Page 210 of 247

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2020, 22:12
by pron
I think the new EW pod system from Saab have been up here before, but here is the link to more information about it.

The core technologies in Arexis are:
Ultra-wideband digital receivers
Digital radio frequency memory devices for jamming
Gallium Nitride (GaN) solid state Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) jammer transmitters
Interferometric direction finding systems

https://saab.com/stories/2020-07/outsma ... ic-attack/

Now they have come up with ESTL countermeasures pod with AIM-9 and AIM-120 interface.
Countermeasures pod with missile approach warning to counter RF and IR threats. ESTL is a highly effective countermeasures self protection pod for use on any fixed wing aircraft.
https://saab.com/air/electronic-warfare ... tems/estl/

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2020, 14:11
by twintiger
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.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2020, 11:07
by hornetfinn
twintiger wrote: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.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2020, 11:15
by 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.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2020, 12:09
by kimjongnumbaun
twintiger wrote: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.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2020, 12:32
by 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.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2020, 00:30
by Corsair1963
kimjongnumbaun wrote:
twintiger wrote: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..... :wink:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2020, 17:08
by 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...."

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2020, 17:25
by hythelday
spazsinbad wrote: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

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2020, 21:28
by spazsinbad
OOOPS - scusi - missed it. :doh:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2020, 22:01
by energo
kimjongnumbaun wrote: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 1004 times

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2020, 22:09
by energo
twintiger wrote: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! :mrgreen:

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2020, 11:34
by kimjongnumbaun
energo wrote:
twintiger wrote: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! :mrgreen:



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

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2020, 02:48
by 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.

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2020, 19:53
by 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.