The Swedes were briefed extensively after the Norwegian decision. They were briefed on both capabilities and cost estimates. Whereas the Swedish MoD has said something like "Gripen NG did not meet the Norwegian requirements" and clearly stated that they accept the decision from a capabilities point of view, they never understood the Norwegian cost estimates.
I'm not sure it's fair to say that the Swedes haven't understood the cost estimates, but it is true they don't have access to full cost picture. Nor do they agree with the premises, which is not uncommon between a customer and supplier.
Basically the scope of the Norwegian calculations goes far beyond simply buying and flying the aircraft. It includes all direct and indirect costs associated with establishing and operating the wings, including basing and infrastructure, weapons, training and education, operations, personell, saleries, logistics, consumables etc. Most are factors that SAAB for obvious reasons can not have access to.
I agree these things are very complicated and difficult for laymen like myself to understand; however:
For JSF they used a surprisingly low exchange rate -- instead of using historical mean they used one that "just happened" to be very low. The "unlikely" change in exhange rate may be very likely.
This is not correct. It is clearly outlined in the Reccomendation and Quality Assurance reports, publizised with the Nov. 20 press conference last year, that the currency rate used is "an average exchange rate over the period in which the aquisition is due to be paid". That is: over the aircrafts 5 year delivery schedule from approximatly 2016-2020.
The erronous claim was put forward by some journalists in the Norwegian news media and as a response the Government released the exact figure on that: NOK 6.64 to the dollar.
Exerpts from the QA report:
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=154240#154240
According to the Norwegian estimates the costs of Norway to purchase and operate 48 NG would have been roughly the same as the total Swedish development and purchase program for ca 200 Gripen, starting from the first prototype, through A/B, and C/D (which can be considered an MLU in its own right).
The gap in the Norwegian and Swedish estimates was around 78 billion NOK, according some documentaries.
Again, the scope of the Norwegian calculations goes well beyond what the Swedes have done themselves.
Quote from the Governments
fact rebuttal: [Note, Google translation]
It will, therefore, not be possible for Swedish authorities or SAAB to be directly familiar with the basis for the total life cycle cost calculations.
We have no relations to the "alternative" life cycle cost calculations that from time to time is reported by the media.
Further, it is important to emphasize that in the calculations of life cycle costs, exactly the same premises are assumed for both candidates.
There are also other things I find strange but difficult to argue without more info, like fuel consumption. A clean NG will use very little fuel and presumably much less than a much heavier and larger F-35; the difference will obviusly shrink when NG goes dirty but I don't know how often they train with a lot of heavy ordnance, compared to flying with just a center tank. Swedish fuel consumption seems quite reasonable, but just like attrition rates and general maintainance there may be differences between countries.
It's a valid point, the Gripen is likely to consume less fuel, but you'd be surprised of how fuel efficient the modern engines are under cruise conditions and, as you point out, in a clean or near clean state.
Currently in Norways case most flying is with done with dollies (370 gal. tanks) and air-to-air live or training ordnance. A typical fuel flow, depending on where you are in the flight profile, might be around 3000-3500 pph while estimates are around 4000-4500 pph for the F-35. These are not accurate numbers, by any means, nor do they realisticly reflect normal operations. For instance, the F-35s initial climb in MIL is as good as the F-16s in AB.
Energo, surely you can use the "complexity" argument -- to me what was rather telling was the exchange rate they chose for the JSF. It was very favorable -- for the JSF. Also I find it interesting that the Swedish MoD that presumably have the experts that you talk about, left the briefings rather puzzled.
Having said that, there is no doubt that Norway chose the right a/c, based on capabilites.
V
I think that if one keeps in mind that SAAB is trying to sell an aircraft their reaction is a bit more understandable. And also, that it was important for the Norwegian government to send a clear message to the public and down its own ranks, which explains the rethorics used in the press conference. I don't believe this was much of a surprise to the Swedes, they are well versed in the though business of defence contracting.
The F-35 program director, Pål Bjørseth is pragmatic and recently made
this comment: [Note, Google translation]
- I can assure that none of us in the F-35-program believe that the acquisition and introduction of the F-35 will be trouble-free, says Bjørseth [F-35 program director].
- 18 years in the industry has taught me that there is hardly such things as problem-free projects.
However, we have to the best of our ability - and using recognized methods - sought to identify all possible factors of uncertainty and calculate the cost of these, so that decision-makers at various levels should have a best possible fundation.
But, we are neither naive nor absolutely certain. Delays may occur, currencies can change dramatically, and costs may increase. However, it is hoped that the thorough process we accomplished in the uncertainty analysis will cover such eventualities, says Bjørseth.
I recommend reading the full Norwegian fact rebuttal.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
