Saab JAS 39 Gripen Info # 2

[obligatory]

Slowly now.... $3000 was 10-15 years ago, since then it has gone up as fuel cost goes up, a couple of years ago it was quoted as <$5000, and half a year ago as $7000.
I agree with @eagle that the apples to apples comparison with Hawk is interesting, since it can be assumed it is in fact an apples to apples,
same AF operating both a/c, no doubt including same factors when comparing both.
Thus, any country operating Hawk will now know what extra cost to expect when operating Gripen

[Kramer]

Slowly now.... $3000 was 10-15 years ago, since then it has gone up as fuel cost goes up, a couple of years ago it was quoted as <$5000, and half a year ago as $7000.
I agree with @eagle that the apples to apples comparison with Hawk is interesting, since it can be assumed it is in fact an apples to apples,
same AF operating both a/c, no doubt including same factors when comparing both.
Thus, any country operating Hawk will now know what extra cost to expect when operating Gripen

As far as the (less than !) $3000/hour operating costs figure goes, Saab was touting this figure as recently as in the MMRCA competition in India ! Maybe you need to go inform Saab's Eddy de la Motte that the < $3000/hour figure was probably true back in the early 2000s to late 1990s. Because as late as 2010, this is what he was stating

"The main advantage of Gripen is low operating cost in comparison with larger aircraft equipped with two engines," says de la Motte. "Now for the Flygvapnet [Swedish air force] the cost per flight hour is less than $3,000 and for the export customers it will be less than $5,000, including maintenance, spare parts, fuel and manpower."

Farnborough- Saab plots bright future for Gripen programme-July 2010

So at least now we can dispense with the Saab propagated myth that the Gripen costs anywhere near $3000 or $5000 to operate per hour. The real figure is closer to the $10,000 figure coming from a neutral source that actually operates the Gripen. You see, they don't have a motive in selling Gripens to export nations, so they're likelier to state actual figures. If indeed the Gripen met the promises of the Saab exec, the SAAF may have been able to afford more flying hours for their pilots. Although to be fair to them, the Gripen is still the cheapest fighter they could've afforded to fly and offers the best bang for their buck.

AFAIR, the article even mentioned that the SAAF pilots are restricted from using their after-burner to conserve fuel and avoid increasing operating costs. In such circumstances, the operating costs figure that we've got from the SAAF might even be on the less conservative side and may explain why there is only a difference of $4000 between the per hour operating costs of the non-afterburning Hawk and the Gripen.

[obligatory]

As far as the (less than !) $3000/hour operating costs figure goes, Saab was touting this figure as recently as in the MMRCA competition in India ! Maybe you need to go inform Saab's Eddy de la Motte that the < $3000/hour figure was probably true back in the early 2000s to late 1990s. Because as late as 2010, this is what he was stating

for the export customers it will be less than $5,000, including maintenance, spare parts, fuel and manpower."

Like i said, a couple of years ago it was quoted <$5000,
before fuel went up yet again

[TooCool_12f]

reminds me of cashback proposed for buying a new car while giving them your old one (>10 y/o ) for destruction... the seller:

- if you take this one, you earn 10000 francs...


strangely, I had the feeling that my bank account wouldn't rise for about 10000 but rather drop for about 80000... I wonder why

anyhow, it's always the same story, the seller will tell you how cheap his product is, be it a car, airplane, insurance or anything else, and once you sign there always appear to be "some extras"...

[swerve]

So at least now we can dispense with the Saab propagated myth that the Gripen costs anywhere near $3000 or $5000 to operate per hour. The real figure is closer to the $10,000 figure coming from a neutral source that actually operates the Gripen. You see, they don't have a motive in selling Gripens to export nations, so they're likelier to state actual figures. If indeed the Gripen met the promises of the Saab exec, the SAAF may have been able to afford more flying hours for their pilots. Although to be fair to them, the Gripen is still the cheapest fighter they could've afforded to fly and offers the best bang for their buck.

AFAIR, the article even mentioned that the SAAF pilots are restricted from using their after-burner to conserve fuel and avoid increasing operating costs. In such circumstances.

Apples & oranges? Operating cost per hour is an even more flexible figure than sales price. If, for example, you count crew costs, then reducing flying hours puts up the cost per hour. It reduces total cost, though.

The NAO in the UK came up with an operating cost per hour of £90000 for Typhoon a few years ago. It now says about £70000. But the difference in cost between an aircraft sitting in a hangar for an hour & flying for an hour has been reported by the MoD to be less than £5000.

You really, really need to know how the figure is calculated before you start making comparisons - and none of us know that.

[Loke]

Apples & oranges? Operating cost per hour is an even more flexible figure than sales price. If, for example, you count crew costs, then reducing flying hours puts up the cost per hour. It reduces total cost, though.

The NAO in the UK came up with an operating cost per hour of £90000 for Typhoon a few years ago. It now says about £70000. But the difference in cost between an aircraft sitting in a hangar for an hour & flying for an hour has been reported by the MoD to be less than £5000.

You really, really need to know how the figure is calculated before you start making comparisons - and none of us know that.

Indeed.

Other costs for the Hawk:

Hawk TI/TIA Estimated cost per hour (figures rounded) (£)

Hawk (RAF Training on 100 Squadron, 19 (Reserve) and 208 (Reserve) Squadrons) 10,000

Hawk (Royal Navy) 7,000

Hawk (Royal Air Force Aerobatics Team) 6,000

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/0...th-march-2011/

[Kramer]

Apples & oranges? Operating cost per hour is an even more flexible figure than sales price. If, for example, you count crew costs, then reducing flying hours puts up the cost per hour. It reduces total cost, though.

The NAO in the UK came up with an operating cost per hour of £90000 for Typhoon a few years ago. It now says about £70000. But the difference in cost between an aircraft sitting in a hangar for an hour & flying for an hour has been reported by the MoD to be less than £5000.

You really, really need to know how the figure is calculated before you start making comparisons - and none of us know that.

How is it an apples to oranges comparison? The Saab exec specifically mentioned maintenance, spares, fuel and manpower costs in the <$5000 per hour operating cost. If we assume that didn’t include air crew costs, that would at the most add a few hundred $ to the cost, not another $5000. Whether the number of flying hours were reduced and that increased the crew costs per hour or not, the difference cannot be $5000 per hour.

As things stand, the SAAF’s figure of operating costs seems to back what TooCool stated- that marketing speak and reality on the ground differ.

Did the NAO’s operating costs actually include ownership costs as well as depreciation?

[Loke]

More numbers!

According to the IHS Jane's, Gripen has the lowest cost per hour of flight of the aircraft studied (JAS Gripen, F-16, F-35, Eurofighter, Rafale). "With an estimated cost of $ 4,700 per hour, Gripen is less costly to operate than the F-16 Block 40/50, which is the closest competitor, with an estimated cost of 7,000 USD per hour of flight", says the report .

http://www.jurnalul.ro/observator/at...f16-610464.htm

How can Jane's operate the F16 at only 7,000 USD per hour? That's cheaper than the UK Hawks! Jane's must be sponsored by LM! Kramer, pay attention!

:diablo:

[Loke]

http://www.rtaf.mi.th/news/n07/gripe...eplacement.pdf

Somebody at mp.net claim that Thailand claims their Gripen cost half as much to operate as their F16, and referred to the above. I tried to google translate but it's too long and difficult to decipher.

Do we have any Thai speakers that can confirm the claim above?

[Sens]

Like i said, a couple of years ago it was quoted <$5000,
before fuel went up yet again

A Gripen A/C burns ~2 tons of fuel per hour.
Kerosene-based jet fuel like JP-8 presently sells for just over $3 per gallon.
That is ~$1 per kg or ~$2000 for ~2 tons.

[Kramer]

More numbers!




http://www.jurnalul.ro/observator/at...f16-610464.htm

How can Jane's operate the F16 at only 7,000 USD per hour? That's cheaper than the UK Hawks! Jane's must be sponsored by LM! Kramer, pay attention!

:diablo:

So a direct quote from the SAAF is a lie ?

Who knows what source Janes used for their data and how old that was..

[Loke]

So a direct quote from the SAAF is a lie ?

Who said the SAAF quote was a lie?

Reread what Swerve wrote above, and try to understand it...

[swerve]

How is it an apples to oranges comparison? The Saab exec specifically mentioned maintenance, spares, fuel and manpower costs in the <$5000 per hour operating cost. If we assume that didn’t include air crew costs, that would at the most add a few hundred $ to the cost, not another $5000. Whether the number of flying hours were reduced and that increased the crew costs per hour or not, the difference cannot be $5000 per hour.

As things stand, the SAAF’s figure of operating costs seems to back what TooCool stated- that marketing speak and reality on the ground differ.

Did the NAO’s operating costs actually include ownership costs as well as depreciation?

A few hundred? How many hours do you think a fighter flies in a year? How much do you think aircrew are paid? How many aircrew do you think there are, in relation to the number of aircraft? And is ground crew pay included? Remember, they're employed & paid even if the aircraft doesn't fly.

The NAO's "operating" costs include a hell of a lot, including capital charges (notional interest on the money paid for the aircraft & supporting infrastructure). I think they're pretty much the total cost of ownership, divided by hours flown. i.e. they're not operating costs. But they're still widely quoted as if they are, & compared unfavourably with marginal operating costs (the difference between the aircraft being in the air & sitting in a hangar) quoted for other aircraft.

In this context, remember that it doesn't do you any good knowing what SAAB includes in its figure unless you also know what the SAAF includes. Unless you know both, any comparison is meaningless.

[Sens]

To make things comparable you can use the real operating cost per flying hour in the related country only. That are the fluids used per hour flight-time, the share of payments for the personal used for that hour as well as the share in spare parts. Depending to a country that is some thousand dollars at best.

Some "budget people" take all outlays per year for a whole air-force and divide that by the number of flight-hours "produced" to bolster former budget claims. You will get a graph that the nominal cost per flight-hour will drop during a rising number of flight hours. You will get another graph which show your total cost will rise too. :diablo:
In short, whatever you will do, the more you fly the more the total in cost will rise as long as you can not fetch a price per flight-hour paid by someone else like in the commercial aviation. Only here more flight-hours will bring lower fares till the optimum point for each airline.
Non will be surprised to learn that smaller countries with a smaller AF and an infra-structure tailored to that like Sweden or Finland will have lower claimed operating costs despite high wages compared to the even smaller area UK f.e..

[Kramer]

A few hundred? How many hours do you think a fighter flies in a year? How much do you think aircrew are paid? How many aircrew do you think there are, in relation to the number of aircraft? And is ground crew pay included? Remember, they're employed & paid even if the aircraft doesn't fly.

yeah, a few hundred $ at the most on a per hour basis (of course not considering all the overheads). Fighter pilots aren't paid as highly as commercial pilots (one of the reasons why so many leave Air Forces) and even they don't make more than that. the SAAF will have just about 2 dozen qualified Gripen pilots anyway. an SAAF officer even mentions in that article about how they reduce crew costs by using the twin seater since both pilots get hours.

The NAO's "operating" costs include a hell of a lot, including capital charges (notional interest on the money paid for the aircraft & supporting infrastructure). I think they're pretty much the total cost of ownership, divided by hours flown. i.e. they're not operating costs. But they're still widely quoted as if they are, & compared unfavourably with marginal operating costs (the difference between the aircraft being in the air & sitting in a hangar) quoted for other aircraft.

In this context, remember that it doesn't do you any good knowing what SAAB includes in its figure unless you also know what the SAAF includes. Unless you know both, any comparison is meaningless.[/QUOTE]

Exactly - they included costs that most operators (and certainly not OEMs) will not include in their per hour operating cost. The cost of ownership is always higher and if the SAAF was talking about the ownership costs then the Gripen's $10,000 per hour are ridiculously low. But we know that $10k/hour quote wasn't ownership costs they were talking about- rather the things (spares, maintenance, crew and fuel) that Saab's Eddy de la Motte claimed would cost <$5000 for an export customer. Now I wonder what he was thinking when he included crew costs in the <$5000 per hour operating cost claim?

[obligatory]

So a direct quote from the SAAF is a lie ?

Who knows what source Janes used for their data and how old that was..

So a direct quote from both Jane's & SAAB is a lie ?

Who knows what SAAF included in their calculation,
but it is fairly certain that they calculated cost for Hawk & Gripen similarly,
in other words an apples to apples comparison,
unless they also included weapons carried by the Gripen wear & tear.
Fuel increase last couple of years & general cost increase will also need to be accounted for, but in the Hawk vs Gripen comparison, that, again should be equal.

[Kramer]

So a direct quote from both Jane's & SAAB is a lie ?

In my guess, yes its marketing speak from Saab, which Janes have quoted since non-Swedish Air Forces may not have given a $ figure for them to use. Nothing else can explain a nearly double operating cost per hour figure from an Air Force that operates the Gripen C/D.

Since fighter manufacturers are not held to such quoted figures by operators, Saab can even get away with it saying that hey when we mentioned spares, maintenance, fuel, crew as being part of it, you didn't see the asterisk marks, the fine print on what we actually included in our operating cost estimates. In commercial aviation, such details are expected from the OEMs and engine manufacturers are very very specific on what they include in their estimates since they give guarantees to the airlines.

[Sens]

About the Gripen we have the leasing-contract to Hungary and the number of flying hours.

http://defense-update.com/20120201_s...pen-lease.html

[diulio]

Is anyone willing to take a shot at how many flight hours the Gripen ABCDs will accumulate in SwAF?

In 2011 all Gripen users had accumulated 120,000 hours. SwAF flies 12,000 hours per year including training of pilots for foreign air forces. For comparison Norway also fly 12,000 hours on 57 shagged F-16s.

Gripen ABCDs are expected to be fully retired 2027.

Gripen ABCD will struggle to make 300,000 FH in SwAF service.SwAF originally acquired 201 Gripens each with 8000 hours per arcraft. SwAF bought 1,600,000 FH. SwAF still has 134 active Gripen ABCDs or 1,072,000 FH.

At this tempo there should be FH to take the Gripen ABCD fleet to 2070 and beyond.

What's going on here?

[obligatory]

I think current Gripen will carry on as the mainstay of SwAF to at least 2040,
with a dozen or two Gripen NG as the spearhead.
Countries like mine can look forward to purchase 2nd hand nice a/c
at un-matched discount & operational cost

[Sens]

Is anyone willing to take a shot at how many flight hours the Gripen ABCDs will accumulate in SwAF?

In 2011 all Gripen users had accumulated 120,000 hours. SwAF flies 12,000 hours per year including training of pilots for foreign air forces. For comparison Norway also fly 12,000 hours on 57 shagged F-16s.

Gripen ABCDs are expected to be fully retired 2027.

Gripen ABCD will struggle to make 300,000 FH in SwAF service.SwAF originally acquired 201 Gripens each with 8000 hours per arcraft. SwAF bought 1,600,000 FH. SwAF still has 134 active Gripen ABCDs or 1,072,000 FH.

At this tempo there should be FH to take the Gripen ABCD fleet to 2070 and beyond.

What's going on here?

Sim-Dome hours have replaced FHs and that are down to ~100 per aircraft per year. Under such conditions a Gripen will last for ~80 years to reach its nominal life time.

[obligatory]

Strange as it may be, it looks like Sweden is going to buy a whole lot more than a dozen new NG. IMO if this is to go ahead, it is going to have to be along the lines of F-15 Silent Eagle.

The Swiss government wants to buy 22 Gripen planes of the new E/ F version for 3.1 billion francs. Decisions about the fund will be made in Parliament until 2013, and the contract for the Gripen planes are expected to be signed no earlier than 2014, according to the newspaper Le Temps.

The Swiss government is also considering linking the Gripen purchase with any Swedish plans to buy 60-80 plan ahead.

Though the government does not want to participate in the development cost of the new plane, as 3.1 billion Swiss francs is the limit. A referendum on the aircraft acquisition is now seen as inevitable.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...hread/page222&

[obligatory]

Saab Expands Co-Operation with Akaer In Brazil

Saab strengthens and improves the relation with Akaer through a financial investment to the equivalent of 15 percent shareholding in the company. The expanded co-operation creates a strategic long term collaboration whereby Saab will also be part of Akaer's Advisory Board.

Saab and Akaer have been partners since 2007 when Akaer was assigned responsibility to design specific work packages for Gripen NG, and the existing partnership will now be further expanded with investment in Akaer.

“Akaer has achieved outstanding progress in aeronautical engineering and commercial achievements in a highly competitive industry. Together we can further explore business possibilities both inBraziland internationally. Our co-operation will also be strengthened by meeting technical and commercial objectives from the Gripen NG project related to current work packages,” says Saab´s Senior Vice President Dan Jangblad.

Akaer will stay independent and be controlled and managed by the Brazilian founder and management, and Saab will be part of Akaer's Advisory Board. This movement is totally in line with the new Brazilian law related to the Brazilian Defense Industry.

“Akaer and Saab share aero structural synergies and together we can meet the demands in aero structures assemblies to the aerospace industry. I am certain our partnership will guarantee both quality and long-term business," says Cesar da Silva, CEO Akaer

This investment is yet another important step towards further future design, development and production of Gripen NG inBrazil. Another important strategic aspect of this partnership will be the enhanced participation in various Brazilian aerospace and defense programs and wider access to the export market..

Brazilis an important and growing market for Saab, and with this growing partnership with Brazilian industry, Saab can together deliver key next generation technical and military capabilities providing for national autonomy in future design, development and operation.

Background

Akaer is a Brazilian engineering company that has been operating since 1992 in the segments aerospace and defense, having participated of the main programs in these segments in bothBraziland abroad, offering services of high technological content and innovative solutions. Its main focus is the development of aero-structures, as well as management of turnkey projects, offering complete solutions with a commitment and creativity through an experienced and trained team. Akaer is recognized today by the main actors of this segment as one of the main Brazilian engineering companies with global operations.

Saab and Akaer have been partner since 2007. In October 2009 an agreement was signed between Akaer and Saab regarding Akaer participation in the Gripen NG development program. The purpose of the agreement was to lay the foundations for good co-operation between the two companies and to support Saab's development and production for the rear fuselage, mid fuselage and wing including main landing gear doors for Gripen NG. Immediately after the agreement signature, a team of Brazilian engineers from Akaer were stationed inSweden to acquaint themselves with the NG project to participate in the development and to learn about Saab's requirements and methods in the form of technology transfer through "on the job training".

During 2010 Akaer facilities inBrazilwere prepared and certified for work activities related to Gripen NG development, including special security controlled areas equipped with advanced network systems connected with Saab inSweden. A team fromSwedeninitiated development work at Akaer with the opening of a local Saab office inSao Paulo. The Akaer team participated in the conception phase including design, tooling and industrialization and on the 20 October 2010 Akaer released to Saab the first 3D model and production drawing of the Gripen NG in Sao Jose de Campos.

Saab serves the global market with world-leading products, services and solutions ranging from military defence to civil security. Saab has operations and employees on all continents and constantly develops, adopts and improves new technology to meet customers’ changing needs.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...in-brazil.html

[obligatory]

Saab expands its co-operation with AEL Sistemas S/A of Brazil

In connection with Saab’s Gripen NG proposal to Brazil the Defence and Security Company, has expanded its planned co-operation with Aeroeletronica Ltda (AEL) of Brazil and now also includes development, production and long term logistics of the Gripen NG avionics package.
In 2009, Saab and AEL Sistemas signed a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) identifying potential areas of co-operation under the Brazilian F-X2 Program.

Since then, AEL experienced a significant growth and capabilities evolution, which has opened new opportunities for co-operation between the companies. The existing MoU between Saab and AEL Sistemas has now been revised and further expanded and identifies projects relating areas of the development, production and long term logistics support of the Gripen NG avionics package.

Mr Vitor Jaime Puglia Neves, Vice President of AEL Sistemas S/A, stated that “I welcome the MoU between Saab and AEL Sistemas which represents an extremely important step towards the creation of a Brazilian Complete Avionics Package from AEL and respective CLS services in the Gripen NG aircraft. “

Saab’s approach to industrial co-operation covers a broad range of long term sustainable business activities focused not only on the product, delivering investment, job creation, technology transfer, manufacturing, technical support, training and scientific co-operation beneficial to Brazilian industry and the Brazilian nation.

“We are convinced that our offer is the best alternative for Brazil. Saab offers Brazilian industry a very competitive industrial co-operation package that exceeds the requirement of 100 percent of the order value”, says Saab’s Dan Jangblad, Senior Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer. “The industrial collaboration would create an even broader opportunity for Swedish and Brazilian co-operation”.

Facts about the Saab industrial offer to Brazil

In the response to Brazil Saab commits to deliver more than 175 percent industrial co-operation including offers such as:

· a broad industrial co-operation, not limited to the defence industry
· long-term industrial benefits directly relevant to Brazilian requirements
· the Gripen approach enables funding, Brazil/Swedish partnerships and export opportunities
· extensive opportunities for technology transfer creating national autonomy
· use of Brazilian technology for both defence and civil applications
· full support from our partners and the Investor network
· job creation & sustainability

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-Sa...-SA-of-Brazil/

[mrmalaya]

Swiss pilots fly the demo and get a feel for what is to come:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...gripen-371613/

[Freehand]

Didn't they do this already, when evaluating the Gripen? It shouldn't be that much of a surprise.

[TooCool_12f]

one funny detail:

"We simulated a quick reaction alert and a maximum performance intercept to high altitude and supersonic speed. "


"Sorties were conducted up to an altitude of 12,000ft (3,660m) and to a maximum speed of Mach 1.35, according to Armasuisse."

er, in switzerland they'd be hugging the mountain tops (litteraly sometimes) at 12000ft...

[obligatory]

Didn't they do this already, when evaluating the Gripen? It shouldn't be that much of a surprise.

The Swiss never got to try out the Demo Gripen before.

[Scorpion82]

I suppose it was 12000 m not ft.

[TooCool_12f]

the article says 12000ft (3660m)

if it's 12000m, that would sound more logical (and would be around 36000ft), but doesn't shed a very positive light on that journalists professionalism