
aprichelieu wrote:magitsu wrote: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.