Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Loke
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jun 2008
    • 3302

    Vietnam has elected a new defence minister to lead the country's continuing programme of military modernisation.
    http://www.janes.com/article/59429/v...-modernisation

    According to some sources the international press, Vietnam has expressed interest in aircraft Gripen E / F to replace the interceptor MiG-21 retirement. However, the price is a huge barrier.
    Google translated from: http://tintuc.vn/quan-su/tiem-kich-j...ng-nong-117320

    Comment

    • Spitfire9
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jul 2008
      • 2832

      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.
      '...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.'

      I wonder what 'support' they are talking about. It seems to me that all this flowery statement means is that SAAB would like to sell Gripen and other things to Malaysia.
      Sum ergo cogito

      Comment

      • Loke
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jun 2008
        • 3302

        Originally posted by Spitfire9 View Post

        I wonder what 'support' they are talking about. It seems to me that all this flowery statement means is that SAAB would like to sell Gripen and other things to Malaysia.
        Yes, that's exactly how I read it as well. So unlike e.g. Denmark and Canada, they believe Malaysia may be interested in Gripen.

        Comment

        • MSphere
          Senior Member
          • Feb 2010
          • 8983

          There might be many nations interested in a single-engine lightweight fighter.. But not for $100mil a pop..

          Comment

          • alexz
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Nov 2010
            • 325

            Originally posted by MSphere View Post
            There might be many nations interested in a single-engine lightweight fighter.. But not for $100mil a pop..
            Ditto.

            $50million is about right for a new single engined lightweight fighter. Higher, probably better to go for brand new f-16 while the line is still open.

            Comment

            • Spitfire9
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jul 2008
              • 2832

              Originally posted by alexz View Post
              $50million is about right for a new single engined lightweight fighter. Higher, probably better to go for brand new f-16 while the line is still open.
              I recall some years ago that SAAB said Gripen E was expected to be cheaper to build than Gripen C, due to the lower cost of the F414 engine to be used in the Gripen E. If that is still the case, Gripen E may cost closer to $50 million than $100 million. Of course whether the flyaway cost of the aircraft is $60 million or $70 million or $80 million has only a minor bearing on the overall cost of procuring and operating the type.
              Sum ergo cogito

              Comment

              • alexz
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Nov 2010
                • 325

                That was some years ago.

                If the NG is really cheaper than the c/d, saab wouldn't still market new c/d builds as a cheaper option to the NG.

                http://www.janes.com/article/52239/p...ombat-aircraft
                Last edited by alexz; 12th April 2016, 13:38.

                Comment

                • Loke
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jun 2008
                  • 3302

                  Originally posted by alexz View Post
                  That was some years ago.

                  If the NG is really cheaper than the c/d, saab wouldn't still market new c/d builds as a cheaper option to the NG.

                  http://www.janes.com/article/52239/p...ombat-aircraft
                  My understanding was that Saab expects production costs of the NG to be lower than the C/D -- that does not mean that the price to customer is lower.

                  From the same article:

                  Specifically, Saab sees potential in Austria (C/D or E/F as a Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 1 replacement); Belgium, (E/F most likely); Botswana (C/D7); Bulgaria (C/D); Colombia (C/D or E/F); the Czech Republic (additional C/Ds); Ecuador (C/D or E/F); Finland (most likely for the E/F, depending on programme timelines); Hungary (additional C/Ds); India (E/F); Indonesia (C/D); Kenya (C/D); Malaysia (C/D); Mexico (C/D or E/F); Namibia (C/D); Peru (C/D or E/F); Philippines (C/D); Portugal (C/D); Slovakia (has selected the C/D, with a contract expected later this year); and Uruguay (C/D or E/F).
                  No mention of Brazil, Thailand, Vietnam and Switzerland, that surprises me?

                  Comment

                  • FBW
                    FBW
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Dec 2011
                    • 3295

                    Originally posted by Spitfire9 View Post
                    I recall some years ago that SAAB said Gripen E was expected to be cheaper to build than Gripen C, due to the lower cost of the F414 engine to be used in the Gripen E. If that is still the case, Gripen E may cost closer to $50 million than $100 million. Of course whether the flyaway cost of the aircraft is $60 million or $70 million or $80 million has only a minor bearing on the overall cost of procuring and operating the type.
                    No, so far the two statements coming from Swedish AF, and the Swiss officials have put the unit cost at 90-100 million. This was stated before the Brazil contract was signed so cost estimates may be revised lower as production ramps up. Fifty million dollars in FY2016 will not get you a new Gripen C (roughly 58 million circa 2012), F-16 Block 50/52 (roughly 67 million in 2016), or any other western fighter.

                    Addition- Even the used Tranche 1 EF offered by Spain were in the 60+ million range.
                    Last edited by FBW; 12th April 2016, 14:18.

                    Comment

                    • Spitfire9
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jul 2008
                      • 2832

                      Originally posted by alexz View Post
                      That was some years ago.

                      If the NG is really cheaper than the c/d, saab wouldn't still market new c/d builds as a cheaper option to the NG.

                      http://www.janes.com/article/52239/p...ombat-aircraft
                      Thanks. So C is less to buy than E now.

                      It's interesting to read the following:

                      "The first opportunity to accommodate orders on the E line beyond Sweden and Brazil will be in 2022. There are many near-term fighter requirements that won't wait until then, and so the C/D is a very viable proposal for those nations."

                      I don't quite understand why SAAB is marketing the E to anyone if none can be delivered for 6+ years. What happens if Switzerland revives its F-5 replacement this year or next - does SAAB respond, offering to build some new Gripen C to lend/lease to Switzerland until they can be replaced by Gripen E in 2022+? Same thing for Belgium/Denmark?
                      Sum ergo cogito

                      Comment

                      • alexz
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Nov 2010
                        • 325

                        Imo for those countries seeking f-16 replacements, their best solution is to get newer f-16s before the line closes for good (yes of course LM won't actively promoting it against their own f-35).

                        Saab is marketing the E model with the "halo" of it being a brand new 4.5gen design (opposed to say F-16 3gen design), light years away more advanced than its own C/D model, and on par with other fighters such as typhoon and rafale at relatively lower cost than those fighters. In reality its lightweight design has lots of compromises that doesn't make it any more capable than say the latest f-16 upgrades.

                        Comment

                        • Spitfire9
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jul 2008
                          • 2832

                          Originally posted by alexz View Post
                          Imo for those countries seeking f-16 replacements, their best solution is to get newer f-16s before the line closes for good (yes of course LM won't actively promoting it against their own f-35).

                          Saab is marketing the E model with the "halo" of it being a brand new 4.5gen design (opposed to say F-16 3gen design), light years away more advanced than its own C/D model, and on par with other fighters such as typhoon and rafale at relatively lower cost than those fighters. In reality its lightweight design has lots of compromises that doesn't make it any more capable than say the latest f-16 upgrades.
                          I reckon that if the E outperforms the F-16 in some ways and underperforms the F-16 in others (due to its size), it's got a big market niche in the 2020's - especially if new build F-16's are no longer available. To me it's extremely likely that F-16 will cease to be available before Gripen E becomes available for export delivery (barring Brazil), so that's good timing for SAAB.
                          Last edited by Spitfire9; 12th April 2016, 15:09.
                          Sum ergo cogito

                          Comment

                          • Tonnyc
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Dec 2013
                            • 102

                            Originally posted by Spitfire9 View Post
                            It's interesting to read the following:

                            "The first opportunity to accommodate orders on the E line beyond Sweden and Brazil will be in 2022. There are many near-term fighter requirements that won't wait until then, and so the C/D is a very viable proposal for those nations."

                            I don't quite understand why SAAB is marketing the E to anyone if none can be delivered for 6+ years. What happens if Switzerland revives its F-5 replacement this year or next - does SAAB respond, offering to build some new Gripen C to lend/lease to Switzerland until they can be replaced by Gripen E in 2022+? Same thing for Belgium/Denmark?
                            Err, it's how defense companies are expected to work. While the F-35 has a different history, the date between the partner nations deciding to join up and the date they're expected to receive their first delivery can be wider than a decade. And even if we discount partner nations, look at Singapore's interest in the F-35. What's a reasonable estimate on F-35 delivery to Singapore? Did that stop LM from putting a booth at the Singapore Air Show and displaying a mock-up of the F-35? And how about the J-31? When did China start marketing the J-31 and when is the expected first delivery?

                            Defense companies do not stop their marketing efforts even when they have several years backlog or when they aren't sure when the product will be ready for delivery. There is no benefit in doing so. The onus is on the buyer to decide whether they're willing to accept the deal. Sometimes the defense company will offer a stopgap measure, but it is still up to the buyer, not the defense companies.

                            Comment

                            • Loke
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jun 2008
                              • 3302

                              Originally posted by alexz View Post

                              Saab is marketing the E model with the "halo" of it being a brand new 4.5gen design (opposed to say F-16 3gen design), light years away more advanced than its own C/D model, and on par with other fighters such as typhoon and rafale at relatively lower cost than those fighters. In reality its lightweight design has lots of compromises that doesn't make it any more capable than say the latest f-16 upgrades.
                              Where do they say it's "light years away more advanced than its own C/D model"? It is a quite big leap though, don't you agree? New AESA radar, new computer system (including much faster databus), integration of world-class IRST, new GaN based AESA EWS system, new RWS, 40% more internal fuel, additional hard point, MTOW increased by 18%, improved data link, improved sensor fusion, etc. etc.


                              So far Switzerland and Brazil has chosen it -- not too bad considering that the first prototype has not flown yet. The new F-16V has not won a single contract yet (apart as an upgrade to existing F-16 customers). Why is that so? Perhaps one reason is that it's getting really old, and there are limits to how much you can upgrade such an old platform.

                              Comment

                              • alexz
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Nov 2010
                                • 325

                                Why the appearant disinterest in newbuild f-16? Honestly imo it is because LM and us government no longer actively pushing the sales of newbuild f-16 (because of f-35 obviously), and those who are truly interested (like uae) isn't on us government priority to approve the purchase at the moment.

                                Comment

                                • Spitfire9
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jul 2008
                                  • 2832

                                  Originally posted by Tonnyc View Post
                                  Err, it's how defense companies are expected to work. While the F-35 has a different history, the date between the partner nations deciding to join up and the date they're expected to receive their first delivery can be wider than a decade. And even if we discount partner nations, look at Singapore's interest in the F-35. What's a reasonable estimate on F-35 delivery to Singapore? Did that stop LM from putting a booth at the Singapore Air Show and displaying a mock-up of the F-35? And how about the J-31? When did China start marketing the J-31 and when is the expected first delivery?
                                  Yes, customers selected F-35 for delivery 10+ years ahead which was when they intended retiring their existing fighter force. In the case of Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, I don't think any of those countries are looking for delivery in 10 years' time. That's why I see marketing Gripen E to any country wanting fighters delivered pre-2020 as a bit of a waste of money. Yes, perhaps a country would try to eke out extra hours on its aging airframes so they would last until Gripen E could be delivered. Perhaps they would choose some other aircraft that was available in the time frame desired.

                                  Originally posted by Tonnyc View Post
                                  Defense companies do not stop their marketing efforts even when they have several years backlog or when they aren't sure when the product will be ready for delivery. There is no benefit in doing so. The onus is on the buyer to decide whether they're willing to accept the deal. Sometimes the defense company will offer a stopgap measure, but it is still up to the buyer, not the defense companies.
                                  Fair observation. I guess the rewards from getting an order are so large that it is worth pursuing anything that's not seen as a hopeless prospect (eg Eurofighter withdrawing from the Norwegian selection process, Boeing withdrawing from the Swiss selection process, Dassault not bothering to offer Rafale in the South Korean selection process).
                                  Sum ergo cogito

                                  Comment

                                  • MSphere
                                    Senior Member
                                    • Feb 2010
                                    • 8983

                                    Originally posted by alexz View Post
                                    Why the appearant disinterest in newbuild f-16? Honestly imo it is because LM and us government no longer actively pushing the sales of newbuild f-16 (because of f-35 obviously), and those who are truly interested (like uae) isn't on us government priority to approve the purchase at the moment.
                                    New F-16s are still being delivered.. See last deliveries of Block 50/52 to Oman, Egypt, Iraq or Pakistan..

                                    Comment

                                    • JakobS
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Aug 2015
                                      • 155

                                      Originally posted by Spitfire9 View Post
                                      I recall some years ago that SAAB said Gripen E was expected to be cheaper to build than Gripen C
                                      It still is, but they are referring to the overall development of the program, not the unit prices.

                                      Comment

                                      • Tryggve
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Sep 2013
                                        • 15

                                        IIRC a representative from Saab said in an interview that Gripen C could be an option for some countries in Africa.
                                        http://www.di.se/artiklar/2015/6/16/...tial-i-afrika/ (in swedish)
                                        If this is true one would suspect that Gripen C/D is cheaper than Gripen NG/E.

                                        EDIT: bascially the same info as in the link posted by alexz in post 827.
                                        Last edited by Tryggve; 13th April 2016, 16:49.

                                        Comment

                                        • halloweene
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jan 2012
                                          • 4351

                                          Nothing vs Gripen, just an info :

                                          Brazil’s Prosecutor Reopens Probe of Saab Fighter Jet Purchase

                                          http://www.wsj.com/articles/brazils-...ase-1454677147

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X