Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

Canadian Exemption https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-22/chapter-I/subchapter-M/part-126/section-126.5

Permanent and temporary export of defense articles. Except as provided in Supplement No. 1 to part 126 of this subchapter and for exports that transit third countries, Port Directors of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and postmasters shall permit, when for end-use in Canada by Canadian Federal or Provincial governmental authorities acting in an official capacity or by a Canadian-registered person, or for return to the United States, the permanent and temporary export to Canada without a license of unclassified defense articles and defense services identified on the U.S. Munitions List (22 CFR 121.1).


Category XIX—Gas Turbine Engines and Associated Equipment​


* (a) Turbofan and Turbojet engines (including those that are technology demonstrators, developmental engines, or variable cycle engines) capable of 15,000 lbf (66.7 kN) of thrust or greater that have any of the following:

(1) With or specially designed for thrust augmentation (afterburner);
...

(f) Parts, components, accessories, attachments, associated equipment, and systems as follows:

(1) Parts, components, accessories, and attachments specially designed for the following U.S.-origin engines (and military variants thereof): F101, F107, F112, F118, F119, F120, F135, F136, F414, F415, and J402;
 
A.P.Richelieu said:
A high ranking member of the RCAF is proposing that Canada buys 36 F-35A and up to 150 Gripen or Rafale.

ottawacitizen.com

Canadian general who recommended F-35 deal now calls for purchase of other jets

Retired Lt.-Gen. Yvan Blondin says building Canada’s future fighter force solely on the F-35 would be “irresponsible.”
ottawacitizen.com ottawacitizen.com
Click to expand...
Why when Canada couldn't afford more than 88 F-35s would they go out and order 150 Gripen/Rafale, both of which were found to be more expensive in multiple competitions held by multiple countries...?
 
Ozair said:
Why when Canada couldn't afford more than 88 F-35s would they go out and order 150 Gripen/Rafale, both of which were found to be more expensive in multiple competitions held by multiple countries...?
Click to expand...
Because while the price of the F-35 appears to be similar to that of the Gripen E, the cost of maintaining the F-35 is so steep that you can have 3 Gripen for the same price.

The first tender lost was Norway. According to the Norwegian calculations, the Gripen E would have been more expensive even if SAAB had given away the Gripens free of charge. the maintenance cost of Gripen was considered much much higher than the cost Sweden experience for running the Gripen.

Guess what? Now with the real cost known, the Norwegians believe that their 56 F-35As will cost them a lot more. A LOT MORE. NOK326B ($31,24B) during the next 30 years. That is $558M per aircraft or $18,6M per year.
If it flies 200 hours per year, that is $95k per flight hour.
They do include the cost of running the base in that number.

The Gripen is believed to cost $85M on the open market, but Sweden is paying a fixed price of around $3,5B for the development of Gripen E and 60 aircrafts. This is a little low for two reasons. It is not inflation adjusted and there are likely clauses that compensate for currency fluctuations.
The development cost is estimated to be $2B. My best guess is the real cost to Sweden is around $65M per aircraft with $20M as payment for the development. Buying 150 aircraft gives room for a discount on the development part of the price. SAAB of course sells at market value and the cost of production matters less. It is likely that Canada would produce a large part in Canada but would have to pay for Transfer of Technology.

The major item is of course the maintenance cost. In the Danish tender, IIRC the Danes calculated the CPFH by assuming a large part of the ”flights” for the F-35 would be in simulators. The others would mostly be flying IRL. Boeing was so pissed that they considered suing.

The F-35 was seen as the next NATO fighter so there were lots of pressure, internal and external to select it.

Special things blocking a Gripen sale.

* Norway: Wants to sell the Joint Strike Missile to the US. That would not happen without F-35 buy.
* Denmark: ?
* Canada: Required NORAD support without providing documentation on protocol.
* Swiss: Did not allow Gripen to participate in the second tender after it won the first tender.
* Belgium: Required support by Air tankers from the country selling the fighter. No non-US fighter needs to apply.
* Netherlands: ?
* UK, Italy: Need V/STOL
* Finland: ?
* Poland: ?
* Germany: Only aircraft that is capable of dropping US nuclear bombs.

When fair calculations are applied, then the F-35 is 3 x expensive than Gripen and therefore you can replace 52 F-35 with 150 Gripen. I think that if they want to go with Rafale, the number will be smaller,
 
Last edited:
Ozair said:
Why when Canada couldn't afford more than 88 F-35s would they go out and order 150 Gripen/Rafale, both of which were found to be more expensive in multiple competitions held by multiple countries...?
Click to expand...
Beyond the maintenance costs, the threat of RCAF being involved in future hostilities just surged massively.
 
Ozair said:
Why when Canada couldn't afford more than 88 F-35s would they go out and order 150 Gripen/Rafale, both of which were found to be more expensive in multiple competitions held by multiple countries...?
Click to expand...
Rafale was. Gripen, even rather packed E/F, never.
 
timmymagic said:
Didn't BAE have to step in to try and sort the absolute horlicks that the US contractor had made of the FCS?
Click to expand...
The US contractor was Lear Astronics, which apparently GEC-Marconi bought in 1987 (I'd completely forgotten that), though it continued trading as Lear Astronics until at least 1997 (found an ad), and probably until after the BAe takeover of GEC-Marconi to form BAE Systems in 1999. I'm not aware of any significant contact between Flight Controls at GEC/Marconi/BAE Systems Rochester and Lear Astronics. It could have happened, but would Lear management have wanted to risk turning a two-way ITAR mess (US-Sweden) into a three-way (US-Sweden-UK) one?
 
Some people have been pointing out the use of a U.S. engine in the Gripen. So, to be old-school Canadian for a moment - what about redesigning the airframe to use a pair of Adour Mk 951? Silly idea?
 
A.P.Richelieu said:
Guess what? Now with the real cost known, the Norwegians believe that their 56 F-35As will cost them a lot more. A LOT MORE. NOK326B ($31,24B) during the next 30 years. That is $558M per aircraft or $18,6M per year.
If it flies 200 hours per year, that is $95k per flight hour.
They do include the cost of running the base in that number.
Click to expand...
Still, holy bejesus...! That's the GDP of a small nation!
 
A.P.Richelieu said:
When fair calculations are applied, then the F-35 is 3 x expensive than Gripen and therefore you can replace 52 F-35 with 150 Gripen. I think that if they want to go with Rafale, the number will be smaller,
Click to expand...

Great post, though don’t forget the costs of the pilot to fly the aircraft are also significant, and will drive that Gripen figure down - as will the RCAF strategic requirements.
 
Avimimus said:
Some people have been pointing out the use of a U.S. engine in the Gripen. So, to be old-school Canadian for a moment - what about redesigning the airframe to use a pair of Adour Mk 951? Silly idea?
Click to expand...

A cool idea, but impracticable.

It would require changes to the internal airflow ducting, the rear fuselage, and the development of an updated Adour to match the afterburning thrust of the F414.

Lots of work - at least 5 years, if not more.
 
alberchico said:
armyrecognition.com

Colombia turns to Swedish Gripen E fighter jet after the US tries to force F-16 sale through political pressure and trade threats

Breaking News: Saab Gripen E/F Selected by Colombia in Fighter Jet Competition Against US F-16
armyrecognition.com armyrecognition.com

www.aerotime.aero

Colombia selects Saab Gripen fighters, but potential US veto looms - AeroTime

Colombia opts for Sweden's Saab Gripen fighters to replace aging Kfir fleet, but a US engine veto could derail the purchase due to ITAR restrictions.
www.aerotime.aero www.aerotime.aero
Click to expand...
"Yes, we will sell you F-16s, no you can not buy F404s..." Talk about sending mixed messages
 
But what would do a Grip E force against Su-57s or J-20Next? ... Making saving plans is a great thing to do while you are not invaded.

The number that are raised by @A.P.Richelieu are coming from where? Most countries that evaluated the Gripen Vs the Lightning choose the latter on Cost AND efficiency basis (not just cost Vs Efficiency).
A Stealth strike force is more lean, less subject to attrition and more deadly that one that is not. It´s hard to see how cost effective a Gripen can be facing similar environment. I read the argument with Simulated training flights. But that is because Stealth is a thing you want to protect, hence not train full scale a couple hundred miles only from your potential adversaries.

It is important to try to make sense beyond just the key words.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
But what would do a Grip E force against Su-57s or J-20Next? ... Making saving plans is a great thing to do while you are not invaded.
Click to expand...
Point can be made, that single, weaker country will get more use of more diverse asset system compared to a single stop F-35 force, if the latter can't expect to be saved by the US.

F-35 is large(difficult to hide), expensive asset, tied down by non-dispersable maintenance. It can operate from dispersed locations for a short while, but it'll cease naturally soon enough.

F-35 is ultimately an offensive, "1st day strike fighter". Granted, it'll produce better results on ship to ship basis, all things being equal. Which may not be equal - if directly fighting chinese J-20 force(with enablers) with small F-35(without enablers) force is equally hopeless, F-35 doesn't justify itself.
Especially if REDFOR is expected to just crush advanced logistics, and will have easier time finding big aircraft on the ground.


Combining more attritable/dispersable "2nd day"(see KF-21 topic) aircraft in ground-controled ambush role with survivable SAM network(procured from savings - or, one may say, it's better to procure gripens from SAM savings!) will give better effect on OPFOR if you're all by yourself - ironically giving a country more "value": country can fend off for itself, it's an asset. If saving or conquering Romania takes same number of divisions(WW1 german joke) - military value is less, no matter how much of a "good ally" you are.

"2nd day" in this case is more than 1 aspect(vulnerability to being detected). Taking off on a 2nd, 3rd and 15th day is also something.

Finally, while we write that F-35 is just a better aircraft - it isn't better aircraft across the board. Gripen has specific advantages exactly as an underdog.


Vietnam/Ukraine experience.

p.s. also, it's clear that one way or another, regardless of stealth fights, su-57s just don't operate as 1st day strike fighters. Whether it's because their stealth is insufficient, or they aren't designed to, or they are, but Russia can't accept risk of losing one - is secondary here. And this is also an argument against a small F-35 fleet - even if you have capability, can you accept losses? And even more ironically - can United States accept your losses? No one will care about Sweden's objections (and frankly there's little to lose there anyway), but US may prefer keeping their core advantages against China.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
But what would do a Grip E force against Su-57s or J-20Next? ... Making saving plans is a great thing to do while you are not invaded.

The number that are raised are by @A.P.Richelieu are coming from where?
Click to expand...
Who is planning on taking on J-20s with Gripens?

F-16s are already flying in Su-57 territory and have survived so far, so Gripens can operate there.
 
A.P.Richelieu said:
When fair calculations are applied, then the F-35 is 3 x expensive than Gripen and therefore you can replace 52 F-35 with 150 Gripen. I think that if they want to go with Rafale, the number will be smaller,
Click to expand...
You can use other open source numbers to prove that Gripen is more expensive.

It's really difficult to do a "fair" comparison when you don't have access to any of the real numbers. Hence it's better to just look at what is published from the various source selection competitions.
 
www.twz.com

JAS 39 Gripen E/F Chosen As Colombia’s Next Fighter

The Gripen E/F, manufactured in Brazil and Sweden, has been selected to replace Colombia’s aging fleet of Israeli-made Kfir jets. The Gripen E/F, manufactured in Brazil and Sweden, has been selected to replace Colombia’s aging fleet of Israeli-made Kfir jets.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
It appears the F414 inside the Gripen E/F isn't a problem then.
 
starviking said:
A cool idea, but impracticable.

It would require changes to the internal airflow ducting, the rear fuselage, and the development of an updated Adour to match the afterburning thrust of the F414.

Lots of work - at least 5 years, if not more.
Click to expand...

Archibald said:
Better to put an EJ200 or a M88.
Click to expand...

I suppose I was thinking of SAAB's offer to South Korea (but I suppose that was FS2020 derived). The idea of partnering with SAAB to produce our own airframes around Gripen avionics would be popular in Canada, but the price tag and timeframe likely wouldn't be.

P.S. I'm partly being humorous about the old guard in Canada insisting that everything has two engines (after our negative experiences with single-engined designs). Our conditions are closer to those operating Siberia - so I've always found it unsurprising that the VVS moved away from single-engined designs as soon as they could afford it.
 
If I understand correctly, isn't the RM16 - the F414 variant for the Gripen E/F - made in Sweden?
 
Thanks, partially then. Which parts, please?
 
A.P.Richelieu said:
* Swiss: Did not allow Gripen to participate in the second tender after it won the first tender.
Click to expand...

Not true.
Saab was told their JAS 39E pre series model was not mature enough for the evaluation, i.e. the Swiss AF required a ready into service aircraft for the evaluation. Saab could not provide that, so they decided to quit.
In the first tender from 2011, the F-35 was not a participant at all. That program was to replace the F-5E fleet so requirements were lower.
 
A.P.Richelieu said:
Because while the price of the F-35 appears to be similar to that of the Gripen E, the cost of maintaining the F-35 is so steep that you can have 3 Gripen for the same price.

The first tender lost was Norway. According to the Norwegian calculations, the Gripen E would have been more expensive even if SAAB had given away the Gripens free of charge. the maintenance cost of Gripen was considered much much higher than the cost Sweden experience for running the Gripen.

Guess what? Now with the real cost known, the Norwegians believe that their 56 F-35As will cost them a lot more. A LOT MORE. NOK326B ($31,24B) during the next 30 years. That is $558M per aircraft or $18,6M per year.
If it flies 200 hours per year, that is $95k per flight hour.
They do include the cost of running the base in that number.
Click to expand...
Which instantly makes the numbers invalid.

You're going to operate that base regardless of what fighter is based there, so you should not be including the general operational costs for the base in F-35 operational costs.

You should include the F-35-specific bits that are on that base, like any intermediate or depot level maintenance units that are specific to the F-35.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom