F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG

Here's more about that "2 billion".

Funding for the Gripen-E program was bolstered in February when the company received development monies totaling $1.64 billion from the state defense materials agency FMV.

The funding covers development on the Gripen-E from 2015 to 2023, including the adaptation of test and trial equipment, simulators and rigs.

The total value of possible orders under Saab’s JAS Gripen-E “complete” development agreement with FMV amounts to $7.3 billion, of which $2 billion has now been received. The remaining orders within the agreement are expected to continue up to the end of 2014.

Other segments of Saab’s funding agreement with FMV includes possible orders to modify 60 Gripen-C to Gripen-E aircraft, and the delivery of 22 new Gripen-Es, and related equipment, to Switzerland, subject to final approval by the Swiss Parliament.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/8562/S ... evelopment

So at that point the dev cost estimate would've been "“The Swedish government has a huge stake in the Gripen-E’s development. It has already invested almost $2 billion at various stages up to now. It will not want the project to fail,” almost $2 billion + that $1.64 billion for 2015-2023. Which is already more than 2. Since 2023 is now the current schedule for IOC, it might have needed more money.

So lets say at least $3.5 billion is guaranteed.

How much the swap and delay between Switzerland and Brazil cost is still a mystery.

You are mixing together development cost and the cost including production aircraft.
SAAB is getting payment in advance.
The cost for 60 Gripen E was estimated to 35,6B Sek which includes development cost.

You do not include the development cost of stuff you buy, so the development of the F414 should not be included in the Gripen E development cost, unless SAAB requests custom modifications and pays for them.
GE certainly wants to recover their development cost, but that is included in the price of the engine, and not in the Gripen E development cost.
Gripen A-D development is a done deal. The development cost of that is already accounted for and split between the ~250 aircraft delivered.
When a decision is to be made on a new development, you do not include the development cost of already designed products.
You calculate how much money you have to pay to get you from the current state to the desired state.
General Dynamic/Lockheed Martin has a lot of expertise gained from previous development, but that should not be included in the F-35 development cost. The Gripen E looks like earlier Gripen, but almost every detail is changed, and developed using new methodologies.

The reason for bringing up F-35 Block 4 is because that is supposed to fix a number of known deficiencies where the F-35 does not meet the requirement spec. Several of the planned deliveries of Block 4 like collision avoidance and SDB II support is already available for Gripen.

Sweden has plenty of places where Gripen E can be based, but it will be difficult to defend northern Norway with F-35 bases in Belgium.
If an F-35 is as capable as 4 Gripen, but only manages to do 25% of the sorties of a Gripen, then they are equivalent.
That is why the sustained sortie rate of aircraft is of interest.

If you want to honestly compare apples to apples, you must include the R and D costs of the Gripen A-D. The Gripen E is not a totally clean sheet design but an evolution of the Gripen A-D PERIOD. Why do you think the Swedish Air Force can upgrade their Gripen C/Ds to Gripen Es without the need to buy new build airframes!?

BTW Block 3F meets or exceeds almost all F35 SDD targets/objectives. Block 4 is not really about correcting F35 deficiencies but to enhance the capabilities of the F35 (post SDD) going into the future.

About the F35’s sortie generation rates/mission capable rates.....what Magitsu just said. And the latest Block 3F jets are doing well......lots of open source information about this from previous Red Flag exercises etc.

Why do you think the Swedish Air Force can upgrade their Gripen C/Ds to Gripen Es without the need to buy new build airframes!?

They can't. It was likely a political ploy to secure the deal / appease the naysayers (like the Super Hornet story goes). It would've included only some very minor parts and slightly more from the cabin. Around a year ago they announced what everyone was expecting, they will be new build. The primary reason is likely to provide max amount of work to Saab for the 60 plane order.

Since Brazil wants also two seaters and tech transfer / domestic production line for a puny 36 jet order that likely doesn't produce as much synergy as one might expect. It's even labeled differently... as Gripen NG project vs. Swedish E in certain articles.

Dimensions, weight, landing gear and its placement, and internals mainly due to wanting a bigger internal fuel tank. Not to mention all of the major components are different.

If an F-35 is as capable as 4 Gripen, but only manages to do 25% of the sorties of a Gripen, then they are equivalent.
That is why the sustained sortie rate of aircraft is of interest.

Given that they are testing 40 sorties without maintenance for F-35 at this point it's better just forget 25% pipe dreams. Besides sortie rate is not the only relevant thing. If the aircraft is not survivable enough in each of their sorties, it's going to stop delivering capability sooner than later.

Several things are indeed superficially available for Gripen. But there's zero practical experience for example from modern cruise missiles, because Sweden doesn't have them.

Availability rates for F-35 are around 50%. That is why I am asking.
If the single airbase is taken out, all F-35s will stop delivering capability immediately in that part of the world.

Storm Shadow / Scalp and RBS-15 are both qualified for use by Gripen.

Why do you think the Swedish Air Force can upgrade their Gripen C/Ds to Gripen Es without the need to buy new build airframes!?

They can't. It was likely a political ploy to secure the deal / appease the naysayers (like the Super Hornet story goes). It would've included only some very minor parts and slightly more from the cabin. Around a year ago they announced what everyone was expecting, they will be new build. The primary reason is likely to provide max amount of work to Saab for the 60 plane order.

Since Brazil wants also two seaters and tech transfer / domestic production line for a puny 36 jet order that likely doesn't produce as much synergy as one might expect. It's even labeled differently... as Gripen NG project vs. Swedish E in certain articles.

Dimensions, weight, landing gear and its placement, and internals mainly due to wanting a bigger internal fuel tank. Not to mention all of the major components are different.

The Swedish Gripen E will not reuse any airframes. The intention was to reuse parts from Gripen C/D, but that was changed to reuse parts from Gripen A/B, and one major part is the ejection seat, which was bought anyway.
It makes sense to group the development cost of Gripen A/B together with Gripen C/D, since the latter is mostly an upgrade of the avionics. The original order was for 30 aircrafts with an option for an additional 110, and when the option was exercised the last –40 were C/Ds. Very few parts are reused for Gripen E, but the design uses the experience gotten by earlier Gripens.
Still it is a new development.
Should the F-35 development cost be burdened by the F-22 development cost? A lot of the development cost is the S/W and certainly there is a lot of expertise gained during the F-22 program that is used to develop the F-35.

I found this link from FMV http://www.fmv.se/sv/Projekt/FMV-balans ... 39-Gripen/
This claims that the total cost of development and production for Gripen E (60 aircrafts) for Sweden is set to 47 BSEK, or $5,2B.

Brazil will not buy/produce any ”Gripen NG”, they will buy/produce Gripen E/F.

Availability rates for F-35 are around 50%. That is why I am asking.
If the single airbase is taken out, all F-35s will stop delivering capability immediately in that part of the world.

Storm Shadow / Scalp and RBS-15 are both qualified for use by Gripen.

Block 3F builds are showing 70% availability rates. I doubt the Gripen will do better.

Availability rates for F-35 are around 50%. That is why I am asking.
If the single airbase is taken out, all F-35s will stop delivering capability immediately in that part of the world.

Storm Shadow / Scalp and RBS-15 are both qualified for use by Gripen.

Block 3F builds are showing 70% availability rates. I doubt the Gripen will do better.

That proves nothing. You might as well use that graph to prove that the availability quickly drops to 50%.

That proves nothing. You might as well use that graph to prove that the availability quickly drops to 50%.

But Gripen E, which has two flying test units is surely available AF.

That proves nothing. You might as well use that graph to prove that the availability quickly drops to 50%.

But Gripen E, which has two flying test units is surely available AF.

It shows that the current batch, 3F, of which, while we argue about it, more aircraft will have been built and sent to operational units, than total Gripens of every type stripe and color, including wooden mockups, ... that they are coming off the assembly line/out of depot into operations with a demonstrated 70% availability.

The Gripen E is still yet to demonstrate ... well what has it demonstrated yet? ... Have the prototypes flown gear up yet? How many test flights have been canceled for maintenance?

Are we really arguing about the availability rate of prototypes against hundreds of operational jets, flying over four plus continents, and off of ships in two oceans on real missions? <Sarc on> Well okay ... I have some prime home property in the Florida everglades, where my homebuilt will get 100% availability when I get around to building it ... because hmmm ... well all homebuilts are 100% available until they crash. So air forces should buy my homebuilt design! ... When I get around to designing it ...
<Sarc Off>

MHO,
BP

That proves nothing. You might as well use that graph to prove that the availability quickly drops to 50%.

That's funny coming from you since you just made up your "availability rates for F-35 are around 50%" without any data to back it up.

That by itself means you are just another person with an opinion, and not only that but you also seem to be unable to seperate facts from wistful thinking.

You are mixing together development cost and the cost including production aircraft.
SAAB is getting payment in advance.
The cost for 60 Gripen E was estimated to 35,6B Sek which includes development cost.

You do not include the development cost of stuff you buy, so the development of the F414 should not be included in the Gripen E development cost, unless SAAB requests custom modifications and pays for them.
GE certainly wants to recover their development cost, but that is included in the price of the engine, and not in the Gripen E development cost.

Exactly my point

General Dynamic/Lockheed Martin has a lot of expertise gained from previous development, but that should not be included in the F-35 development cost.

Youre confusing two accouting practices of how R&D is calculated, but thanks for trying

The Gripen E looks like earlier Gripen, but almost every detail is changed, and developed using new methodologies.

No sorry, you don't get to have it both ways. Its easier a more advanced version of a proven platform in which case we can talk about past perfromance---or--- a whole new airplane that has only 2 prototypes flying, and thus everything we hazard about how well it works is a stone cold guess.

Gripen Fans constantly switch depending on the question. If the Gripen E/F is called too new, and untested and expensive, Gripen Fans fall back on the Legacy platform as proof. If people say it dates back from the 1980s and is comically outdated to be ready by the 2020s, they then say its a brand new animal with not even the same stripes as the legacy birds.

The reason for bringing up F-35 Block 4 is because that is supposed to fix a number of known deficiencies where the F-35 does not meet the requirement spec. Several of the planned deliveries of Block 4 like collision avoidance and SDB II support is already available for Gripen.

the reason for inventing NG is because of known deficiencies in the legacy Gripen.

Sweden has plenty of places where Gripen E can be based, but it will be difficult to defend northern Norway with F-35 bases in Belgium.
If an F-35 is as capable as 4 Gripen, but only manages to do 25% of the sorties of a Gripen, then they are equivalent.
That is why the sustained sortie rate of aircraft is of interest.
Availability rates for F-35 are around 50%. That is why I am asking.
If the single airbase is taken out, all F-35s will stop delivering capability immediately in that part of the world.

So just so I understand the rules, dozens of Gripens hidden all over sweden has more survivability than hundreds of F-35s distributed all over Europe? Sweden is bigger than i realized.

It was already explained that regardless of aircraft Pick, the nations you mentioned were going to one base. So youre blaming the F-35 for things that had nothing to do with it, in an attempt to prove a point based in pure falsehood to start.

Should the F-35 development cost be burdened by the F-22 development cost? A lot of the development cost is the S/W and certainly there is a lot of expertise gained during the F-22 program that is used to develop the F-35.

umm NO. Thats an incredible stretch and I hope you didn't pull a muscle in the attempt.

Is the F-35 called the "F-22NG?" or F-22 B/C/D?? Completely seperate programs, with completely separate airframes and even designations, and everything else.

So your position is,that the F-35 and F-22 which don't even share a name are connected wih R&D, but the GRIPEN A, B, C, D, are wholly different than the GRIPEN E and F????



Again, Saab does not get to say that the NG is built from a proven platform, Reuse the name, and then pretend like its something completely different. The goal to save money is to improve from a legacy Gripen, as much as possible to save development costs. Saab has reiterated several times Themselves over many years that the Gripen NG is a new more advanced development of the proven legacy Gripen.

So who is correct you or SAAB??

I'm waiting.

Brazil will not buy/produce any ”Gripen NG”, they will buy/produce Gripen E/F.

For years and years while trying to sell these Saab used that exact "NG" title, No need to be silly about it. Some people still refer to F-35 as "JSF" get over it.

That proves nothing. You might as well use that graph to prove that the availability quickly drops to 50%.

Got it, facts mean nothing here. I think you've demonstrated that rather well.

I think you have a very untenable position, youre not the first Gripen fan to try and have everything both ways. If the E/F is as new and different as you claim, then we know nothing about its cost, production, or ready rates beyond theory as they only have 2 whole prototypes going. So the only "proof" you can go on is the Legacy Gripen which you say has little to do with Gripen E/F which means you have no proof.


My position is that the Gripen E/F should have been abandoned years ago, its missed its targets in both performance and schedule many times. its expensive for what you get and only Sweden and Brazil are silly enough to go with a follow on design to create a Gen 4.5 fighter that won't be ready until nearly 2 decades after everyone else did it.

Once again we see people trying to defend it by rewriting definitions, and changing words and designations constantly. The GRipen E/F is totally new, except when its not. This isn't my first foray into SAABian Doublethink. The Truth is that many "fans" of this airplane are doing nothing more than regurgitating hype (some of that hype that actually contradicts itself) which shouldn't surprise, given that even Saab themselves have had to change their shiny pamphletson NG, E/F almost monthly with this aircraft in some cases. why theyve even played with the name!

ITs funny that when the Chance to rename it from "GRipen NG" came up they went with "Gripen E/F" when you tell us specifcally they don't have much do with each other. Why not a whole new name?? Strange. Very Strange. Its almost like Saab considers them to be heavily related...

say what you will about F-35 fans, they aren't quoting you 2006 price estimates. But you quickly see 2006 prices quoted for Saab Gripen E/F, right along Legacy Gripen CPFH, they say applies to the E/F that they also say has no relation!

That proves nothing. You might as well use that graph to prove that the availability quickly drops to 50%.

That's funny coming from you since you just made up your "availability rates for F-35 are around 50%" without any data to back it up.

That by itself means you are just another person with an opinion, and not only that but you also seem to be unable to seperate facts from wistful thinking.

His mind is made up, and you wont be confusing him with facts, now


His narrative is that the F-35 wont have the ready rates that the Gripen E/F will and since Sweden does distributed ops (occasionally) it's less vulnerable to a surprise attack. Nothing new -- same tripe they rolled out with F-16 vs Gripen or F-18 vs Gripen.

That proves nothing. You might as well use that graph to prove that the availability quickly drops to 50%.

But Gripen E, which has two flying test units is surely available AF.

It shows that the current batch, 3F, of which, while we argue about it, more aircraft will have been built and sent to operational units, than total Gripens of every type stripe and color, including wooden mockups, ... that they are coming off the assembly line/out of depot into operations with a demonstrated 70% availability.

The Gripen E is still yet to demonstrate ... well what has it demonstrated yet? ... Have the prototypes flown gear up yet? How many test flights have been canceled for maintenance?

Are we really arguing about the availability rate of prototypes against hundreds of operational jets, flying over four plus continents, and off of ships in two oceans on real missions? <Sarc on> Well okay ... I have some prime home property in the Florida everglades, where my homebuilt will get 100% availability when I get around to building it ... because hmmm ... well all homebuilts are 100% available until they crash. So air forces should buy my homebuilt design! ... When I get around to designing it ...
<Sarc Off>

MHO,
BP

Yup. and if we want to from here on out, take his logic and apply only Gripen E/F things to Gripen I'm game. Let's do exactly that. No more mentions or use of legacy Gripen. E/F can stand on it's own, using it's own record and it's own facts. No more legacy Gripen crutches or excuses or facts in defense of E/F

That proves nothing. You might as well use that graph to prove that the availability quickly drops to 50%.

But Gripen E, which has two flying test units is surely available AF.

I have not claimed any specific availability for Gripen E.
I have given an example that illustrates why the availability is important.

That proves nothing. You might as well use that graph to prove that the availability quickly drops to 50%.

That's funny coming from you since you just made up your "availability rates for F-35 are around 50%" without any data to back it up.

That by itself means you are just another person with an opinion, and not only that but you also seem to be unable to seperate facts from wistful thinking.

If you multiply the number of aircraft for each LRIP by the availability for each LRIP you get around 50%.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... esters-say

"There has been no significant improvement in the F-35’s availability rates since October 2014, the report noted. The system-wide figure is approximately 50 percent, which is 10 percent below the "modest” 60 percent goal. Overall F-35 reliability “has changed little compared to July 2016,” according to the report. However, the later production lots are doing better."

This may mean that availability will always be better for Block 3F, or it may mean that availability is better for newer aircraft.

There are reports published on overall availability which I read some months ago, which confirms this.
I did not save a link though.

That proves nothing. You might as well use that graph to prove that the availability quickly drops to 50%.

That's funny coming from you since you just made up your "availability rates for F-35 are around 50%" without any data to back it up.

That by itself means you are just another person with an opinion, and not only that but you also seem to be unable to seperate facts from wistful thinking.

If you multiply the number of aircraft for each LRIP by the availability for each LRIP you get around 50%.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... esters-say

"There has been no significant improvement in the F-35’s availability rates since October 2014, the report noted. The system-wide figure is approximately 50 percent, which is 10 percent below the "modest” 60 percent goal. Overall F-35 reliability “has changed little compared to July 2016,” according to the report. However, the later production lots are doing better."

This may mean that availability will always be better for Block 3F, or it may mean that availability is better for newer aircraft.

There are reports published on overall availability which I read some months ago, which confirms this.
I did not save a link though.

You clearly missed the point where I pointed out the latest production aircraft are block 3F standard and indicative of what to expect for fleetwide maintenance. This seems to be beyond your comprehension.