comparison, it is imperative to base the calculation on the same elements (fuel, infrastructure, depreciation, pilots, etc.). Thus, the different data concerning the costs are not necessarily false, but cannot be directly compared.

stellungnahmebazv1f.pdf

Prise de position du DDPS concernant les articles dans la Basler Zeitung des 26 et 27 septembre 2012

(42.61 KiB) Downloaded 1151 times

[energo]

The last time that Swedish Defense Forces specifically defined their CPFH for the Gripen was in their Annual Report from 2005:
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteasset ... vuddok.pdf

Welcome to the forums and cudos for an able first post!

[kimjongnumbaun]

The last time that Swedish Defense Forces specifically defined their CPFH for the Gripen was in their Annual Report from 2005:
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteasset ... vuddok.pdf

Welcome to the forums and cudos for an able first post!

Thanks for the CPFH post but I think we scared him off.

[twintiger]

(er ...not scared off - just reading and learning)

Thanks @energo for your post. I was unaware that the CPFH for the Gripen C had been challenged in the Swiss Parliament during their initial 2012 jet competition. Appreciate the link too.

[XanderCrews]

Saab has announced a potential impact of SKr1.5 billion ($170 million) on its Aeronautics business unit, reported Flight Global.

“The prolonged pandemic and slow recovery is primarily affecting subcontractors and material supply for the Gripen E/F programme, with consequences for development, verification and production work,” Saab told Flight Global. “The Gripen programme is characterised by long lead times and small series, where components must be certified for airworthiness,” it added.


In a bid to bolster the air capabilities, the Indian Air Force has proposed the procurement of 114 additional fighter jets. Saab Gripen E is also a hot contender for India’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition.

Losing the first MMRCA competition to Dassault Rafales, Saab is pitching hard for the contract this time by offering its entire production technology to satisfy the ‘Make in India’ provision.



The Gripen E is a 4+ generation fighter jet which can carry up to seven Meteor missiles and possesses beyond visual range (BVR) weapons to track and kill targets at a range of up to 80 miles. It can attain a speed of Mach 2 with supercruise ability, a range of 1500 kilometres and boasts a maximum takeoff load of 16,500kgs.

Russia Shot-Down A Total Of Nine Turkish Bayraktar Drones Near Its Armenia Military Base – Russian Media Reports



If the Gripen fighter jet is selected for the contract, SAAB had proposed to set up an Indian Aircraft Company (INAC) with Head of the company’s India Campaign, Mats Palmberg, suggesting that the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) control the set up in order to “take responsibility and meet customer expectations”.

Such productions snags can lead to long term delays in production and delivery which may prove to be disadvantageous for the company.

“Some [suppliers] are not getting back on track, and others are halfway, with a huge backlog [of commercial work],” Saab chief executive Micael Johansson said, without identifying any of the companies involved. “We actually have to insource a number of things.”

Initially, SKr1.1 billion charge was incurred in the third quarter and SKr0.4 billion is likely to follow, stated the report. “The assessment of future possible economic impact within Aeronautics has become increasingly uncertain.”

With huge backlogs by the suppliers, the company has decided to insource some things. However, it involves huge costs and time to set up such facilities. “The adjustments are being made now, to make sure that we have a project going forward that is reasonable when it comes to profitability,” Johansson told the news website.


He further added that changes in the supply chain are not easy. “It takes a lot of effort, time and resources for redesign, re-industrialisation and re-qualification. Those are some of the mitigating actions that we are taking as we speak, and will have to take going forward. What we do today will affect us two to three years ahead, when it comes to the delivery of aircraft.”

While the company is still struggling to maintain services, Johansson assured that they will continue to work and deliver the upcoming aircraft orders.

same words in a few places.

... say there wasn't some handsome guy in this very thread to trying to explain over and over about how small production runs spread across multiple factories can really add expenses and hardship???

Whatever happened to that sexy dynamo?

I called this years ago and muh sixth generation "smart" fighter people refused to understand it.

[uroxen]

This is perhaps a bit late to chime in but i noticed some issues with translations of Swedish information in English which may resolve some misunderstandings about Flygsystem 2020 and the cost per flight hour.

Before Gripes NG was revealed, the only information in the public sector pointed to FS2020. Only when Saab failed to find investment did Gripen E become the public face of the program. Saab intentionally remained vague on exactly what Gripen NG would be, but what they were revealing pointed at what FS2020 seemed to possess, not what eventually was Gripen E. In fact, they just kind of glass over the whole original NG premise, which was to be supercruising and stealth not an improvement on an already low RCS.

@madrat,

My understanding is that FS2020 and Gripen NG were/are two quite different concepts/aircraft.

The Gripen NG is in fact the Gripen E/F while the FS2020 - and like linkomart also stated - would be a bit larger and 'stealth' aircraft equipped with internal weapons bay.
Basically like this:


Yes, the FS2020 would somehow be based on the Gripen - and I stated this in my previous posts - but it would be a quite different aircraft although with 'same starting point', just like and hence my analogy between the F-5 and Hornet

I'm not disputing that due to the lack of funds the FS2020 program never went ahead and as such another different, simpler and cheaper program - the Gripen NG - was selected instead. But then again it seems that FS2020 and Gripen NG are (or were to be in the case of FS2020) two very different programs although with the same origin ('baseline' Gripen).

Flygsystem 2020 was the name for R&D activities to bridge the gap between research by the commercial sector and military applications. The name of the project is derived from the scope of the project that the technologies investigated should have a technological readiness level that makes them relevant by 2020. The lack of further updates on the project is not caused by this project being extremely secret but simply because work was conducted in multiple projects focused on the 8 target areas funded by FS2020. Since then the FS2020 seems to have spawned a mythology on it's own with design sketches from the concept studies and work on model based design being interpreted as the foundational groundwork for an entire aircraft (the GFF pictures provided here can for example be found here: That picture is from the Generic Future Fighter project which was funded by Flygsystem 2020. . http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/di ... TEXT01.pdf)

The proposition funding Flygsystem2020 run by Google translate below.

Source: https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/93C6B09F- ... C75DEFF16F
Research areas
Aircraft
Background: There are currently no civically funded R&D activities within
the aviation area in Sweden that can exclusively support or replace the specific
military need in an acceptable manner. A prerequisite for being able to use
and further develop the strategic national competence, regarding design
and development of flying military vehicles, is therefore that of the Armed Forces
technology development activities can be kept at a reasonably acceptable level
economic and resource level, while making further efforts
made to strengthen the conditions for international military cooperation programs (Neuron, ETAP, LOOP, etc.) as well as civil-military "dual-use projects",
such as the already established collaboration between FMV and Vinnova concerning
the National Aeronautical Research Program (NFFP) and others similar
efforts and projects.

Results from the aeronautical technology RTD operations form the basis for one
several established long-term international collaborations, such as ETAP, GARTEUR, NEURON and some Swedish-American collaborations under the TRDP agreement (with USAF and US Navy).
Aim: To ensure an overall national excellence in flying
military vehicles (both manned and unmanned) divided into both
the defense authorities, the aviation industry concerned and universities and colleges
(U&H) and specialist consultants and companies (SME) with operations within one
or several of the aeronautical disciplines. The purpose is also to be developed
results must be able to be utilized in the future network-based Swedish and
International Defense (NBF), as well as for support to the now established international peacekeeping task forces, with Swedish participation (NBG
etc.) and that the results in terms of competence should support future upgrades
of the JAS 39 Gripen system and other relevant aviation-related projects of
national interest.

Sub-areas: Advanced technical studies and demonstrations are carried out within eight
key technical areas, taking into account the target image "flight system 2020" (FS 2020):
- Concept studies (overall), which include: system architecture, sensor architecture, weapon architecture
- Aviation technology, which includes advanced control team design
Propulsion and power supply
31
2007/08: RFR8 3 RESEARCH - MAIN ACTORS
- Integrated base aircraft systems
- Intelligent operator support (autonomous behavior)
- Protection technology, which includes: signature matching technology, ruggedness,
ABC
- Functional materials / miniaturization
- Sensor integration.
Client: The Swedish Armed Forces.
Collaboration: Saab, Volvo, FOI, KTH, Chalmers, LiTH, LundTH, ACAB,
Ångström et al.

The last time that Swedish Defense Forces specifically defined their CPFH for the Gripen was in their Annual Report from 2005:
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteasset ... vuddok.pdf

Looking at the Gripen (A&C) CFPH for BY2005 it was 35,882 SEK, this equals 43,195 SEK or USD 4,970 today. This is in the same ballpark as the Jane's 2012 CPFH for the Gripen C of USD 4,700 (BY2012).
https://www.ftm.nl/upload/content/files ... 281%29.pdf

So far so good.

But then look at the breakdown of some of the other aircraft costs in the Swedish Armed Forces 2005 Annual Report - notably the JA 37 Viggen, particularly its Maintenance Costs. 679k SEK for 14 Viggen flights is only USD 78,000. As the Swedish Defense Annual Reports separately cover personnel costs, does this confirm that the CPFH for the Gripen C just includes Maintenance Assets and Fuel costs, but excludes personnel costs and other base costs?

If you apply that same criteria to the F-35A, you should only include Unit Operations and Maintenance costs from the 2020 DoD report to the US President. That would result in a current Basic CPFH for the F-35A of USD 15,429 (BY2012) compared with the Gripen of USD 4,700 (BY2012), using Jane's criteria.

It's a bit more complex than that. Viggen was being gradually retired between 199 and 2005 with 2005 being the final year of service with only a handful of flight hours by AJS-37 Viggen. If you look at older reports such as the 2002 report you see that the full cost per flighthour for JA-37 is significantly reduced as "Seen over a longer period of time has the cost per hour for JA 37 and AJS 37 drastically decreased as a result of dismantling and recovery of spare parts and replacement units used for remaining aircraft" (from the 2002 annual report: https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteasset ... 2/ar02.pdf). Historically the cost to operate Viggen was a around 30 000 SEK which you can see in the above link, meaning that they saved around 25 % of the cost by using consumables from aircraft being retired.

[XanderCrews]

The first Saab F-39E Gripen fighter arrived on a ship in the port of Navegantes, state of Santa Catarina, Brazil, on 20 September. The Brazilian variant of the Gripen E/F will be used for a flight-testing campaign, Saab said on 23 September, according to a report from Flight Global.

“It will be used for the verification of Brazilian specific functionality, such as communication system and weapon integration,” says the company. “The aircraft will also be used as a common test asset for the whole Gripen E/F test program.”

The Gripen E/F test program started in 2017 in Linkoping, Sweden, and is ongoing. The “F” variant of the Gripen is a two-seat aircraft.

“Activities in Brazil will include testing of flight control system, environmental control system as well as tests in the aircraft in tropical climate conditions,” says Saab. “In addition to the testing that is common for the Gripen E program, unique features of the Brazilian aircraft, such as weapons integration as well as the Link BR2 communication system – which provides encrypted data and voice communication between the aircraft – will be tested in Brazil.”

In 2014, Brasilia ordered 36 Gripen E/F fighters, called the F-39E/F by the Brazilian air force. The deal includes in-country production of 15 examples of the aircraft, as well as a technology transfer agreement that will see more than 350 Brazilian engineers and technicians trained on the fighter.

“So far more than 230 engineers have been trained in Sweden and are already back in Brazil, most of them working at the Gripen Design and Development Network at Embraer’s plant in Gaviao Peixoto,” says Saab.

“The Brazilian and Swedish engineers there are involved in development work for the Gripen E/F, in areas such as vehicle systems, aeronautical engineering, airframe design and systems installation, system integration, avionics, human-machine interaction and communications.”

The first F-39E, which just arrived in Brazil, was built in Sweden and has been undergoing flight tests there. Saab says the F-39E program is moving forward as scheduled. The first aircraft is set to enter service with Brazilian air force in 2021.


wow 15.

Welcome aboard, uroxen