Gripen NG

[Vivendi]

Saab made some new claims on Gripen NG today:

Gripen revives war of words over Norwegian fighter assessment

What grabbed my attention was this:

Saab's simulations saw the MBDA Meteor- and Diehl BGT Defence IRIS-T missile-equipped Gripen NG defeat the Su-35 at a ratio of 1:6 to 1. "For JSF it's the other way round," says Nilsson

The comments on F-35 we can of course dismiss, the whole point was to show that F-35 would not do well and evidently they picked their scenarios and tactics in such a manner to ensure this happened...

I was wondering about the 1:6 to 1 -- anybody who can make a guess as to what that actually means? One SU-35 shot down for every 6 Gripen? Or perhaps an error, maybe they mean 1.6 to 1 (1.6 SU downed for every NG... Not too impressive if that's the case).

Also rather telling: They simulated against the SU-35, which is really not that interesting. The interesting part will be how a 4.5 gen will fare against PAK FA. My guess: Probably not too well.

Anyway, Saabs marketing department is evidently working very hard

Vivendi

 

[Aussie Digger]

Saabo made some new claims on Gripen NG today:

Gripen revives war of words over Norwegian fighter assessment

What grabbed my attention was this:



The comments on F-35 we can of course dismiss, the whole point was to show that F-35 would not do well and evidently they picked their scenarios and tactics in such a manner to ensure this happened...

I was wondering about the 1:6 to 1 -- anybody who can make a guess as to what that actually means? One SU-35 shot down for every 6 Gripen? Or perhaps an error, maybe they mean 1.6 to 1 (1.6 SU downed for every NG... Not too impressive if that's the case).

Also rather telling: They simulated against the SU-35, which is really not that interesting. The interesting part will be how a 4.5 gen will fare against PAK FA. My guess: Probably not too well.

Anyway, Saabs marketing department is evidently working very hard

Vivendi

Plenty of very interesting things.

1. The 4x F-35's in their scenarios were only equipped with 8x AMRAAM and 8x Sidewinder.

Given the F-35 will only be able to carry Sidewinder on external hardpoints, initially one wonders why the F-35's were only armed with 8x AMRAAM (2x each)?

L-M has confirmed that each F-35 variant will be capable of carrying 4x AMRAAM missiles internally in the Block 3 configuration with 6x internal carriage planned for the Block 4/5 iteration.

That adds up to a potential maximum of 16x AMRAAM missiles for 4x F-35's according to my math...

Are they truly surprised that the Norwegians dismissed them as a credible option if this is the level of simulation they are attempting to utilise to support their own product?

On top of which, I'd defy SAAB to produce evidence of a REAL LIFE air battle where 12x air to air missiles, plus internal gun ammunition were all expended, leaving some of the aircraft involved in the battle unable to defend themselves...

As to the ratio, I don't understand what they mean by it either. To me it seems every bit as dodgy and incompetent as the other figures they "produced"...

 

[Vivendi]

Plenty of very interesting things.

1. The 4x F-35's in their scenarios were only equipped with 8x AMRAAM and 8x Sidewinder.

Given the F-35 will only be able to carry Sidewinder on external hardpoints, initially one wonders why the F-35's were only armed with 8x AMRAAM (2x each)?

L-M has confirmed that each F-35 variant will be capable of carrying 4x AMRAAM missiles internally in the Block 3 configuration with 6x internal carriage planned for the Block 4/5 iteration.

That adds up to a potential maximum of 16x AMRAAM missiles for 4x F-35's according to my math...

True... My guess is that they were simulating F-35s in a stealthy multi-role config, i.e. carrying two bombs and two AMRAAMs internally. But this is just speculation of course.

As I said, they have probably picked tactics that would not favor the F-35...

Such simulations are worthless unless all the parameters are disclosed.

The same goes for LM's simulations, of course

V

 

[Grand Danois]

Branding the evaluation process "incomplete, or even faulty", Svensson challenged a decision by evaluators to more than treble his company's guaranteed bid price from NKr55 billion ($8.9 billion) to NKr195 billion: NKr30 billion higher than a JSF figure recently confirmed as only an estimate.

I wonder who the audience is for this? Certainly not acq mgrs and bean counters. Is he trying to troll internet fora?

 

[longbow]

I wonder who the audience is for this? Certainly not acq mgrs and bean counters. Is he trying to troll internet fora?

Hell knows no fury like a saab-salesperson scorn - They are still smarting from the Norwegian rejection. Actually though, they have an aircraft to sell, and there is nothing wrong with having the general public believing that you are cheap&capable, after all - the public can influence the desciconmakers

 

[Grand Danois]

Hell knows no fury like a saab-salesperson scorn - They are still smarting from the Norwegian rejection. Actually though, they have an aircraft to sell, and there is nothing wrong with having the general public believing that you are cheap&capable, after all - the public can influence the desciconmakers

You're right about that and from my perspective they were too aggressive on public opinion in Norway forcing the Norwegian Govt to publicly dismember their product.

It's absolutely okay to emphasize your own products strengths. What they (SAAB) and others are missing out is that they really have no place to comment on what the customer estimates the TCO to be. I could write a three page essay, but my posts are short and few, so I'll pick one example...

SAAB is unhappy that Norway used F-16 costings on the Gripen NG. However if:

- the salary levels are higher in Norway than Sweden,
- the RNoAF wish to maintain the organisational back-end from, e.g. continue using specialist ground crew rather than conscripts than in Sweden, meaning direct savings from the Swedish model are not realized,
- Norway has more FH per jet per year, and
- attrition rates are different: the Norwegians operate their jet in an maritime environment and has high-relief mountains (alpine). Check out the accident record and note how it wouldn't have mattered in most cases if it was an F-16, Gripen or JSF - in other words: the RNoAF record of attrition is different due to the environment they operate in, contrasted by the more continental, low-relief hills of Sweden and SwAFs low accident record with the Gripen.

So using a model based on the F-16 is relevant in this case, adjusted for cost differences in acquisition, spares, fuel and services. Which is basically what happened (though with that 4 bn USD addendum of absolutely needed items at acq to make it mulitrole plus and unknown amount for MLU):

Yet SAAB is claiming that it's the SwAF experience (on A/B/C/Ds, btw) that should be the benchmark for what a Gripen NG would cost in the RNoAF !!!

And as I am pointing out, it is of little relevance...

I'd wish SAAB moved on from the Norway competition and just let it go and focused on the future opportunities. Mostly because it provokes a myth that Gripen NG and Sweden was backstabbed by Norway...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Anyway, Saabs marketing department is evidently working very hard

Vivendi

They should tell the Swedish Defence Minister - as per his interview in DefenceNews where he accepted that the Gripen was not competitive against the RNAF operational requirements.

He's accepted it and said that it won't effect the relationship

 

[Aussie Digger]

True... My guess is that they were simulating F-35s in a stealthy multi-role config, i.e. carrying two bombs and two AMRAAMs internally. But this is just speculation of course.

As I said, they have probably picked tactics that would not favor the F-35...

Such simulations are worthless unless all the parameters are disclosed.

The same goes for LM's simulations, of course

V

Heavens no. L-M are "beyond the pale" and cannot possibly be doubted.

Heathen!

I've no doubt the "figures" used to arrive at this outcome, pre-determined just like APA and Bill Sweetman et al, use, are massaged rather heavily...

 

[Feanor]

I suspect that the problem is that Gripen NG lacks a market. Their chances in the Indian tender are not good. And the Brazilian tender is relatively small. Domestic orders are also small.

 

[AndiPandi]

...
- the salary levels are higher in Norway than Sweden,
- the RNoAF wish to maintain the organisational back-end from, e.g. continue using specialist ground crew rather than conscripts than in Sweden, meaning direct savings from the Swedish model are not realized,
- Norway has more FH per jet per year, and

Well, thats YOUR explanation of the numbers, but it was never the explanation of the Norweigan government. The swedish airforce are not using conscripts as much as before btw.

So using a model based on the F-16 is relevant in this case, adjusted for cost differences in acquisition, spares, fuel and services. Which is basically what happened (though with that 4 bn USD addendum of absolutely needed items at acq to make it mulitrole plus and unknown amount for MLU):

As for fuel they did not adjust the price. The 4bn extra has never been explained.

Yet SAAB is claiming that it's the SwAF experience (on A/B/C/Ds, btw) that should be the benchmark for what a Gripen NG would cost in the RNoAF !!!

Yes, how stupid! The country that has been using the system for ten years think they know what it costs...

I'd wish SAAB moved on from the Norway competition and just let it go and focused on the future opportunities. Mostly because it provokes a myth that Gripen NG and Sweden was backstabbed by Norway...

SAAB is not trying to change the Norweigans mind, but Norway trashtalked the Gripen quite well, sending press releases to countries that are looking at the Gripen C/D even (and never will buy the JSF anyway) stating that it was a really expensive aircraft so they really have to do what they are doing if they want to sell any aircrafts in the future.

SAABs simulation doesnt say anything, just like LMs (They used the Gripen C without AESA in their simulations)...

 

[AndiPandi]

...
the Norwegians operate their jet in an maritime environment and has high-relief mountains (alpine). Check out the accident record and note how it wouldn't have mattered in most cases if it was an F-16, Gripen or JSF - in other words: the RNoAF record of attrition is different due to the environment they operate in, contrasted by the more continental, low-relief hills of Sweden and SwAFs low accident record with the Gripen.

OK, 22 incidents, 18 in which the aircraft was destroyed.

How many of them had anything to do with the high mountains of norway? 4 of the incidents took place in other countries than Norway, 6 where birdstrikes or engine failures, two where collisions with power cables (we have them in sweden as well you know...) 3 were collisions with other aircraft...

Flying low over sea is nothing unique for Norway either.

 

[Vivendi]

They should tell the Swedish Defence Minister - as per his interview in DefenceNews where he accepted that the Gripen was not competitive against the RNAF operational requirements.

He's accepted it and said that it won't effect the relationship

Well, he accepted the decision, and he even said something along the lines of "F-35 was the best fit given the Norwegian requirements".

However what the Swedish Defence Minister still does not accept is the way the Norwegians calculated the costs for Gripen NG.

I suspect the "true costs" would be somewhere inbetween what the Swedes claimed and what the Norwegians claimed. The cost estimates look a bit skewed to me, not just for Gripen but also for F-35 -- They used the exchange rate for a specific month in 2008 (January) when the dollar was extremely low compared to the NOK, even if the price is given is USD. The more sensible thing would have been to use some kind of "historical average". At the end of the day it would not have changed the outcome of course, but by skewing both estimates they made F-35 look rather cheap and Gripen NG look rather expensive.


But that's just my opinion.

V

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, thats YOUR explanation of the numbers, but it was never the explanation of the Norweigan government.

The Norwegian Govt never defended their use of the F-16 as a model for cost - it's Saab who is attacking it.

My main point - to reiterate - SAAB does not control how Norway ope

The swedish airforce are not using conscripts as much as before btw.

...but isn't the Gripen supposed to be serviced by conscripts to keep costs down? Have they adjusted their models to incorporate this new added cost?

And again, Norway does not operate its fast jet the same way as Sweden does !!! The valid model is the one the AF intend to actually use.

As for fuel they did not adjust the price. The 4bn extra has never been explained.

It's correct that "the absolutely need equipment to make the GNG multirole" has not been specified, we (I) can only speculate. However, examples of possible essential mission systems, which SAAB can offer to integrate, but not not otherwise incorporate in their offer could be laser designation pods and IFF, NATO specific data links, etc.

I think I've seen some of this equipment in later (unofficial) offers from SAAB (to the Dutch).

Yes, how stupid! The country that has been using the system for ten years think they know what it costs...

Sweden has 0 hours of experience with an operational NG. They have not used it for ten years - they have used it for 0 years. It is more than twice as expensive at acquisition and 50% more expensive in vendor spares and services. And Norway can easily make out the rest of the numbers as they have all the data and decide how to operate - saab does not.

And MOST essential - Norway does not operate after the Swedish Gripen A/B/C/D model.

SAAB is not trying to change the Norweigans mind, but Norway trashtalked the Gripen quite well, sending press releases to countries that are looking at the Gripen C/D even (and never will buy the JSF anyway) stating that it was a really expensive aircraft so they really have to do what they are doing if they want to sell any aircrafts in the future.

You have followed the campaign in Norway as well as I, and SAAB fired on all pistons with a massive campaign at all levels, particulary influencing the public- the Nor Govt had to make it very, very clear to everyone WHY they made their choice!!!

SAABs simulation doesnt say anything, just like LMs (They used the Gripen C without AESA in their simulations)...

I have no and has made no comment on the sims at this point.

 

[Grand Danois]

OK, 22 incidents, 18 in which the aircraft was destroyed.

How many of them had anything to do with the high mountains of norway? 4 of the incidents took place in other countries than Norway, 6 where birdstrikes or engine failures, two where collisions with power cables (we have them in sweden as well you know...) 3 were collisions with other aircraft...

Flying low over sea is nothing unique for Norway either.

Thank you for collating the numbers. Read what I said and look at your data again.

Btw, hint, birds are more prominent in coatsal areas where the RNOAF bases are situated, just as power cables are streched out across the high-relief U-shaped fjords and so on.... the main difference between the Swedish data and the Norwegian. How many Gripens have gone down from bird strikes or hit power cables??? 0. The Swedish experience does not apply !

Environment and modus of operation...plus I said that it wouldn't have mattered what aircraft it would have been - check the data again - Saab cannot claim that attrition rates would have been different, yet they do !!!

 

[AndiPandi]

...but isn't the Gripen supposed to be serviced by conscripts to keep costs down? Have they adjusted their models to incorporate this new added cost?

The only difference is the salary of the staff. The Gripen is still as easy and cheap to maintaine as always. Its the swedish conscript system that is changing, not the Gripen system.

And again, Norway does not operate its fast jet the same way as Sweden does !!! The valid model is the one the AF intend to actually use.

It still does not explain why they expect to lose more than half of the aircrafts over 30 years.

It's correct that "the absolutely need equipment to make the GNG multirole" has not been specified, we (I) can only speculate. However, examples of possible essential mission systems, which SAAB can offer to integrate, but not not otherwise incorporate in their offer could be laser designation pods and IFF, NATO specific data links, etc. I think I've seen some of this equipment in later (unofficial) offers from SAAB (to the Dutch).

SAAB asked the Norweigan government but never got an answer what was missing. But hey, it made the NG 20% more expensive, so why not?

Sweden has 0 hours of experience with an operational NG. They have not used it for ten years - they have used it for 0 years. It is more than twice as expensive at acquisition and 50% more expensive in vendor spares and services. And Norway can easily make out the rest of the numbers as they have all the data and decide how to operate - saab does not.

Now youre trolling, SAAB never said that the NG would be more expensive in vendor spares and service, actually the say its gonna be cheaper than the C/D in that department. The engine is one reason for that. The RM12 is only used in the Gripen (sharing 60% of the parts with the GE-F404). Cheaper avionics & fewer computers is another reason.

So if no information about the NG costs can be derived from the Gripen C/D, would you also say that LM cant give the Indians any trustworthy information about the cost of the F-16 version they are offering to them since noboy is operating them?

 

[AndiPandi]

...
How many Gripens have gone down from bird strikes or hit power cables??? 0. The Swedish experience does not apply !

Well, could it have anything to do with that Volvo Aero modified the GE-F404 so it could survive a big bird???

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, could it have anything to do with that Volvo Aero modified the GE-F404 so it could survive a big bird???

They did make it more robust, but i have no clue if it could withstand a birdstrike... should be googlable ?

 

[AndiPandi]

They did make it more robust, but i have no clue if it could withstand a birdstrike... should be googlable ?

Let me google that for you:

 

[Grand Danois]

The only difference is the salary of the staff. The Gripen is still as easy and cheap to maintaine as always. Its the swedish conscript system that is changing, not the Gripen system.

Sweden may have 200 cheap personnel and Norway may have 300 expensive personnel per squadron - changing aircraft does not change this.

It still does not explain why they expect to lose more than half of the aircrafts over 30 years.

I have only seen this in a SAAB pres release, so I may have missed the original source, i.e. the documents I've seen says 10 attrition jets are needed.

SAAB asked the Norweigan government but never got an answer what was missing. But hey, it made the NG 20% more expensive, so why not?

Now youre trolling, SAAB never said that the NG would be more expensive in vendor spares and service, actually the say its gonna be cheaper than the C/D in that department. The engine is one reason for that. The RM12 is only used in the Gripen (sharing 60% of the parts with the GE-F404). Cheaper avionics & fewer computers is another reason.

But the offer was twice as expensive per unit at acquisition and more expensive per flight hour !!!

So when it comes to actual data points and not sweet talk the GNG is more expensive !

In theory it may be cheaper, but the actual real world execution makes it more expensive, e.g. if you establish a seperate assembly line for the F414G in Norway or Sweden instead of leverageing it directly off the GE production line, the former was part of SAABs offset plan. It makes a cheap product expensive! Or if there will only be the GNGs that Norway had ordered - then an otherwise potentially cheap modified product made from cots/mots parts becomes as expensive as if it was custom built.

So if no information about the NG costs can be derived from the Gripen C/D, would you also say that LM cant give the Indians any trustworthy information about the cost of the F-16 version they are offering to them since noboy is operating them?

The Indian will take the LM figures and make their OWN estimates, which will decide what they think of the jet. Just like the Norwegians did with C/D/NG data from SAAB.

 

[Grand Danois]

Let me google that for you:

Excellent, how has this worked in th real world, when gripen has hit birds?