On page 40 in the first document it says "For Gripen NG approximately 20 of the 24 billion is a fixed price given in the RBI. The additional 4 billion NOK are additional costs for equipment that is necessary to make the plane a multirole plane according to NATO standards and requirements"
Where does it say that 20 billion NOK was fly-away?
Here it does: "Figuren over viser kostnaden ved selve flyanskaffelsen, uten våpen, for 48 fly. Tallene er hentet direkte fra RBI-besvarelsene. For Gripen NG er ca. 20 av 24 milliarder 2008-kroner fastpris gitt i RBI-besvarelsen."
The "aqcuisition cost of the aircraft", "numbers directly from the Request for Binding Information".
Ares Homepage
(Note that Sweetman got the F-35 price wrong due to wrong exchange rate, we now know that January 2008 exchange rate was used, approx. 5.27 which gives a unit price of 71 million USD for F-35)
As I wrote in a previous post, Kemp said:
Is this also fly-away?
I'd agree that both cost are closer to UPC, however there is usually no more difference than about 10% - see the concept of wpn sys cost in US budgeting. It's still pretty much the same figure - the NG is almost twice as expensive to procure as the C/D - a truism regardless of it is UPC or UFC. However, as the report sums things up, they should in fact be UFC - so the 71 million USD is possibly the product of the fluctuation in exchange rates.
So, yes, it should also be fly-away, with caveats.
Kemp also said in the same interview that NG would cost less than C/D; one should be careful when reading statements from sales people however if they want to maintain some credibility they should not stray too far from the truth. It sounds rather strange to claim that NG will be cheaper than C/D if the the real fly-away NG cost is roughly double of C/D -- then he is so far off that it looks like outright lying to me...
Or do people have rather different definitions of "fly-away"?
V
I cannot say what Saab include in their fly-away. However in their
22 billion DKK offer to Denmark they included: 48 jet, plus ancillery equipment plus 20 yr life cycle.
It would come out like this: 17 billion DKK for the acquisition 48, giving approx same unit fly-away price as Norway, 1 billion for ancillary equipment, documentation and initial services, and 4 billion DKK for spares and vendor support for 20 years - total 22 billion DKK. Btw, that gives about 3-3.5k usd per FH for vendor support and spares per FH... at 250 FH/yr.
Coincidentally a number close to the "official" 3-3.5k USD per FH for Gripen NG... However, for example when the Dutch and Danish calculate cost per FH for the F-16s it includes fuel, salary for pilot and ground crew, overhead to wing and air force admin, overhead to min of def, down to the base canteen.... and they end up with 10-12k usd per FH....*
So when Saab says things like "3k USD per FH" they actually say: "you'll buy 3k USD worth of spares and services per flight hour from us... The rest is not included."*
However most will compare it to a number like the 10-12k USD per FH number of the F-16, though they're way different.
So is it misleading? Technically not.
You catch the drift, yes? One is from a supplier perspective, the other from a customer.
Bob says a lot, btw, here is one:
Kemp insists that the new Gripen NG will be the “main challenger to JSF”, dismissing the Eurofighter Typhoon on cost grounds. He says the Dassault Rafale will “never get started on the export market” because of what he called “launch customer nervousness –
who wants to be the first and perhaps only customer?”
FARNBOROUGH 2008: Saab pitches Gripen NG as JSF alternative-14/07/2008-Flight International
(alright, a bit evil perhaps.
)
*For the sake of accuracy - it is possible it includes fuel as well (later edit).
