Gripen for Switzerland

[Slenke]

Yes, indeed.

"Owing to the differing methods of calculating aircraft operating cost per flight hour and the large number of interlinked factors that affect such a calculation, IHS Jane’s believes that any flight hour cost figure can only be regarded as indicative and that there is no single correct answer to such a calculation"

Article continues:

but adds, “However, we believe that our results are of considerable merit and provide a useful benchmark when considering the costs associated with operating contemporary high performance combat aircraft.”

The report stresses that ‘without access to comprehensive military data over a significant timeframe’ the results ‘can only be regarded as approximate’ and ‘are an average cost across an entire fleet’.

The report says it is most confident about the data and its conclusions on the Gripen, F-16 and the F/A-18 ‘with good primary and secondary source data supported by logical results from our deductive modeling.’

It's an approximate but a good benchmark indeed.

[swerve]

Exactly- the assumptions that lie behind any such cost calculations will drive the final figures. And when SAAF states that when THEY operate the Gripen, it costs them $10k per hour, that implies that taking into account their pay rates, their fuel prices and the prices for spares that they paid for, it came to that number. Why is everyone so keen on just taking the Saab figure and ignoring a figure that a professional Air Force is giving?

That's not what is happening here. What we're all doing is telling you that your assumption that the SAAB figure is wrong & the SAAF figure is right is false. Nobody else is saying either figure is better or worse, more or less accurate, more or less true, than the other: they're probably equally valid, just different. The only person I see here claiming superiority for one set of figures is you.

There is no need to get rude. I haven't with you and I don't see why you should, else I have no interest in discussing anything more with you.

It's impatience with your stubborn refusal to understand what has been clearly laid out in front of you.

I never said that they will be the same- I said that Saab will include only cost items that it feels will work in its favor. All marketing works on that premise and the fine print needs to be looked at to take any such figures at face value. Any serious AF will do its own analysis before buying a jet and when the SAAF is an operator of the type and states a particular operating cost figure, they are most likely to include all the costs they actually have to spend on, as opposed to the minimal items that a manufacturer will include in its calculations. The fact is that if the Swiss get Gripens, they can expect somewhat similar costs per hour, and I'm sure that they're aware of that. It will still be lower than comparable operating costs for the Typhoon or Rafale, but it is definitely not as low as Saab would have us believe.

AFAIK SAAB hasn't invented its own cost calculation methodology, but uses Swedish Air Force figures for Gripen.

I'm being obstinate because I choose to believe SAAF figures? And you're not obstinate for choosing to believe Saab's figures? Double standards my friend.

No, he's just saying what everyone else is: that the true figure is the one calculated on the same basis as the figure you're comparing it to. I've not seen anyone say there's anything wrong with the SAAF figure. It's perfectly good for the South Africans to use internally, which is what it will have been calculated for. But like British MoD figures, it's not comparable with published figures for other types, so is not useful in making comparisons.

[Halo]

Its really very simple, there are Fixed costs, Variable costs and lots in between. Every operator or accountant will draw the line in a different way. Hence comparing different reports is completely irrelevant, if in doubt pls check any basic book about accounting.

The Janes report despite its basic calculation, is very interesting because the same method is applied to all fighters.

[Danell]

The Jane's report was commissioned and paid by Saab...
The only reliable numbers about costs are those given by customers and operators ... and it makes global comparison difficult.

[obligatory]

Jane's report is as good as it will get when comparing several a/c,
just a pity Su-27+ wasn't included

[Sign]

The Jane's report was commissioned and paid by Saab...
The only reliable numbers about costs are those given by customers and operators ... and it makes global comparison difficult.

well, this is Janes a well merited news corp. making a articel about customers figures, please read.

[Spitfire9]

The Jane's report was commissioned and paid by Saab...
The only reliable numbers about costs are those given by customers and operators ... and it makes global comparison difficult.

Perhaps SAAB wanted some respected entity to do a study of what it costs to fly western fighters knowing that Gripen would definitely have the best figures. I have never heard any suggestion that F-16 is as cheap to fly. The heavier twins in the study inevitably cost more.

As to the value of this result to SAAB, I'm not sure. Does it make it more likely that countries interested in buying fighters will consider Gripen in view of the Janes report?

[Danell]

You are confusing the reliable magazine IHS Jane's Defence Weekly (this "study" was not published in JDW) and IHS Jane's Aerospace and Defense Consulting which conducts studies for any customer willing to pay for... here it's marketing ,not ​​news.

[Halo]

I hope Danell understood the basics of accounting, and how pointless it is to compare data from different sources.
There are always reasons to be critical but if you doubt ALL, EVERYTHING becomes pointless!
If you are critical of the Janes report, I would appreciate all arguments about their method rather than doubting it all on political reasons.

[Blue Apple]

Its really very simple, there are Fixed costs, Variable costs and lots in between. Every operator or accountant will draw the line in a different way. Hence comparing different reports is completely irrelevant, if in doubt pls check any basic book about accounting.

The Janes report despite its basic calculation, is very interesting because the same method is applied to all fighters.

No it's not, as they say they use available public figures covering vastly different situations and try to extrapolate from them.

They even admit that their model only works well for Gripen, F-16 and F-18, with data from other fighters being much more uncertain. But they still don't give any margin of error for their estimates, making the data published utterly pointless.

[obligatory]

......And yet Jane's consider the benchmark of considerable merit,
and so do i.

[TR1]

......And yet Jane's consider the benchmark of considerable merit,
and so do i.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but Jane's is far from an infallible source.

[obligatory]

Yes, that is acknowledged, and that benchmark will change a bit tomorrow when fuel goes up yet again.
They still are the best suited to make this benchmark however

[eagle1]

Some article from Le Temps in Switzerland. That certainly not going to change anything but it gives some further insight of the process :

Can we trust the purchase of 22 fighter planes for $ 3.1 billion to a minister who fails to buy bicycles military without causing controversy? ...

Minister for the worst, says a member of a parliamentary committee, "during the hearings of the main army officers or Armasuisse, we did not feel real support to the arguments of their boss. It is clear that the staff of the Air Force still has not rallied to the choice of Gripen. "What confirmed a senior in Time:" There is a real problem of political loyalty in the army, fueled by financial restrictions. "

It therefore contributes to climate feed political opposition Gripen, which is the final decision of the Federal Council. It is from within the military administration that just leaks that irritate parliamentarians.

http://www.letemps.ch/Page/Uuid/8c8e...x_dUeli_Maurer

But this appointment is in the logic of Ueli Maurer. The first reason for this, he explained, is Aldo Schellenberg, economist, head of a consulting firm, is primarily a militia officer: "I ​​want to show that someone militia can climb up on top. "Ueli Maurer has always defended an army from the people, rustic, versatile. The Air Force and its high technology, its professional specialists, this is not what he thinks when he speaks of "the best army in the world." He also wary of what the body pilots, reluctant to have to fly the Gripen, Rafale and seduced by the French to the point of sometimes fail in their duty of loyalty.

Certainly, Ueli Maurer can not do it criticizes the outgoing Commander Markus Gygax, with absolute fidelity. But leaks on the evaluation report by the Air Force Gripen rocked trusting relationships with senior aviation.

And even if aviation is the heart and the reason for the Air Force, "there is not that drivers in the body, they are even minority," says Maurer. Federal Councillor wants a commander who knows how to obey and be able to lead his unit where he should go. He knew not need to fly, as long as it brings calmness and discipline. And if in addition his experience in business administration allows him to manage the Air Force to efficiently and effectively, so much the better.

http://www.letemps.ch/Page/Uuid/96fd...6-f80a198553ac

[TooCool_12f]

There are suspicions of bribery now... it seems not to be over yet...

http://www.opex360.com/2012/09/20/un...de-corruption/

[Spitfire9]

There are suspicions of bribery now... it seems not to be over yet...

http://www.opex360.com/2012/09/20/un...de-corruption/

This is getting to be rather laughable:

...Gripen, avion estimé le moins bon des trois en compétition dans cet appel d’offres lancé pour trouver un successeur au F-5 Tiger actuellement en service au sein des forces aériennes suisses.

Basically the above says that Gripen was the least capable of the 3 aircraft competing to replace the F-5 Tiger. Quite true. But by far the most appropriate. If you need to replace your small old sports car with a new one, do you look to buy the most capable sports car available (say the fastest Ferrari, Lamborghini) or do you look to buy a smaller, less capable sports car?

Les constructeurs “ont eu l’impression que l’avion doté des meilleures qualités techniques serait sélectionné; ils n’étaient pas informés que le prix jouerait un rôle si important dans le choix final, même si ce critère avait été souligné de manière récurrente au cours”

Basically the above says that the losers were under the impression that the aircraft offering the most would be selected. They were not informed that price would play such a large part in the final choice even if this criterion had been stressed time and again. All I can say is that Dassault and Eurofighter must be almost unbelievably dumb if having been told repeatedly how important price was they somehow thought that meant price was not so important whereas all out performance was!

[TooCool_12f]

well, what he says also is that:


"Cela étant, pour le Conseil national, les questions soulevées dans le rapport de la sous-commission restent ouvertes, notamment la série d’incohérences qui y sont énumérées.

Entre autres, au cours de la procédure, des critères de sélection ont été modifiés, de même que la pondération de certains barêmes d’évaluation. "

(strangely you seem to have missed that one, right in between the two quotes you posted)

"For the National council, the questions raised in the report of the committee remain unanswered, especially the series of inceherencies which have been listed.

Among others, during the procedure, the selection criteria have been modified, as well as the importance of some evaluations points"


one can also quote another paragraph a bit lower:

"“Il y a bien des indices de corruption, mais aucune preuve” a affirmé Jean-Pierre Méan, le président de Transparency International Suisse, dont les propos ont été rapportés par plusieurs journaux hélvètes. “Il existe certains points d’interrogation. Car, quand la corruption entre en jeu, on voit exactement les mêmes procédés que ceux que l’on observe en Suisse” a-t-il ajouté"


"There are signs of corruption, but no proof", said Jean-Pierre Méan, the president of Transparency International Suisse, whose words have been reported by several swiss newspapers. "There are certain questions to be answered. because when there is corruption, one can observe exactly the same proceedings as those seen in Switzerland", he added"

in the end, the last two paragraphs, they remind that SAAB claims that they'll cooperate to any investigations and that they are "clean", as "SAAB isn't involved in any bribery affair to this day and no SAAB employee has been found guilty of bribery..."

In the same time, the article says that SAAB admitted in 2011 that they paid 2.5 million euros in bribes to south african air force for the gripen to be selected, even if they rejected the responsibility on BAe at the time...

[Spyhawk]

There are suspicions of bribery now... it seems not to be over yet...

There always been and will always be bribery suspicions in those kind of military deals (including times when Dassault tried to sell its Mirage to Swiss politician).

And like it or not, what will decide for this deal to be over or not will be the Swiss citizen voting in favor or against it, not suspicions of any kind. For the Rafale and EF, it is certainly over. For the Gripen, we'll see in 2014.

[Spitfire9]

well, what he says also is that:


"Cela étant, pour le Conseil national, les questions soulevées dans le rapport de la sous-commission restent ouvertes, notamment la série d’incohérences qui y sont énumérées.

Entre autres, au cours de la procédure, des critères de sélection ont été modifiés, de même que la pondération de certains barêmes d’évaluation. "

(strangely you seem to have missed that one, right in between the two quotes you posted)

"For the National council, the questions raised in the report of the committee remain unanswered, especially the series of inceherencies which have been listed.

Among others, during the procedure, the selection criteria have been modified, as well as the importance of some evaluations points"


one can also quote another paragraph a bit lower:

"“Il y a bien des indices de corruption, mais aucune preuve” a affirmé Jean-Pierre Méan, le président de Transparency International Suisse, dont les propos ont été rapportés par plusieurs journaux hélvètes. “Il existe certains points d’interrogation. Car, quand la corruption entre en jeu, on voit exactement les mêmes procédés que ceux que l’on observe en Suisse” a-t-il ajouté"


"There are signs of corruption, but no proof", said Jean-Pierre Méan, the president of Transparency International Suisse, whose words have been reported by several swiss newspapers. "There are certain questions to be answered. because when there is corruption, one can observe exactly the same proceedings as those seen in Switzerland", he added"

in the end, the last two paragraphs, they remind that SAAB claims that they'll cooperate to any investigations and that they are "clean", as "SAAB isn't involved in any bribery affair to this day and no SAAB employee has been found guilty of bribery..."

In the same time, the article says that SAAB admitted in 2011 that they paid 2.5 million euros in bribes to south african air force for the gripen to be selected, even if they rejected the responsibility on BAe at the time...

Yes, fair to point out that I skipped any changes made in selection criteria and their weighting. I think it is obvious that if you are replacing F-5, Gripen is what you will select from Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon.

Bribery and corruption: skipped that, too. The arms trade is notorious for the payment of commissions, consultancy fees etc where there is no real justification for such costs. It's a dirty business but until all suppliers simply refuse to shake hands on a dirty deal with dirty people, suppliers will get their hands dirty, too.

I would be interested to know if there has been any "inappropriate behaviour" by SAAB. Of the three suppliers, SAAB is the one I would guess to be the least inclined to bribery and corruption. Just my guess, though.

[TooCool_12f]

the fact is that it is a swiss comission that will do the investigation... if they appointed a comission for that, they (the parliament) obviously have suffi iently strong suspicions about the matter.

and, once more, the replacements are likely to replace the hornet fleet as well later on, not only the F-5's.

as for "bribery is a standard in that business", how come there are inquiries, sometimes trials and jail sentences?

[Spitfire9]

the fact is that it is a swiss comission that will do the investigation... if they appointed a comission for that, they (the parliament) obviously have suffi iently strong suspicions about the matter.

If there are doubts about this being a "clean" deal, let there be an investigation.

and, once more, the replacements are likely to replace the hornet fleet as well later on, not only the F-5's.

If the competition was for a single type to replace F-5 soon and F-18 later, Gripen does not look so much like the obvious choice.

as for "bribery is a standard in that business", how come there are inquiries, sometimes trials and jail sentences?

I think that is easy to answer. There are inquiries, sometimes trials and jail sentences because the arms trade is rather corrupt.

[Bager1968]

the fact is that it is a swiss comission that will do the investigation... if they appointed a comission for that, they (the parliament) obviously have suffi iently strong suspicions about the matter.

as for "bribery is a standard in that business", how come there are inquiries, sometimes trials and jail sentences?

I think that is easy to answer. There are inquiries, sometimes trials and jail sentences because the arms trade is rather corrupt.

And because politicians, in their desire to appease upset voters, will make a show of "rooting out corruption" from time-to-time... when they are sure that neither they nor any of their friends are involved this time.

That doesn't mean that they are really trying to "root out corruption", just that they are making a show for the voters!

[Confucius says]

Whilst I favor the Gripen NG choice as an F-5 replacement, I can imagine that the Swiss government won't rest easy for a while...

For me a good example of how to do it is the KC-45 bid. For their own reasons (same as the Swiss), the US decided to favor Boeing and so they tweaked the selection criteria (my words, plz don't flame! :diablo to get their preferred choice to the top of the list.

In Switzerland, they didn't tweak and hence ended-up with their preferred choice at the bottom of the list! Now the history of military contracts is replete with political decisions, so one more won't shock anyone, but at least be smart about it otherwise layers will have you for breakfast!

[Spyhawk]

the fact is that it is a swiss comission that will do the investigation... if they appointed a comission for that, they (the parliament) obviously have suffi iently strong suspicions about the matter.

If you have suspicion of any kind, it would be irresponsible not to investigate the case. The fact that it is a commission that does it doesn't change anything.

and, once more, the replacements are likely to replace the hornet fleet as well later on, not only the F-5's.

Then what? Everybody knew/could guess that it was most likely that Swiss Air Force operate the same type of aircraft on the long term.
And the lower operating costs are another reason to choose the Gripen.

And again, in Switzerland the Army recommends the product, the Politics chooses it, and the population validates the decision. This additional step makes all the difference, really. The Gripen does the job, has the better cost/efficient ratio, and is the cheapest to operate. That's all what matters to voters.

[Spitfire9]

And again, in Switzerland the Army recommends the product, the Politics chooses it, and the population validates the decision. This additional step makes all the difference, really. The Gripen does the job, has the better cost/efficient ratio, and is the cheapest to operate. That's all what matters to voters.

It is interesting to read what someone from Switzerland has to say. The Swiss approach of
(a) military identifies a need
(b) goverment chooses from various suppliers
(c) population validates the decision
seems a very sensible one. The fact that the population can veto decisions it does not agree with has the effect of exerting pressure on the goverment to limit the provision of equipment to the military to what is seen as being reasonable by the electorate.

From what you say I imagine that the population wants an air force able to defend Swiss airspace but does not want to pay more than it needs to pay for that capability.

[Spyhawk]

From what you say I imagine that the population wants an air force able to defend Swiss airspace but does not want to pay more than it needs to pay for that capability.

Yes, absolutely. If the manufacturers really thought that "the aircraft with the best technical qualities would be selected" and that the "price would not play an important role in the final choice" (as stated in the sub-commission report), this denotes a crucial misunderstanding of the Swiss context.

And what happens when you don't understand your target market? Well, you lose.

[xman]

Yes, absolutely. If the manufacturers really thought that "the aircraft with the best technical qualities would be selected" and that the "price would not play an important role in the final choice" (as stated in the sub-commission report), this denotes a crucial misunderstanding of the Swiss context.

And what happens when you don't understand your target market? Well, you lose.

Considering the level of controversy and the many various sources , I think it is a bit too fast blaming the competitors. Ueli Maurer procurement methods ,even for bicycles , have a tendency to attract critisism . whatever the reason, ( changing selection criteria, without requesting a re-bid due to delay in securing the budgeting ,is one that comes to mind ), most actors in this occurence feel manipulated or misled, not the least those participating to the selection .

[Spyhawk]

Considering the level of controversy and the many various sources , I think it is a bit too fast blaming the competitors. Ueli Maurer procurement methods ,even for bicycles , have a tendency to attract critisism . whatever the reason, ( changing selection criteria, without requesting a re-bid due to delay in securing the budgeting ,is one that comes to mind ), most actors in this occurence feel manipulated or misled, not the least those participating to the selection .

That is actually more complex than the above. Maurer would have delayed the acquisition for a few years if possible (due to budget constraint), but the parliament forced him to make his choice as the offers wouldn't be valid beyond the end of 2011. The other reason is that the DDPS was studying possible financing model that should be ready at the very same time (see the sub commission report). In short, doing all the testing again was out of question for the parliament.

[TooCool_12f]

And again, in Switzerland the Army recommends the product, the Politics chooses it, and the population validates the decision. This additional step makes all the difference, really. The Gripen does the job, has the better cost/efficient ratio, and is the cheapest to operate. That's all what matters to voters.

It does sound nice, but, as leaks have shown, the military have recommended another product... and they also shed some light on the manner in which the criteria have been shifted during the process to favor a particular product regardless of the recommendations and its ability do to the job required... from there on, it becomes complicated for the politicians to justify their decisions and that is also what feeds the suspicions of corruption

[xman]

That is actually more complex than the above. Maurer would have delayed the acquisition for a few years if possible (due to budget constraint), but the parliament forced him to make his choice as the offers wouldn't be valid beyond the end of 2011. The other reason is that the DDPS was studying possible financing model that should be ready at the very same time (see the sub commission report). In short, doing all the testing again was out of question for the parliament.

I am sure it is more complex than what I stated, and fairly certain Maurer had to navigate in murky waters ( budget , internal/external politics, strategic view of tomorrow's swiss army ...etc ) . I would however not be too prompt judging initial competitors offer. Fact that both DA and Cassidian felt compelled to submit another offer afterward,bypassing maurer and knowing it had zero chance to make any differnce, is I think story telling. Beside if price was the sole criteria neither of them would have participated to the bid in the first place.