Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

[A.P.Richelieu]

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).

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-22/chapter-I/subchapter-M/part-121/subject-group-ECFRf7e5fe639be4566/section-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;

 

[Ozair]

A high ranking member of the RCAF is proposing that Canada buys 36 F-35A and up to 150 Gripen or Rafale.

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

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...?

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

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...?

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,

 

[DWG]

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...?

Beyond the maintenance costs, the threat of RCAF being involved in future hostilities just surged massively.

 

[Ainen]

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...?

Rafale was. Gripen, even rather packed E/F, never.

 

[DWG]

Didn't BAE have to step in to try and sort the absolute horlicks that the US contractor had made of the FCS?

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?

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

Rafale was. Gripen, even rather packed E/F, never.

Actually it was considered more expensive in several tenders but that was because the ones preparing the information were dishonest.

 

[Avimimus]

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?

 

[snne]

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.

Still, holy bejesus...! That's the GDP of a small nation!

 

[alberchico]

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

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

 

[starviking]

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,

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.

 

[starviking]

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 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.

 

[Archibald]

Better to put an EJ200 or a M88.

 

[Desertfox]

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

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

"Yes, we will sell you F-16s, no you can not buy F404s..." Talk about sending mixed messages

 

[TomcatViP]

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.

 

[Ainen]

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.

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.

 

[Desertfox]

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?

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.

 

[red admiral]

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,

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.

 

[GTX]

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

 

[Arjen]

It appears the F414 inside the Gripen E/F isn't a problem then.

 

[Avimimus]

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.

Better to put an EJ200 or a M88.

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.

 

[Arjen]

If I understand correctly, isn't the RM16 - the F414 variant for the Gripen E/F - made in Sweden?

 

[GTX]

If I understand correctly, isn't the RM16 - the F414 variant for the Gripen E/F - made in Sweden?

Not entirely

 

[Arjen]

Thanks, partially then. Which parts, please?

 

[GTX]

Thanks, partially then. Which parts, please?

Can't really go to that depth

 

[eagle]

* Swiss: Did not allow Gripen to participate in the second tender after it won the first tender.

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.

 

[Arjen]

Can't really go to that depth

Fair enough.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

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.

 

[H_K]

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.

I also wonder how things would have turned out if Saab had gone with a scaled down FS2020 (say ~3/4 scale) with NG avionics and ITAR-free systems including a 90-100kN EJ200. Instead of reusing the Gripen airframe.

Could have been much like a 5th gen F-16 / Mirage 2000. Although Thrust/Weight would have been a tad low... but probably OK for a stealth fighter with low-drag internal carriage for 4 AAMs (+ optional wingtip AAMs).

 

[Scott Kenny]

I also wonder how things would have turned out if Saab had gone with a scaled down FS2020 (say ~3/4 scale) with NG avionics and ITAR-free systems including a 90-100kN EJ200. Instead of reusing the Gripen airframe.

Would have taken a lot more development, IMO.

Could have been much like a 5th gen F-16 / Mirage 2000. Although Thrust/Weight would have been a tad low... but probably OK for a stealth fighter with low-drag internal carriage.

You mean using an EJ2x0 Stage 1? ~103kN afterburning, 72kN MIL?

I think you'd want to step up to the Stage 2, 78kN MIL, 120kN AB. After all, the F-22 is 25% heavier than the F-15C, so I'd expect a similar weight increase over an F16 or M2K. (Completely ignoring the 70klbs MTOW that is the F35...)

But yes, the internal carriage would give much less drag even for the lower powered engine. IIRC the F4D Skyray did very well when it was clean.

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

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.

The numbers on Norway comes from a Norwegian government report.
The Swedish Gripen E contracts was a fixed prize contract for 35,6BSEK. All over the news in Sweden around 2012. The $85B appears to be the general consensus in blogs, but I doubt there are much info.

In the first Swiss tender, Gripen won, and I suspect the politicians simply thought it was good enough when given the price of the options. If you want politicians to select your preferred solution, telling the politicians that something you want is cheaper is going to increase the chance of getting it.

In Canada, now when the RCAF think getting an all F-35 fleet is a bad idea, they can suddenly afford 150 Gripen E instead of 52 F-35s. That is a good indication of the real price.

For Canada, the difference between flying a Gripen E for one hour in the Northern territories to meet an intruder will incur the cost of 1 flight hour ($10-30,000/hour, really don’t know). An F-35 flying from Cold Lake for two hours, one hour on station and a two hour return flight will incur 5 hours (at $35,000/hour?) and will need air tanker support. If the tanker aircraft is based in Cold Lake as well, it probably needs to stay up for five hours as well ($20,000/hour?). Total cost of the operation is $10-30,000 fir Gripen and $275,000 for the F-35. If two aircraft are flying, it becomes $20-60,000 for Gripen and $450,000 for the F-35.

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

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.

If you do not trust the Gripen E to detect them first, then you can let the F-35s detect the perfidious commie b-rds and inform the Gripens (flying silent with full EW) through the data link allowing the Gripens to launch meteors in an ambush.

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

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.

We are not talking about purchase price, It is total cost of ownership.

Norway calculates the TCO to be almost $600M per aircraft over 30 years. The TCO for Gripen at a purchase price of $80M and 8,000 hours at $10,000 is $160M, at $30,000 it is $320M.

As for the purchasing price, around $50-60B has been spent on developing the F-35.
Some 1000-1200 aircraft produced so the development cost is almost $50M per aircraft.
This will go down as more aircrafts are produced but at the same time more money are spent on development.
A country like Finland, are they really paying a fair share of the development, or are the partners paying for all the development. If not, the real cost of the F-35 is $110-130M not $80M,

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

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.

Denmark had to upgrade their main F-16 base for $190M to support specifically the F-35.
I know of no such numbers for Norway, but both decided that bases are so expensive that they can only afford one base.

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

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.

Considering the Swiss decided to purchase the non-working F-35 Block 4 after evaluating the Block 3F, it certainly looks like politics to me.

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

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

A SAAB representative said today that they do not have anything signed yet. Such announcements often happen anyway. There may still be groups within Colombia which must give their OK.

 

[eagle]

Considering the Swiss decided to purchase the non-working F-35 Block 4 after evaluating the Block 3F, it certainly looks like politics to me.

How is it politics if Saab could not meet the specs?
The Block 3F was good enough for the evaluation. Doesn't mean that's the standard that needs to be introduced later. A better standard is possible.
Swiss AF tested F-18A/B back then for example.

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

How is it politics if Saab could not meet the specs?
The Block 3F was good enough for the evaluation. Doesn't mean that's the standard that needs to be introduced later. A better standard is possible.
Swiss AF tested F-18A/B back then for example.

SAAB believed they could complete all the tests, but were not allowed to do so. A few tests would use the Gripen C.
The Block 4 would not have been able to complete all the tests, and it is debatable if it will be able to meet the tests before Gripen E is operative. It will be at least three years delayed, and possibly killed by Musk.

 

[eagle]

Saab believed initially when the competition was launched that they could meet the requirements. But at day X they realised they couldn't demonstrate the required capabilites which is why they stayed at home. If they weren't "allowed" (whatever that means) they would have sued.
The F-35s that were sent to Payerne were operational aircraft and demonstrated the required capabilites. Block 4 was not a requirement.

 

[Ozair]

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.

All of that norwegian and subsequent stuff is very much meaningless. What do we know for a fact is that Finland evaluated the finished products in the F-35 and the Gripen E and found that not only was the F-35 more capable but it was also cheaper to acquire, operate and upgrade across the lifetime of the aircraft. Acquiring a less capable aircraft in the form of Gripen E would have required significantly more investment over the lifetime of the aircraft in the aircraft itself and in supporting systems to keep it relevant against evolving threats.

Why would that be any different for Canada, other than perhaps Canada being an example of underinvesting in their aircraft and having the oldest and least upgraded Hornets of the major operators...?