Saab Gripen E/F (Gripen NG)

[A.P.Richelieu]

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.

No, SAAB was told by the Swiss that they should not bother.
The demand was that the aircraft was in operation. Gripen E is only in operation this year,
Why demand this? To ensure there are no delays!
And then they select the Block 4 which does not work, and is likely to incur delays.

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

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...?

The Norwegians concluded that the F-35 was more than twice as expensive as they expected.
Their figures for the cost of Gripen was far off the cost what was seen by the Swedish Air Force.
Unless you know how the Finns calculated, it is impossible to judge whether they were as ”creative”.

What is different with Canada is that they do not want the 88 F-35. They, like other air forces adapt their calculations based on what they want.

 

[TomcatViP]

Beyond unsubstantiated allegations such as those above, we have a long history of discussing along the same arguments line for long here. Perhaps the reader will be interested to see factually based responses instead (I think we have the Swiss evaluation report somewhere - perhaps in the Rafale thread(?)).
Here is a long reply from Czech MoD to similar allegations. More similar materials should be available through the Search function.

Don't take me wrong, the Gripen is a potent airframe with some unique capabilities among 4th Gen but the argument line that it can be equal to later 5th gen aircraft and beyond is simply flawed. Canadians would also have to ask themselves what does it will bring to their Air Force beyond their modernized Hornet (aside of a decomplexed flight schedules).

Classic hornets with a modern radar and 12 AAM, including 10 long range missiles, is certainly a better fit that already exists today...

So why that step aside? Is the Madison now the new operational strategy up north?!

View: https://youtu.be/_PIRQ6wzoTM?si=6d6c0DWgs2F_R8jL

 

[kqcke for you]

The Norwegians concluded that the F-35 was more than twice as expensive as they expected.
Their figures for the cost of Gripen was far off the cost what was seen by the Swedish Air Force.
Unless you know how the Finns calculated, it is impossible to judge whether they were as ”creative”.

Until we know there specific methods of calculation not the norwegian nor finnish one can be used as the ultimate truth. A lot of factors go into sutch a thing and even the time alone with our economical standing can impact that price.

What is different with Canada is that they do not want the 88 F-35. They, like other air forces adapt their calculations based on what they want.

As far as i can tell from what the said they want F-35 mostly does it. Yes you don't have your twin engine which the oldies love nor 100% free control of the jet but then again considering canadas way of underinvesting i doubt this even matters...

 

[Ainen]

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).

I guess the problem is it's impossible to make true FS2020 with NG avionics.

They had to either commit to developing stealth aircraft(it'll change a lot), or they could make a mini-KF-21.

Second option was already clearly beyond budget, first option was further still...

 

[red admiral]

There's little point in taking incorrect numbers and combining them in incorrect ways to then try and draw conclusions that are the opposite of what the competent people with the actual numbers.

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

I guess the problem is it's impossible to make true FS2020 with NG avionics.

They had to either commit to developing stealth aircraft(it'll change a lot), or they could make a mini-KF-21.

Second option was already clearly beyond budget, first option was further still...

I have never seen FS2020 being ever mentioned in any newspaper in Sweden.

I think it is best ignored as an unsubstantiated rumour.

 

[Ainen]

I have never seen FS2020 being ever mentioned in any newspaper in Sweden.

I think it is best ignored as an unsubstantiated rumour.

Valid, but I'm more from the point that if SAAB would have had more budget to tinker their airframe, they would do it.

They only had this much.

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

Beyond unsubstantiated allegations such as those above, we have a long history of discussing along the same argumention line for long here. Perhaps the reader will be interested to see factually based responses (I think we have the Swiss evaluation report somewhere - perhaps the a Rafale thread(?)).
Here is a long reply from Czech MoD to similar allegations. Burlt more material should be available through the Search function.

The czech report compares their known cost of operating Gripen with the estimated cost of operating the F-35, numbers coming from the US. They concluded that the F-35 was more expensive. But not by much.

Those numbers are not written in stone.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106703

”The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps' have made progress in meeting their affordability targets (i.e., the amount of money they project they can afford to spend per aircraft per year for operating the aircraft). This is due in part to the reduction in planned flight hours, and because the Air Force increased the amount of money it projects it can afford to spend. DOD currently estimates the Air Force will pay $6.6 million annually to operate and sustain an individual aircraft. This continues to be well above the $4.1 million original target. In June 2023, the Air Force increased the amount of money it can afford to spend per F-35 aircraft to $6.8 million per year.”

So before you know what number was used by the Czechs it is still ambiguous.

South Africa’s cost of operating Gripen turned out to be much more expensive than the cost for operating Gripen in Sweden. This was related to how they handled spare parts. I remember reading about this a long time ago but I don’t remember the details. The take is that the cost of operating aircraft can vary between different air forces suing the same aircraft depending on how they are organized.

 

[NMaude]

What is this FS2020 I've seen mentioned in several recent posts?

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

What is this FS2020 I've seen mentioned in several recent posts?

FS2020 or Flygsystem 2020 was considered old news in 2013.
Then it made it to a Wiki article. Since then, some people have believed it is for real.
At most, it was an internal project at SAAB to study the stealth technology (and that is not confirmed), but not a funded project to even create a prototype.
Now the Swedish parliament has funded a prestudy at SAAB to prepare for a decision before 2030 on
whether to:

1. Develop a 6th generation fighter in Sweden
2. Join a consortium like the UK Tempest of the French/German FCAS.
3. Buy a 6th generation fighter when available.

Some people like to call this FS2020. SAAB has not called it FS2020 in any news flashes I have seen.
If they were, they would call it FS2050 which is when such a fighter is deemed necessary.

Sweden already joined the Tempest project to get access to some of its technologies for use in Gripen.

 

[Mach42]

FS2020 or Flygsystem 2020 was considered old news in 2013.
Then it made it to a Wiki article. Since then, some people have believed it is for real.
At most, it was an internal project at SAAB to study the stealth technology (and that is not confirmed), but not a funded project to even create a prototype.
Now the Swedish parliament has funded a prestudy at SAAB to prepare for a decision before 2030 on
whether to:

1. Develop a 6th generation fighter in Sweden
2. Join a consortium like the UK Tempest of the French/German FCAS.
3. Buy a 6th generation fighter when available.

Some people like to call this FS2020. SAAB has not called it FS2020 in any news flashes I have seen.
If they were, they would call it FS2050 which is when such a fighter is deemed necessary.

Sweden already joined the Tempest project to get access to some of its technologies for use in Gripen.

Wishful thinking, but it would be nice if Sweden and Korea worked together to develop an "affordable" 6th gen based on the KF-21. Maybe go from the F414 to a European or a joint Volvo/Hanwha solution.

 

[Ozair]

The Norwegians concluded that the F-35 was more than twice as expensive as they expected.
Their figures for the cost of Gripen was far off the cost what was seen by the Swedish Air Force.
Unless you know how the Finns calculated, it is impossible to judge whether they were as ”creative”.

Norway remains a terrible example. You're comparing two aircraft, one of which doesn't exist today as the Gripen proposed for Norway is not the Gripen flying today, it was significantly less capable even than the below spec Gripen being delivered now.

Saab even admitted that the Gripen proposed to Norway wasn't good enough. In several trade journals they have spoken about systems as part of the proposal having to be significantly improved given the feedback Norway provided and Saab acknowledging.

As for Finland I don't think anyone can argue they didn't run an above board competition.

What is different with Canada is that they do not want the 88 F-35. They, like other air forces adapt their calculations based on what they want.

You really have little idea of what Canada wants or needs. The Canadian defence budget already has multiple significant acquisitions over the next two decades including ships, submarines as well as the air force acquisitions. Add to that there is a massive manpower issue with the RCAF, they cannot retain enough pilots to fly even their current diminishing fleet of fighters and yet you think they can somehow solve that and employ literally hundreds more aircrew to staff new aircraft, let alone the ground crew to support.

 

[Ainen]

You really have little idea of what Canada wants or needs. The Canadian defence budget already has multiple significant acquisitions over the next two decades including ships, submarines as well as the air force acquisitions. Add to that there is a massive manpower issue with the RCAF, they cannot retain enough pilots to fly even their current diminishing fleet of fighters and yet you think they can somehow solve that and employ literally hundreds more aircrew to staff new aircraft, let alone the ground crew to support.

I guess the whole point of the new situation is that they need more, and their wishes and needs may have gone through a revision.
In the end, it's canadians themselves who're talking Gripen now.

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

Norway remains a terrible example. You're comparing two aircraft, one of which doesn't exist today as the Gripen proposed for Norway is not the Gripen flying today, it was significantly less capable even than the below spec Gripen being delivered now.

Saab even admitted that the Gripen proposed to Norway wasn't good enough. In several trade journals they have spoken about systems as part of the proposal having to be significantly improved given the feedback Norway provided and Saab acknowledging.

As for Finland I don't think anyone can argue they didn't run an above board competition.

You really have little idea of what Canada wants or needs. The Canadian defence budget already has multiple significant acquisitions over the next two decades including ships, submarines as well as the air force acquisitions. Add to that there is a massive manpower issue with the RCAF, they cannot retain enough pilots to fly even their current diminishing fleet of fighters and yet you think they can somehow solve that and employ literally hundreds more aircrew to staff new aircraft, let alone the ground crew to support.

For Norway, I am comparing mainly the expected cost, and what it turned out to be.

For Canada, the RCAF general concluded that they want to reduce the F-35 orders and get something else. For the pilots, low pay and few flight hours may contribute. They are limited by their low defense budget so they simply needs to spend more.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Colombia picks Saab Gripen for next fighter jet - Breaking Defense

Key specifics remain under wraps regarding a potential deal between Saab and Colombia, including the number of aircraft involved, delivery timelines, and the total cost of the agreement.

breakingdefense.com

I suspect that the Gotlandsdricka and other alcoholic beverages are being broken out for celebrations right now!

 

[FighterJock]

Well done Colombia.

 

[Ozair]

I guess the whole point of the new situation is that they need more, and their wishes and needs may have gone through a revision.
In the end, it's canadians themselves who're talking Gripen now.

Just take a step back and think about what you are saying. If not taking a US airframe is really the issue why would they then chose an airframe that has a US engine? How does that really reduce their reliance on the US?

Canadians can say all they want but the vast majority don't know the difference between one aircraft or another nor do they understand what they get or don't with various airframes.

 

[Ainen]

Just take a step back and think about what you are saying. If not taking a US airframe is really the issue why would they then chose an airframe that has a US engine? How does that really reduce their reliance on the US?

Well, mig-29s fly against Russia, as do Tomcats "against" the US. 1990s engine by itself isn't that magical, and US are Canadian enemy yet.

The goal seems to be buying a much larger force, cheaper, and relying on US for some engine supplies is different from US being in control of your entire air force.
They aren't cutting ties with US, but it's certainly a reduction.

Canadians can say all they want but the vast majority don't know the difference between one aircraft or another nor do they understand what they get or don't with various airframes.

But it's politicians. As much as they don't know (they don't indeed), they call shots.
Which is irony of our world.

 

[TomcatViP]

Colombia picks Saab Gripen for next fighter jet - Breaking Defense

Key specifics remain under wraps regarding a potential deal between Saab and Colombia, including the number of aircraft involved, delivery timelines, and the total cost of the agreement.

breakingdefense.com

I suspect that the Gotlandsdricka and other alcoholic beverages are being broken out for celebrations right now!

Sweden is gonna wake up broke for sure!

Note: to clear any ambiguity, Columbia is buying the new Gripen model E (and twinseaters F).

 

[FighterJock]

So what weapons are the Columbian Air Force getting with the Gripen E/Fs?

 

[AGS-1787]

Colombia should have gone for the Rafale even if it is more expensive. I know how Colombia operates; let’s buy something we can afford! Then they buy aging kfirs which are completely outdated in terms of airframe technology and engine; then after a few years they are spending more money fixing them, or not even flying so then they go over and over and over what to get. The saying says “barato sale caro” cheap ends up being expensive.

 

[AGS-1787]

Also, Colombia has a lot of big birds; they have lost some mirages and kfirs due to bird strikes; having two engines should have been part of the requirement; in addition to having to protect San Andres; which is a good distance from mainland.

 

[TomcatViP]

One should buy a global map before typing




Sourced from:

Size of Colombia compared to Sweden

How big is Colombia compared to Sweden? View both areas on a map to see a relative size comparison.

www.mylifeelsewhere.com

Also you have quite a lot of Crane and Goose in Sweden and Hungary, two countries that fly Gripen among large birds.

What Columbia would really have needed is some Mirage 2000. But some genius cut it as a way to sell more. The Gripen E is just filling the void here like in many other places.

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

One should buy a global map before typing

View attachment 765583


Sourced from:

Size of Colombia compared to Sweden

How big is Colombia compared to Sweden? View both areas on a map to see a relative size comparison.

www.mylifeelsewhere.com

Also you have quite a lot of Crane and Goose in Sweden and Hungary, two countries that fly Gripen among large birds.

What Columbia would really have needed is some Mirage 2000. But some genius cut it as a way to sell more. The Gripen E is just filling the void here like in many other places.

Sweden has lost one Gripen to birdstrikes in 30 years. A Gripen C ran into a flock of Cormorants sucking in 5-6.
I bet a dual engine fighter would have gone down as well.

 

[Arjen]

One should buy a global map before typing

There is some distortion in that map. Orthographic projections, with Sweden and Colombia at or near the map's centre are slightly different. Maps from wiki.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Getting out of ITAR would have been worth the development costs at SAAB, IMO.

If you think just changing the engine would make the Gripen ITAR free, I've got a news for you.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Moreover, why supply an engine to a cheaper Eurofighter competitor?

I don't know, they were very eager to sell their engines to Koreans for use in KF-X, which is way closer to a direct competitor to Eurofighter than Gripen.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Germany is an interesting one. A lot will depend here on the conversation about France's nuclear brolly.

Isn't the central issue that Germany isn't certain about the future of the nuclear sharing agreement? The F-35s were there to provide a nuclear deterrence, that was their purpose. If the U.S. can't be trusted to share warheads than they need to look to a design that can deliver French made nuclear warheads (not American ones).

It's a seriously impressive feat how one man single-handedly resurrected the euro-nuke idea which was basically dead in the water just befor he came into office.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

What is this FS2020 I've seen mentioned in several recent posts?

As always, there's a thread which discusses it. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saab-fs2020-stealth-fighter-concept.9798/

 

[Maro.Kyo]

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.

That is not possible since in EMCON stealth mode, MIDS on F-35 operates as transmit only. And TIDLS is not interoperable with MADL. If you want those kind of capabilities, you'd need gateway terminal system like the NG Freedom, which for now has only been available to the US. I'd think they'll offer the sales of such systems for partner nations in the future for MIDS interoperability, but now it's something not possible.

FS2020 or Flygsystem 2020 was considered old news in 2013.
Then it made it to a Wiki article. Since then, some people have believed it is for real.
At most, it was an internal project at SAAB to study the stealth technology (and that is not confirmed), but not a funded project to even create a prototype.
Now the Swedish parliament has funded a prestudy at SAAB to prepare for a decision before 2030 on
whether to:

1. Develop a 6th generation fighter in Sweden
2. Join a consortium like the UK Tempest of the French/German FCAS.
3. Buy a 6th generation fighter when available.

Some people like to call this FS2020. SAAB has not called it FS2020 in any news flashes I have seen.
If they were, they would call it FS2050 which is when such a fighter is deemed necessary.

Sweden already joined the Tempest project to get access to some of its technologies for use in Gripen.

No, it was an actual study that did exist, as it has been confirmed by SAAB's offers to South Korea during the early 2010s as a way to co-develop KF-X. There are several slides of the presentation SAAB made to ROKAF that I've uploaded on this forum. The SAAB internal designation of the famous canard-delta single engine stealth fighter design with 2 MRAAMs and 2 SRAAMs is the P306.

Wishful thinking, but it would be nice if Sweden and Korea worked together to develop an "affordable" 6th gen based on the KF-21. Maybe go from the F414 to a European or a joint Volvo/Hanwha solution.

It's up to Sweden really. Korea has been very publicly going around different countries in search for KF-X block 3/KF-21EX development partners, as well as partner company for the 18000lbf class turbofan in development. Though this is something to be discussed on another thread.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If you think just changing the engine would make the Gripen ITAR free, I've got a news for you.

Radar and FCS isn't US anymore.
Ejection seat is UK.
What else is there that the US actually controls?

 

[GTX]

Radar and FCS isn't US anymore.
Ejection seat is UK.
What else is there that the US actually controls?

There are multiple subsystems and components from the likes of Honeywell, L3Harris, Collins Aerospace, Eaton and others

 

[AGS-1787]

One should buy a global map before typing

View attachment 765583


Sourced from:

Size of Colombia compared to Sweden

How big is Colombia compared to Sweden? View both areas on a map to see a relative size comparison.

www.mylifeelsewhere.com

Also you have quite a lot of Crane and Goose in Sweden and Hungary, two countries that fly Gripen among large birds.

What Columbia would really have needed is some Mirage 2000. But some genius cut it as a way to sell more. The Gripen E is just filling the void here like in many other places.

Yeah add to the map San Andres Island. Colombia only has one old tanker for in flight refueling, and Colombia is one of the countries with more bird species of the world.

 

[eagle]

No, SAAB was told by the Swiss that they should not bother.

... If they don't have an operational aircraft, which they didn't. So they dropped out.

The demand was that the aircraft was in operation.

Exactly.

Gripen E is only in operation this year,

Yes, but this year is not 2018. It's 2025.

And then they select the Block 4 which does not work, and is likely to incur delays.

By that logic they could only have bought F-35 Block 3, C/D Gripen, Rafale F3, EF T3 (sans AESA), SH Block 2. Sounds like a clever plan. You think a manufacturer will produce a 10 year old standard for a small export customer?

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

By that logic they could only have bought F-35 Block 3, C/D Gripen, Rafale F3, EF T3 (sans AESA), SH Block 2. Sounds like a clever plan. You think a manufacturer will produce a 10 year old standard for a small export customer?

No, it just shows that the demand to have an operational aircraft was not useful.

 

[snne]

It's up to Sweden really. Korea has been very publicly going around different countries in search for KF-X block 3/KF-21EX development partners, as well as partner company for the 18000lbf class turbofan in development.

I think the main obstacle in achieving this is that they’re looking for a financer, not a co-developer. At least, this is how the Koreans have behaved in the past. However, my impression is that there hasn’t been any change in this direction.

Otherwise, both Turkey or Sweden would have loved to decrease risks and collaboratively develop what ultimately became the KF-21.

In Turkey's case, acc. to what we've heard over the years from people who were involved, the requirements of both countries matched almost perfectly back then but Korea insisted on Turkey becoming a partner only in brackets (as in, like Indonesia).

 

[Lordarpad]

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

the cost/flighthour issue applies here too. F-35 is estimated at 40k$/h, Rafale at 12.5k$/h, Gripen at 4.5k$/h

 

[red admiral]

the cost/flighthour issue applies here too. F-35 is estimated at 40k$/h, Rafale at 12.5k$/h, Gripen at 4.5k$/h

I think it's best not to quote numbers unless they come from the same air force as they are not comparable and just meaningless.

They can vary by more than an order of magnitude even for the same aircraft. e.g. numbers for Typhoon in RAF service vary between £6k/hr and £70k/hr depending what you want to include.

 

[A.P.Richelieu]

the cost/flighthour issue applies here too. F-35 is estimated at 40k$/h, Rafale at 12.5k$/h, Gripen at 4.5k$/h

The Gripen numbers were for Gripen C, not Gripen E.
It was a long time ago, so inflation has eroded those numbers.
The numbers are for the Swedish Air Force and maintenance is mostly done by conscripts.
When I was in the Swedish Army, (a long time ago) they paid me less than $2 per day. They of course paid for food and lodging as well. Nowadays, they make $15 a day. If you put a well paid mechanic earning $300 a day doing the job of a conscript, then it will be more expensive.
If you don’t have your spare parts and service handled properly it will cost you. Flying the South African Gripen was much more expensive than for the Swedish Air Force, because they did everything ”their way”. The cost was reduced significantly after agreeing to a service contract.
And as someone pointed out. Different Air Forces calculate CPFH in a different way.