Saab JAS 39 Gripen Info # 2

[eagle]

Some facts need to be put straight as some wants to self convince themselves with false argument and turn a blind eye at several aspect of the evaluation.

The test pilots who tested the 3 aircrafts in competition in switzerland clearly preferred the rafale and were pretty disappointed that other factors lead toward opting for the least performant aircrafts. As a consequence they leaked part of the evaluation to the press.

Facts? Is it a fact that they (the test pilots) leaked part of the reports? Is it a fact that they were disappointed?
Frankly, this is BS. No active test publicly expressed his/her disappointment. And you even accuse them of leaking the reports.

The gripen indeed latter met the minimum requirements which led to a controversy and an inquiry but it was still the worst performer on a purely technical standpoint as Mauer stated himself that you "can't always afford the best".

Controversy yes, but please, do you want to accuse Maurer and VBS/MoD of cheating? It is also obvious certain political parties raised questions about the selection process but that does in no way mean there was fraud involved. They question everything to do with military.

But trying to dissimulate the fact that the test pilots did not prefer the rafale is simply wrong. Just that other factors like price and the fact that switzerland is not under immediate threat to say the least played in favor of the gripen.

Prefering one thing doesn't mean hating the other.

It is the swiss media and swiss poitics themselves who stated that those leaks come within the swiss military. The latest controversy about the sudden change of weighting so that the gripen could meet the minimum requirements were considered serious and detailed enough to launch an inquiry. When those leaks occurred swiss politics themselves stated that such information can only come from the swiss military.

Swiss military is not equal to test pilots. Besides, the source is obviously within the military, but who knows who finally gave the leaks to the press. ie my guess is someone higher up the chain.
Again, the alleged change of weighting is an inquiry from the left parties and has no substance.

Then when swiss media reports about the "feeling of disgust" of the pilots about such a choice and when Mauer tells that they can't always afford the best it is clear that the gripen was not the best technically. You can also mention Fernand Carrel former swiss air force chief just a couple days before the results who stated that the pilots preferred the rafale. He reported this in the press, radio and TV.

Again, prefering the Rafale is not equal to feeling of disgust. Is there any pilot who openly stated his feeling of disgust? Bet there isn't.

[Per-Olof]

The simple fact is that there are features in both Rafale and Gripen that was appriciated by the test pilots. The idea that the test pilots only appriciated Rafale is a statement without truth, and could as best be contributed to the departement "wishful thinking".

@datafuser; since you seems to be very concerned by the production statistics of gripen, why dont you search the facts. It seems to me like you just want other users to do your interests, and when we do, you just complain and try to find faults. Its just not a polite and gentlemans way of doing things. U dont think that the operators that bought the gripen C/D's know the full productionhistory? Its not like the BAE consortium bought second hand gripens A/B's spitted on the canopy and polished them with the pullover ans then hanged a Wunderbaum in the ejectorhandle and marketed them as C/D versions.

[datafuser]

@datafuser; since you seems to be very concerned by the production statistics of gripen, why dont you search the facts. It seems to me like you just want other users to do your interests, and when we do, you just complain and try to find faults. Its just not a polite and gentlemans way of doing things. U dont think that the operators that bought the gripen C/D's know the full productionhistory? Its not like the BAE consortium bought second hand gripens A/B's spitted on the canopy and polished them with the pullover ans then hanged a Wunderbaum in the ejectorhandle and marketed them as C/D versions.

I already spent hours to find and attach those slides from Saab as well as Ny Teknik articles in my posts, so you cannot say I "just want other users to do your interests".

Also I don't think accusing Dassault of bribing a Swiss officer without giving any evidence is "gentlemans way of doing things" either.

To remind you, in one of your earlier posts you wrote "I'm fully aware that officialy its said to originate from a swiss officer, u can rest asure it wasnt without help financially from dassault."

[swerve]

Then do you agree that Sweden ordered 204 Gripens and received all of them by 2008?


If 204 built cannot be true, what is your number?

How many Gripens have been delivered to all customers so far?

Why don't you read my post, & follow the links?

1. Yes. According to the FMV web site (i.e. an official statement by the Swedish military procurement agency), 204 were delivered to the Swedish air force or used by SAAB for testing by December 2008.

I linked to that for you. If you wish to argue with it, I suggest you talk to the FMV. That, alone, invalidates your claim that any were diverted from Swedish orders to other customers straight from the production line.

26 were ordered by South Africa. Have a look at the South African Air Force website. The last one is expected this year. The first C was delivered in 2010. As of September 2011, all nine JAS39D & nine C had been delivered, & four more C were complete & awaiting delivery, making 22. Those four will have been delivered by now.

Thailand has ordered 12. The first 6 were delivered by last year. The second batch is currently being built, & will be delivered by next year.

2. The total number delivered to date is therefore between 232 (204 + 22 + 6) & 242, & should be 242 by 2013.

BTW, in 2009 (i.e. after all 204 Swedish aircraft had been delivered) SAAB was reporting that production would end by 2012 unless it got new orders, & it was building about 10 per year for the Thai & South African orders. The second Thai batch has extended that to 2013.

Now, can we please drop this nonsense about all the exports being diverted from the Swedish order for 204?

bTW, Per-Olof's numbers were from Flygvapnet website, i.e. entirely official.

Total: 201 pieces
JAS 39A: 104 (one of which approximately 25 JAS 39A has been rebuilt to 14 st JAS 39C / D for Hungary)
JAS 39B: 14 pcs
JAS 39C: 69 pcs (including 12 pcs leased by the Czech Republic)
JAS 39D: 14 pieces (of which 2 are leased by the Czech Republic)
(Originally commissioned a total of 204 pieces JAS 39. 1 st JAS 39A was substituted test aircraft 39-1 that failed in 1989, 1 JAS 39A became the prototype two-seater JAS 39B, 1 JAS 39C was test aircraft at Saab)

In total there are 134 aircraft in service in the Swedish Air Force: JAS 39A: 54 pieces JAS 39B: 12 pcs. JAS 39C: 56 pcs. JAS 39D: 12 pcs.

201 - 5 lost - 14 leased - ca 25 cannibalised to make 14 new = ca 157. That leaves 23 unaccounted for. Since 31 were to be put into an upgrade programme, it's reasonable to assume that those 23 are the airframes being upgraded.

JAS39A: 104 delivered -54 in service -3 lost -ca 25 cannibalised = 22
JAS39B: 14 delivered -12 in service = 2.
JAS39C: 69 delivered -56 in service -12 leased -1 lost = 0
JAS39D: 14 delivered -12 in service -2 leased =0
1 lost, model not specified but from above it must be A or B.

You can't get 38 exports (27 C & 11 D), all built since the completion of A/B deliveries, out of 22 A & 2 B unaccounted for. You can easily, however, account for them by them being in the A/B to C/D upgrade process.

[gubben]

1 JAS 39B is leased to ETPS
1 JAS 39B rebuilt to JAS 39 NG DEMO

[swerve]

I think the NG demo is accounted for in the above numbers. Isn't it the JAS39A which was modified into the prototype JAS39B, & kept by SAAB as a test aircraft?

[Per-Olof]

I already spent hours to find and attach those slides from Saab as well as Ny Teknik articles in my posts, so you cannot say I "just want other users to do your interests".

Also I don't think accusing Dassault of bribing a Swiss officer without giving any evidence is "gentlemans way of doing things" either.

To remind you, in one of your earlier posts you wrote "I'm fully aware that officialy its said to originate from a swiss officer, u can rest asure it wasnt without help financially from dassault."

But im hardly the only one assuming this, but if u want to believe this to be an altruistic act from the officer, sure be my guest.

And let me point to the fact that swiss federal prosecutor is conducting an investigation as we speak towards just such allogations.

[Per-Olof]

I think the NG demo is accounted for in the above numbers. Isn't it the JAS39A which was modified into the prototype JAS39B, & kept by SAAB as a test aircraft?

Not all conversions went smoothly ive ben told, so u cant calculate 1:1 in the conversions. Due to technical reasons they sometime needed 2 A/B's in the conversions. The remaining fuselage was retired and demounted for spare parts recovery. Just a thing i heard from a person working with the conversions, no link or other evidence, but it makes sence.

[Colibri]

I'm fully aware that officialy its said to originate from a swiss officer, u can rest asure it wasnt without help financially from dassault.


Its just sad to see what level of foul play some will use to wrongfully discredit opponents of their beliefes. I just assume they are frenchmen...

Rant against Dassault and Frenchmen all you want the fact is Swiss Air Force officers were angry enough to act on their own.

From the Swiss journalist who received the classified reports :

Gripen, even with the 98 elements that will be improved (engine, radar, tank, etc..),"remains unable to reach the minimum capabilities for all types of missions reviewed."

Facts? Is it a fact that they (the test pilots) leaked part of the reports? Is it a fact that they were disappointed?
Frankly, this is BS. No active test publicly expressed his/her disappointment. And you even accuse them of leaking the reports.

The Swiss journalist has contacts within Armasuisse (the military wing responsible of the evaluations).

Disgust at the base

At Armasuisse and assessment teams Air Force, the disgust is sensitive since the choice of the Federal Council, based on financial criteria alone. Some even let go of the word "resignation". And is expected to be invited by parliamentarians to be explained."If they ask me questions, I will answer them obviously very precisely," promises one of those people who wish to remain anonymous.

[swerve]

Not all conversions went smoothly ive ben told, so u cant calculate 1:1 in the conversions. Due to technical reasons they sometime needed 2 A/B's in the conversions. The remaining fuselage was retired and demounted for spare parts recovery. Just a thing i heard from a person working with the conversions, no link or other evidence, but it makes sence.

It admits that on Flygvapnet website, about the Hungarian A to C/D conversions, where ca 25 were used to make 12 C & 2 D. See above. I've taken it into account in my numbers.

I expect that the later conversions will have less wastage. The Hungarian conversions were the first.

[Per-Olof]

Rant against Dassault and Frenchmen all you want the fact is Swiss Air Force officers were angry enough to act on their own.

From the Swiss journalist who received the classified reports :
The Swiss journalist has contacts within Armasuisse (the military wing responsible of the evaluations).

But still, why do you pretend to not understand that there are other evaluations that are more recent and up to date? Why should we guess and discuss personal beliefs from one reporter on the content of the evaluation that schweiz goverment toghether with their armed forces made their decision on?
(when it actually is confidential)

Would it not be quite a scandal of epic proportions if Gripen E/F would be shown to not forfill not even one of the mission requirements in the evaluation, and the goverment toghether with Swiss armed forces states that it meets all of them?

I could of course be wrong here, but i have my sources, and i know where I would put my bet. Its no coincidense that it was the old evaluation that leaked. Because the newest one gives some interesting facts when comparing Gripen to Rafale. Information that Brazil goverment surely want to read. It could actualy be the irony of the story, that the leak intented to hail Rafale over Gripen E/F could have ripple effects on other procurement.

And sure, i cant give any source on this, therefore i'm a lyer and Rafale is the best aircraft ever, the F-22 Killer Dassault portraits it to be, and Gripen nothing more then a cheap bad rip of, unable to even forfill the easiest task.

[Eremit]

Has somebody here a number for the development cost of the Gripen E/F?
I read a fancy number last sunday in a news paper (unfortunately not online).

[Per-Olof]

Has somebody here a number for the development cost of the Gripen E/F?
I read a fancy number last sunday in a news paper (unfortunately not online).

I have only seen estimates on what 60-80 new gripen E/F would cost swedish taxpayers. No estimate on cost on development, other then the fact that swedish supreme commander on armed forces have decided to push the alternative that Sweden should choose gripen E/F as sucsessor of the C/D-versions to maintain operative capabilities. Four alternatives have been regarded, but the most economical pathway that also retain the operative capabilities is to order new E/F gripen's.

Altough im quite sure swedish taxpayers will pay way more developmentcost, then any other potential operator. But there seems to be solid support for this in Swedish parlament.

[Kramer]

Did the SAAF ever intend to acquire an IRST with their Gripen C/Ds ? This article implies that they might have, considering that it mentions the IR-OTIS

The Gripen has also been designed to mount an infrared search and track (IRST) system for passive acquisition and
tracking of aerial targets, giving the obvious and very real advantage of not announcing to the target aircraft that it has been acquired and is being tracked.

The IRST system will be integrated with the helmet sight to alert and cue the pilot, and can be used to cue the radar and the aircraft's missiles. The system being developed for the Gripen is the Saab IR-OTIS, an imaging IR system that can be used to identify a target. It will be mounted in a dome on the nose ahead of the cockpit.

If not the IR-OTIS, perhaps they may be interested in the Selex Skywards-NG being developed for the Gripen NG? Would that be feasible?

[TooCool_12f]

@ Per-Olof

talking about "financial aid"

Maurer going for the least performer which should have been eliminated and forgotten back in 2009, as it did not meet any of the requirements, even in its 2015 projected form, one may easily wonder (be assured?) that he got some financial aid from SAAB, no?

after all, it is AFTER the protests from the swiss military and AFTER the leaked report that he stated he wasn't aware of the content of that report (strange way to make a decision as not to be aware of a report on which his decision is supposed to be based) and that he also announced that additional evaluation will take place to validate the gripen choice (his own announcement) obviously admitting that he made his choice without any "new evaluation" on he could base his opinion.

[Pterosaur]

@ Per-Olof

talking about "financial aid"

Maurer going for the least performer which should have been eliminated and forgotten back in 2009, as it did not meet any of the requirements, even in its 2015 projected form, one may easily wonder (be assured?) that he got some financial aid from SAAB, no?

after all, it is AFTER the protests from the swiss military and AFTER the leaked report that he stated he wasn't aware of the content if that report (strange way to make a decision as not to be aware of a report on which his decision is supposed to be based) and that he also announced that additional evaluation will take place to validate the gripen choice (his own announcement) obviously admitting that he made his choice without any "new evaluation" on he could base his opinion.

I think you mixing the cards abit TooCool. Gripen scored higher but was downgraded with a factor of 0.6 because of the risk with the new systems that was going to be installed. That factor was changed in later reports since they were lower in risk.

Maurer did know about the old report, but didnt know that it was that report they were refering to when he first heard of the leak.

[swerve]

Has somebody here a number for the development cost of the Gripen E/F?
I read a fancy number last sunday in a news paper (unfortunately not online).

No, though SAAB is famously good at keeping down costs.

[hjelpekokk]

No, though SAAB is famously good at keeping down costs.

My little theory:

LM vs Saab workers
American: Have to boasting all about he's knowledge to get the job.
American firm: Have to boasting all specs in order to win contract.
American result: Don't have the "know how" to deliver the product in time and according to specs since every man from floor to top administration have bragged about what they can deliver.

Swedes:
workers: Don't brag about what they can, because if they cant deliver, they dont get/keep their work.
Firm. Don't boasting the specs, tells what they can deliver with margine in case something goes wrong. Don't have to care about competitor.
Result: Product delivered within spec + and within time.

[Al.]

My little theory:

There's an old (ancient) joke that all generalisations are useless and no doubt there will be spams posting on this forum who can point out and reference individual exceptions to that summary BUT ................

As an overall description of national corporate cultures that seems about right.

[observe]

I think it's about Saab aero knowing they won't be able to extract much more money from the Swedish state than what's stipulated in the contracts they get.

Unlike say BAe who can keep multiplying the CVF/Astute build costs with seemingly no repercussion from the UK government.

When they ask for a billion and a half to add four catapults to two carriers, the ministry of def. just seems to go "Oh you want another billion and a half pounds? Alright, I'm sure you're being honest about it."

[Al.]

When they ask for a billion and a half to add four catapults to two carriers, the ministry of def. just seems to go "Oh you want another billion and a half pounds? Alright, I'm sure you're being honest about it."

Oh and you want to move production of Hawk to India? And WE should pay to close down the line (as well as picking up more poor sods in the social security net) coz you've fulfilled UK orders? Oh well of course.

[swerve]

I think it's also about SAAB & the Swedish state having a very close relationship & mutual trust. The SAAB people see themselves & the air force as having a common aim, rather than SAAB trying to extract as much money as possible & make whatever promises are necessary to do that. By the time a contract is signed, both sides understand what's going on.

Compare & contrast Nimrod MRA4, where a senior BAe staff member refused to sign the engineering risk assessment (or something equally crucial), & was promptly replaced by someone who would, without the MoD or RAF knowing what had happened. I can't see SAAB doing that. FMV & Flygvapnet staff would have been involved before then, & would know the project was flawed, so the situation could never arise - and if we'd done the same we'd have saved ourselves a few billion quid.

[Pterosaur]

SAABs advantage is that it used to work with very limited budgets and must make every penny count, and due to experience is very good at it. They also know that both them and the state cant afford a failure so its more a partnership relation then a normal producer/consumer relationship.

They also design their plane to have easy maintance, that also keeps to cost down.

[Nicolas10]

I think it's more about swedish politicians and Saab being honest.

Nic

[Mildave]

From the beginning Saab only survived as an military aerospace company because they were able to provide cost effective solutions that their country could afford. As such they improved their expertise on the market for light fighter aircraft which is the market that offer the best value at home and for export.

Observe, BAE is asking about 1.5b for two catapults to be fitted on one aircraft carrier. The first carrier is already to advanced to be modified. To be honest they're in a bit of a tight spot. The MoD and politicians should have made the decision to go CATOBAR from the beginning. Now they have to choose between redesigning the lower decks to fit steam catapults (which on a conventional boat isn't that easy), or go for EMAL which is still in development and as such lot of risks involved.

While it's true that I find the practices of companies like BAE, LM and others scandalous at times, the politicians also need to take responsibilities. When you have a single company in control of almost all of your defence procurements, without the proper checks and balances and almost unlimited access to the huge US market (so they don't depend on the UK to survive and make money) you should not be surprised if every single procurement gets over priced.

Now let's start by having honest and capable politicians with clear restrictions on the amount of money to be spent (it's already started) and I'm sure things will get far better in the future.

[raptor2019]

Saab Touts Gripen to Malaysia, Region




As Malaysia listed the Swedish-made Gripen multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) as one of its possible choices for its new generation fighter jets, Saab, the manufacturer of the aircraft, is harping on its long-term cost effectiveness.

Saab media relations manager Peter Liander said the cost of the whole life cycle of its MRCA in terms of maintenance, operations and flying was more effective as compared to other MRCA of its class.

[Kramer]

The latest AW&ST reports that Thailand is widely viewed as likely to place another order for 6 more Gripens to add to their existing 12 for a total of 18 Gripens. Saab also owns 40% of Avia Satcom a Thai company and it is working to develop a national tactical datalink that will link together their Gripens, F-16s and AEWs as well as their Naval ships and aircrafts. Control over encryption is touted as the main benefit of having their own national datalink since their F-16s can use the Link-16 TDL.

[Kramer]

Was reading Air International and came across this article on South Africa and their Gripens. This particular paragraph really caught my eye, since the operating cost per hour figure seems so much higher, at $10,000 per hour, its more than 200% higher than the figure that was being quoted by Saab and SwAF. Apparently, as per the SAAF, the Gripen is not that cheap to operate, which is why they're having to make their pilots fly in mixed packages with a single Gripen leading 2-3 Hawks to keep operating costs low. Also their pilots fly around 125 hrs per year with another 35 in a simulator with them specialising in a particular role as opposed to being qualified for multi-role ops.

[eagle]

Who knows whats included in the $10,000 per hour figure?
What I find far more interesting is the Gripen/Hawk comparison. The Hawk costing $6,000 per hour means Gripen is only 2/3 more expensive to run than a trainer.

[BlackArcher]

Who knows whats included in the $10,000 per hour figure?
What I find far more interesting is the Gripen/Hawk comparison. The Hawk costing $6,000 per hour means Gripen is only 2/3 more expensive to run than a trainer.

Why don't you tell us what you think what is included in the $10,000 per hour cost to operate (not cost to own)? Cost of fuel, liquids, possibly spares, maintenance..the SwAF claimed that these were all included in their $3000/hour cost of operating the Gripen. What do you think the South Africans do that costs them an additional $7000 per hour?