Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • bandua
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Sep 2012
    • 76

    current Gripen engine, RM12, is basically a 404 54kN/80kN (dry/wet), future NG engine (like how this sounds), 414, gives 58kN/98kN while current EJ200 gives 60kN/90kN. so basically the "winner" is 10% better wet and almost the same dry, eurojet has stated several times that their engine has a pretty decent growing margin and is around 10% lighter and smaller than the 414. I don't think it was a case of getting the most powerfull (or better) available engine but a case of search for industrial ease for the manufacturer, in these sense i think it's much more easy for both volvo and saab to adapt from 404 to 414. They have a long lasting history of producing GE licenced products, and GE itself is a company with huge experience selling product licences.

    With m88 (50kN/75kN) they would have to face the need of getting roughlty 20% extra power over the current version, which seems posible but probably required some important modifications. I don't think it's exactly in the same category of the other two.

    Taking all these factors together, the sweedes considered that 414 was a better option (and they are not the only ones).

    Comment

    • JakobS
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Aug 2015
      • 155

      Originally posted by swerve View Post
      Can anyone provide a reliable & complete breakdown of Gripen stocks? How many of which model in existence & who owns them.
      It's 98 operational C/D's in Sweden, 5 planes have crashed, 4 planes have been used for technical demonstrations (ex Gripen Demo) and in the UK, 2 planes have been donated to museums, 32 A/B's have been scrapped for spare parts, 24 A/B's are in storage and is available for customers who want's to buy/lease the C/D version, 12 planes have been upgraded and sold to Thailand, 28 planes have been upgraded and are leased to Czech and Hungary (although one of these will be scrapped and is counted as a crashed one.

      Originally posted by Loke View Post
      They looked at the EJ200 and decided against it -- probably too expensive and did not offer enough advantages for the increased cost.
      The issue was not cost, it was Saab's great relationship with GE that was the advantage that made them choose F414. Although Saab did not deem either increasing the thrust or making the EJ200 suitable for single engine operations as risky, it was still another moment that could be avoided by the F414.

      Originally posted by swerve View Post
      There's also the little matter of some commonality with the RM12, & Volvo already being a subcontractor on the F414. F414 was the nearest thing to a domestic engine after the RM12.
      Volvo have also made lot's of developments on the F404 for redundancy so that engine fails can be avoided. All of these modifications have been bought back by GE and is incorporated into the F414G.

      Originally posted by MSphere View Post
      The ability to export without US consent is an advantage on its own.. But everything depends on the deal, I guess.. If there was a country otherwise not acceptable for the approval of the US Congress, while willing to order say 60+ airframes, then I think the integration of the EJ200 would quickly get back on the table. But I can't see such customer lining up for the Gripen.. On top of all that, there is also numerous other stuff on the aircraft which is US made.
      The integration of the EJ200 is always hiding somewhere in the Gripen E/F project. For an example it's specified in the Brazilian contract that if an export license for the engine is blocked an engine will be developed by Saab and Embraer or another stock engine will be incorporated in the fighter (read EJ200).

      Comment

      • swerve
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jun 2005
        • 13610

        Originally posted by JakobS View Post
        It's 98 operational C/D's in Sweden, 5 planes have crashed, 4 planes have been used for technical demonstrations (ex Gripen Demo) and in the UK, 2 planes have been donated to museums, 32 A/B's have been scrapped for spare parts, 24 A/B's are in storage and is available for customers who want's to buy/lease the C/D version, 12 planes have been upgraded and sold to Thailand, 28 planes have been upgraded and are leased to Czech and Hungary (although one of these will be scrapped and is counted as a crashed one.
        Thanks for that. None of the published lists I've seen (including those quoted on the previous Gripen thread here) stated how many A/B had been dismantled for parts, & some were unclear about whether the Thai aircraft had been rebuilt from A/B or are completely new.

        Only 24 remaining A/B means that they're running out of aircraft to rebuild.
        Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
        Justinian

        Comment

        • Loke
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jun 2008
          • 3302

          This is rather old, but the only detailed info I could find on the new avionics core of the Gripen NG:

          http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=408

          Seems to be a mix of the old 1553B data bus and fast ethernet. And of course faster CPUs.

          The RIG Demonstration phase showed that all today available functionality in the Gripen core avionics could be ran on 10% of the new processor capacity.
          This is from 2012 -- I wonder if there has been any changes since then.

          Comment

          • Tonnyc
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Dec 2013
            • 102

            Originally posted by swerve View Post
            Only 24 remaining A/B means that they're running out of aircraft to rebuild.
            This has been speculated for a while now and while Saab did not outright say how many are left in storage, they have been saying that they can build new ones. I take that as confirmation that the stored Gripen are running out. Saab's offer to Bulgaria are new Gripen C/D, for example.

            Comment

            • swerve
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jun 2005
              • 13610

              There may still be a stockpile of unused parts from the 'scrapped for parts' A/Bs, so perhaps SAAB could build 'new' C/Ds from a mix of re-lifed old parts & new.
              Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
              Justinian

              Comment

              • Tonnyc
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Dec 2013
                • 102

                Originally posted by swerve View Post
                There may still be a stockpile of unused parts from the 'scrapped for parts' A/Bs, so perhaps SAAB could build 'new' C/Ds from a mix of re-lifed old parts & new.
                I doubt it. Logically the unused Gripen A/B parts that can be used in Gripen C/D would have been used to maintain the C/D a long time ago. The Swedish Air Force owns the Gripen A/B and any parts that came when they break them down for spares. Since all air forces have to worry about budget, they would use the stored parts first before ordering new ones from Saab. The parts that can't be used in C/D is irrelevant because no one is asking for A/B these days.

                The stored A/Bs belong to Swedish Air Force too. I am not sure the Swedish Air Force wants to let them go. Even though they don't use A/B anymore, those represent the option of getting 12 more C/D (IIRC the conversion ratio is 2:1) at a cheaper and faster rate than buying new. If they are willing to let them go, Saab would not need to offer new ones to Bulgaria and Slovakia.

                Comment

                • maurobaggio
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jul 2008
                  • 521

                  Originally posted by Ad Sumus View Post
                  This is not what Maurobaggio said. He is claiming the value of the contract was reduced AFTER the signature because of possible investigations by Brazilian Justice. And that is simply not true. The only thing that changed after the signature was the exchange rate.

                  After the contract were signed in 2014 about US$ 5.4 billion, there were several mentions that besides those 36 Gripen E / F, it would be added 14 Gripen C / D from second hand, once those fighters would be provided to Brazil until the Gripen E / F could became operational around 2025.

                  Apparently the US$ 900 million that had been added to the original contract of US$ 4.5 billons from 36 Gripen E / F , actually it would be used in the purchase of 14 Gripen C / D of second hand from Sweden.

                  Assuming that those 14 Gripen C / D would have an useful life in Brazil around 3,000 hours, the cost could be compared with the Gripen E / F with a useful life of 6,000 hours in 30 years from service in Brazil:

                  1.Comparative Table Brazil with Gripen C/D and Gripen E/F

                  Type Number of Gripen Amount of Contract (Billions) Unit Cost (millions) Life(hours) Cost/hours(U$)
                  Gripen E/F 36 Us$ 4.5 US$ 125 6,000 21,000
                  Gripen C/D 14 US$ 0.9 US$ 64 3,000 21,000
                  By the same cost/ hours of the second hand Gripen C/D from Sweden, the new 36 Gripen E/F from Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:
                  • a new production line that will be installed in Brazil
                  • development of the new Gripen F in Brazil
                  • financial resources to keep the production line in Brazil with rate of the 3 aircraft's per year for five years


                  In my humble opinion US$ 900 million for 14 Gripen C / D with half the useful life could be quite reasonable, after all this should cover the cost of training and the acquisition of weapons for those 14 Gripen C/D.

                  So instead of 14 Gripen C / D fighters with half of the useful life , if Brazil could have opted for new Gripen C / D with a useful life that has been estimated around 6000 hours, then:


                  1.Comparative Table Brazil with Gripen C/D and Gripen E/F

                  Type Number of Gripen Amount of Contract (Billions) Unit Cost (millions) Life(hours) Cost/hours(US$)
                  Gripen E/F 36 Us$ 4.5 US$ 125 6,000 21,000
                  Gripen C/D 14 US$ 1.8 US$ 125 6,000 21,000
                  By the same cost of Gripen C/D that would have been built in Sweden , the new Gripen E/F from Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:
                  • a new production line that will be installed in Brazil
                  • development of the new Gripen F in Brazil
                  • financial resources to keep the production line in Brazil with rate of the 3 aircraft's per year for five years


                  This crude estimate of the unit cost around US$ 125 million for each new built Gripen C / D with a useful life of 6000 hours, it should be consistent with information has been published by the web on the Gripen C / D as : acquisition cost + operational costs + training + weapons.

                  So far in Brazil it has been completely discharged the option of leasing 14 Gripen C / D until those 36 Gripen E / F that will enter in service around 2025.

                  By coincidence this withdrawal from leasing 14 Gripen C/D occurred after the claim of the Government of Brazil to the Justice Department that the responsible for increasing the cost of contract from U$ 4.5 billion to U$ 5.4 billion it had been the exchange rate of SEK, however as the contract has been returned to U$ 4.5 billion since 2009.

                  In relation of the conditions of the acquisition from 36 Gripen E / F by Brazil, in my humble opinion the contract of US$ 4.5 billion has not been realistic, once there are several cost that has not been mentioned so far, in reason of this too:

                  1.Comparative Table Brazil / Switzerland

                  Type Number of Gripen NG Amount of Contract (Billions) Unit Cost (millions)
                  Brazil Gripen E/F 36 US$ 4.5 US$ 125
                  Switzerland Gripen E 22 US$ 3.233 US$ 147
                  By the less of the unit cost from Switzerland the Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:
                  • a new production line that will be installed in Brazil
                  • development of the new Gripen F in Brazil
                  • financial resources to keep the production line in Brazil with rate of the 3 aircraft's per year for five years

                  Comment

                  • Loke
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jun 2008
                    • 3302

                    Wow -- this is very surprising.

                    Saab mentions Argentina as a potential Gripen customer (in addition to Colombia, Equador and Peru).

                    Are they really considering to "Argenize" the Gripen? The Selex radar could be replaced by either Saab's own AESA radar, or by an Israeli; and the IRST can of course also be replaced. However there are also several other bits and pieces... it won't be cheap. But it should be possible


                    http://www.infodefensa.com/latam/201...lla-fidae.html

                    Comment

                    • Loke
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jun 2008
                      • 3302

                      Old presentation from 2012 mentions "Beamed data link" (directional data link) (slide 22 and 26):

                      http://documents.mx/documents/the-gr...onference.html

                      I have not seen this mentioned in the recent presentations however -- have they decided to drop it?

                      The WISCOM concept on slide 26 is very interesting -- it seems to rely on "random AESA emissions"; however for this to make sense I assume it requires high-speed data links between the fighters?

                      Edit: the last mention I could find of WISCOM and beamed datalinks is from 2013: http://www.gbp.com.sg/DailyNews/2013...13-DAY2_17.pdf
                      Last edited by Loke; 7th April 2016, 10:46.

                      Comment

                      • Ad Sumus
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Sep 2012
                        • 6

                        Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                        Apparently the US$ 900 million that had been added to the original contract of US$ 4.5 billons from 36 Gripen E / F , actually it would be used in the purchase of 14 Gripen C / D of second hand from Sweden.
                        Wrong. The eventual lease (not purchase) of C /D would have been a different, separate contract.

                        Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                        This crude estimate of the unit cost around US$ 125 million for each new built Gripen C / D with a useful life of 6000 hours, it should be consistent with information has been published by the web on the Gripen C / D as : acquisition cost + operational costs + training + weapons.
                        Why would you buy new NG and new C / D? And for the same unitary cost as NG? Doesn't make sense.


                        Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                        By coincidence this withdrawal from leasing 14 Gripen C/D occurred after the claim of the Government of Brazil to the Justice Department that the responsible for increasing the cost of contract from U$ 4.5 billion to U$ 5.4 billion it had been the exchange rate of SEK, however as the contract has been returned to U$ 4.5 billion since 2009.
                        Wrong. Nobody ever claimed the increase from U$ 4.5 billion to U$ 5.4 billion was due to exchange rate. The REDUCTION of the value in USD AFTER the signature was due to the exchange rate because the contract was signed in SEK and not in USD.
                        Let me put in portuguese for you:
                        A REDUO do valor (em dlares dos Estados Unidos) DEPOIS da assinatura do contrato foi devido a flutuao da taxa de cmbio, j que o contrato foi assinado em coroas suecas e no em dlares.

                        Comment

                        • Spitfire9
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jul 2008
                          • 2834

                          Originally posted by Ad Sumus View Post
                          Wrong. Nobody ever claimed the increase from U$ 4.5 billion to U$ 5.4 billion was due to exchange rate. The REDUCTION of the value in USD AFTER the signature was due to the exchange rate because the contract was signed in SEK and not in USD.
                          Let me put in portuguese for you:
                          A REDUO do valor (em dlares dos Estados Unidos) DEPOIS da assinatura do contrato foi devido a flutuao da taxa de cmbio, j que o contrato foi assinado em coroas suecas e no em dlares.
                          Indeed.

                          Who cares whether the equivalent value in Egyptian pounds, $US, euros, Moroccan dirhams etc goes up or down after the contract is signed? SAAB receives no less/more krona, Brazil pays no less/more krona. If the $US dropped 90% in value against the Swedish krona so that the $US equivalent of the deal rocketed up to $50 billion or so, it would not make the deal any more expensive for Brazil.
                          Last edited by Spitfire9; 7th April 2016, 14:07.
                          Sum ergo cogito

                          Comment

                          • Loke
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jun 2008
                            • 3302

                            Saab is trying to sell Gripen in Indonesia:

                            http://jakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/n...ion-indonesia/

                            what grabbed my attention was this sentence:

                            According to Enstedt, Saab's winning advantage is a guaranteed delivery time of 12 months.
                            This point to the Gripen C/D!

                            I wonder if they offer it as an interim solution while waiting for Gripen E/F?

                            Comment

                            • maurobaggio
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jul 2008
                              • 521

                              Originally posted by Ad Sumus View Post
                              Wrong. The eventual lease (not purchase) of C /D would have been a different, separate contract.
                              If you know so much about this subject, please enlighten us with your knowledge, after all by what I have seen here in this thread, there are many who still believe that Brazil will receive 14 Gripen C / D before of the 36 Gripen E/F.



                              Originally posted by Ad Sumus View Post
                              Why would you buy new NG and new C / D? And for the same unitary cost as NG? Doesn't make sense.
                              In fact it does not make any sense, since It is not about to buy new Gripen C / D until those 36 Gripen E / F will be operational around 2025, once the time has been required for this will be long and as well as the cost will be high, instead the goal were compare both models like the second hand Gripen C/D with the new Gripen E/F.
                              Otherwise this table bellow does not make any sense to me either:




                              1.Comparative Table Brazil / Switzerland

                              Type Number of Gripen NG Amount of Contract (Billions) Unit Cost (millions)
                              Brazil Gripen E/F 36 Us$ 4.5 US$ 125
                              Switzerland Gripen E 22 US$ 3.233 US$ 147
                              By the less of the unit cost from Switzerland the Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:
                              • a new production line that will be installed in Brazil
                              • development of the new Gripen F in Brazil
                              • financial resources to keep the production line in Brazil with rate of the 3 aircraft's per year for five years
                              • 100% Transfer of Technology for the Brazil
                              • licence from Brazil to export the Gripen E / F for the Latin America.



                              I guess that people from Switzerland does not think that table above has been made any sense too.



                              Originally posted by Ad Sumus View Post
                              Wrong. Nobody ever claimed the increase from U$ 4.5 billion to U$ 5.4 billion was due to exchange rate. The REDUCTION of the value in USD AFTER the signature was due to the exchange rate because the contract was signed in SEK and not in USD.
                              Let me put in portuguese for you:
                              A REDUO do valor (em dlares dos Estados Unidos) DEPOIS da assinatura do contrato foi devido a flutuao da taxa de cmbio, j que o contrato foi assinado em coroas suecas e no em dlares.
                              Forgive me for my huge ignorance, but the Portuguese language has been beyond my capabilities. In reason of that I used the Google Translate for it.

                              The first translation that I got was something like this: you're an old man very naive.

                              In fact I have agreed with this first answer , although it was not exactly those words that it wrote for me, but how it has been children in this thread , then I have soothed those adjectives about me.

                              However I had made others attempts until the Google could provided with this translation from your text:

                              "REDUCING value (in US dollars) AFTER the signing of the contract was due to fluctuation of the exchange rate, since the contract was signed in SEK and not in dollars."
                              As you can see it is not the same words that you put in the first sentence in English that you wrote in your post: "The REDUCTION of the value in USD AFTER the signature was due to the exchange rate because the contract was signed in SEK and not in USD."

                              Them in my humble opinion the sense of both sentence its not equal.

                              Please tell me if this translation has been correct, because if you really said it , then I will answer this or both.

                              Comment

                              • Loke
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jun 2008
                                • 3302

                                High-velocity gyro-stabilized filming:

                                https://vimeo.com/162088181


                                Dassault should talk to those guys!

                                Comment

                                • JakobS
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Aug 2015
                                  • 155

                                  A Gripen with a full missile load is always really nice to see. It happens so rarely nowadays.

                                  Comment

                                  • Ad Sumus
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Sep 2012
                                    • 6

                                    Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                                    If you know so much about this subject, please enlighten us with your knowledge, after all by what I have seen here in this thread, there are many who still believe that Brazil will receive 14 Gripen C / D before of the 36 Gripen E/F.
                                    The point I made is that any eventual Gripen C/D deal will be separate from the NG deal. SAAB's offer never included C/D's, only Gripen NG.



                                    Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                                    1.Comparative Table Brazil / Switzerland

                                    Type Number of Gripen NG Amount of Contract (Billions) Unit Cost (millions)
                                    Brazil Gripen E/F 36 Us$ 4.5 US$ 125
                                    Switzerland Gripen E 22 US$ 3.233 US$ 147
                                    By the less of the unit cost from Switzerland the Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:
                                    • a new production line that will be installed in Brazil
                                    • development of the new Gripen F in Brazil
                                    • financial resources to keep the production line in Brazil with rate of the 3 aircraft's per year for five years
                                    • 100% Transfer of Technology for the Brazil
                                    • licence from Brazil to export the Gripen E / F for the Latin America.



                                    I guess that people from Switzerland does not think that table above has been made any sense too.
                                    You keep posting this table in almost all your messages. Why?
                                    If you are trying to point out the difference in what you call the Unit Cost, let me remind you that we don't know the exact scope of the two contracts and therefore simply dividing the total cost by the number of airplanes doesn't tell you much, if anything.



                                    Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                                    Forgive me for my huge ignorance, but the Portuguese language has been beyond my capabilities. In reason of that I used the Google Translate for it.

                                    The first translation that I got was something like this: you're an old man very naive.

                                    In fact I have agreed with this first answer , although it was not exactly those words that it wrote for me, but how it has been children in this thread , then I have soothed those adjectives about me.
                                    My bad, I really thought you were Brazilian . Let me assure you nobody called anybody "old man very naive" or even worse as your last sentence implies. At least I didn't.



                                    Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                                    As you can see it is not the same words that you put in the first sentence in English that you wrote in your post: "The REDUCTION of the value in USD AFTER the signature was due to the exchange rate because the contract was signed in SEK and not in USD."

                                    Them in my humble opinion the sense of both sentence its not equal.

                                    Please tell me if this translation has been correct, because if you really said it , then I will answer this or both.
                                    The meaning of the two sentences is exactly the same and I'm looking forward to your answer for any or both interpretation you might have.

                                    Comment

                                    • Spitfire9
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jul 2008
                                      • 2834

                                      Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                                      Forgive me for my huge ignorance, but the Portuguese language has been beyond my capabilities. In reason of that I used the Google Translate for it.

                                      The first translation that I got was something like this: you're an old man very naive.

                                      In fact I have agreed with this first answer , although it was not exactly those words that it wrote for me, but how it has been children in this thread , then I have soothed those adjectives about me.

                                      However I had made others attempts until the Google could provided with this translation from your text:

                                      As you can see it is not the same words that you put in the first sentence in English that you wrote in your post: "The REDUCTION of the value in USD AFTER the signature was due to the exchange rate because the contract was signed in SEK and not in USD."

                                      Them in my humble opinion the sense of both sentence its not equal.

                                      Please tell me if this translation has been correct, because if you really said it , then I will answer this or both.
                                      Maurobaggio:

                                      In my opinion this in English -

                                      'The REDUCTION of the value in USD AFTER the signature [of the contract] was due to the exchange rate because the contract was signed in SEK and not in USD.'

                                      has the same meaning as this in Portuguese -

                                      'A REDUO do valor (em dlares dos Estados Unidos) DEPOIS da assinatura do contrato foi devido a flutuao da taxa de cmbio, j que o contrato foi assinado em coroas suecas e no em dlares.'

                                      I'm a little surprised you can't see that. When I once worked in Italy I was surprised to find that if I spoke Portuguese to people and they talked Italian to me, we could understand a great deal of what we were saying to each other.

                                      Mmmm... sorry if I've got it wrong - I assume you are Italian!
                                      Last edited by Spitfire9; 11th April 2016, 12:37.
                                      Sum ergo cogito

                                      Comment

                                      • Loke
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jun 2008
                                        • 3302

                                        Saab has outlined its commitment to expand industrial alliances in Malaysia in a bid to enhance its presence in the market.

                                        Dan Enstedt, president and CEO of Saab Asia Pacific, said in a statement on 8 April that the company's strategy in Malaysia is focused on building partnerships that can support Saab's efforts to supply the Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF) with a range of capabilities.

                                        These include platforms such as the JAS 39 Gripen NG multirole fighter aircraft and systems such as electronic warfare, signature management, communications, surveillance, fire control and radars, warheads and combat management.
                                        Read more: http://www.janes.com/article/59404/s...es-in-malaysia

                                        Comment

                                        • Loke
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jun 2008
                                          • 3302

                                          From Corporal Frisk (Finnish blogger):

                                          An interesting comment was also made with regards to the Finnish HX-program, where Saab said they expected it to be in the 40+ aircraft category.
                                          https://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/...-seminar-2016/

                                          If Finland goes for a smaller number of a/c it definitely points in the direction of the F-35, IMHO... 40+ Gripen NG will probably not provide sufficient deterrence.

                                          Interesting that they still consider Indonesia a potential customer.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X