via Gripen Blog.
With the economic meltdown, defence budgets are facing major cuts around the world. Demands are getting tougher day by day. According to Saab’s CEO Hakan Buskhe’s presentation ‘Breaking The Thought Barrier’, these tough demands however can benefit Saab.This will beg the question.
“Our customers always demand more functions for less cost and that is rather unique in the defence industry. It is normal for other industries. But I believe that it is possible also in our business,” Buskhe says.
He also stressed that these tougher demands have changed the market equation and competitiveness along with efficiency is the key thing now.
“Being a rather big defence company in a small country, spending 1 billion US dollars a year on R&D, we have to be lean as the Swedish state cannot bear all our investments. So we invest ourselves.”
There is an increased demand for an aircraft with multi role capabilities at an economical price. “This is something that will change the purchase pattern,” he says.
What is the floor on good enough? What is considered an economical price on combat aircraft? Can "prestige" be fully separated from aircraft purchasing decisions?
The Gripen has tons of fans but few buyers. We'll see if the economy truly has created a new buying paradigm.
Few buyers is dead on. 2 as of right now and only 1 is official
ReplyDeleteThe Gripen NG isn't cheap:
Saab AB has suggested the aircraft’s costs will be approximately USD $80 million (2012 dollars), but the Swiss government’s fixed cost is approximately $105 million. Similarly operational costs has been touted by as an area where the Gripen NG may offer a strong competitive advantage due to Saab’s risk adverse development approach. Yet while the manufacturer has claimed the operational cost as USD $10,000, the Swiss military has pegged the cost at approximately $21,000.
http://www.cdainstitute.ca/en/blog/entry/replacing-the-cf18-part-ii-the-gripen-ng
80 million is Saabs number!? For a single engine light fighter who's key selling point it economics thats pretty damn steep.
That $105 million per copy includes training, support, parts, and a short term lease of Gripen C and D models.
DeleteOperational costs are nearly impossible to make direct comparisons. Different countries have different labor rates, and a higher number of planes usually results in lower maintenance costs per hour thanks to economies of scale. Janes did an excellent study a while back that showed that the Super Hornet costs Australia far more to operate than the USN. This despite the fact that the Aussies don't operate theirs from a carrier.
The only countries that are looking for the Gripen NG are the ones that want a 4.5 gen fighter and have the cash for it. Countries like Thailand may ultimately replace their entire fleet with Gripen NG's. Even the Philippines may look at Gripen NG's in the near future. The Gripen NG is mostly for small to medium Air forces that want a multi role Aircraft in one.
ReplyDeleteas usual, its the price issue. how much do these things actually cost? if its 80mil vs. the 55mil that the Navy is paying for the Super Hornet then where is the debate? i don't know what is real when it comes to prices though.
DeleteThat's where Most small to medium size Air forces are looking at, it's how much each Multi Role fighter is going to cost them.
DeleteThats because there are only about a dozen different ways to assess cost, and when you get into CPFH, it gets even stickier. Whats going to hurt the NG on CPFH is that the thing is just going to be damn rare. only about 80 are going to be built presently, drives up the cost of spares and upgrades enormously.
DeleteThe Gripen NG is way too costly. 80-105 million for what is basically a Super Hornet Lite? If someone wants to say that a Gripen NG has certain capabilities and such and this is the price for it, thats great. But this aircraft is not "economical" or "cheap" . They had to cancel the 2 seat version because they don't have the money to develop it, and the Sea Gripen is even more dead.
(Super hornets are about 66.9 million also)
Depends on what you compare the Gripen with...against the Super Hornet or the F-16 Viper its very expensive...no way it can win a price war.
DeleteBut it is cheap if you compare it to the Eurofighter or the Rafale...bout in the 125 million zone...
But 105 million is Silent Eagle/F-35 territory...it just a lot of money for a LWF in the class of the Viper.
Which is why the Gripen NG has a limited market for Small to medium Air forces and Air forces on thigh budgets.
DeleteThe original Gripen itself had the unfortunate timing of coming on to the market after the Cold War when there were cheap, used F-16s to be had from the US.
ReplyDeleteThe Gripen NG, as it has been mentioned above, just isn't available in numbers to benefit from cost savings via per unit price.
I think if the Swedes could team up with someone like Embraer to share the development costs, they could pitch Gripen NG as a Gen 4.5 fighter for the Eastern European nations looking to dispense with their Soviet-era MiGs.
Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria all desperately need new fighters and if they could pool their assets, they could have a multi-national Gripen NG program.
Combine the training and maintenance efforts, get a discount from increase units among 6 or 7 nations and field them in the numbers needed.
Poland 48
Hungary 12
Czech R 12
Slovak 12
Croatia 12
Bulgaria 18
Romania 18
TOTAL 132
Plus, if the F-35 is delayed or cost increases again, I bet the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, and Norway would all take a hard look at Gripen NG. That could be a 200+ order for Gripen NGs.
And if the Turks use the Gripen NG as a springboard for their fighter aircraft development....
It would not surprise me if countries that brought into the F-35 started looking for their Plan B alternative to the F-35. The US Navy started doing that with the Super Hornet, and I am sure alot of countries are looking at the Gripen NG as their go to back up if the F-35 fails to deliver as promised. It may end up being that the Gripen NG may be the F-35 Alternative for countries that are priced out of the market.
DeleteAs a side note, half the the Gripen airframes in use by the South African Air Force have been placed in long term storage, due to lack of funds.
ReplyDeleteThere are six different prime ways to measure the cost of an aircraft. The flyaway cost is the most common one, which includes everything to build a single unit. The second most important is the weapons system cost, which is the price to build a unit and put it into service.
ReplyDeleteIf I was a customer of fighter jets I would be concerned with the cost to operate the fighter as well. Saab claimed the Gripen will cost $11,000 per flight hour once its in smooth operation. The Swedish Air Force pegged the cost at $21,000. Ultimately the Gripen NG is not a fully developed fighter and we will need more information to learn more about it. The Super Hornet has the cheapest proven cost per flight hour at $15,643. However, at that price it makes little sense to not just upgrade to the Super Hornet.
Saab has been absolutely frustrated with the fact that Lockheed Martin locked in all its would-be customers. I'm sure they can see the F-35 program breaking at the seams and hope that it falls apart completely.
breaking at the seams? how about on the verge of total collapse and only supported by some strange series of events that have shielded it from cancellation.
Deleteif you were to get honest answers about the planes from everyone from the USAF, USN, USMC to even many of our allies, i'd bet you'd get the view that the bits should be shoved into new built modified legacy platforms and lasers/new ultra long distance missiles etc should be pursued instead of stealth.
we'll never know but i'm willing to bet.
At least Saab is willing to pay a late penalty if the NG is late. (Think LockMart would agree to this?)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/146789/saab-offers-to-pay-fine-if-gripen-ng-is-late.html
The Gripen NG ticks off all the right boxes. AESA, IRST, full multirole capability, Mach 2 top end with the ability to supercruise, greater than 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio, and the ability to shoot most anything in the NATO arsenal, including the MBDA Meteor.
Time will tell if it's successful, but the potential is there. If it could get some serious buyers, economies of scale would make it super cheap.
It's why Doug, SAAB should promote the Gripen NG as the alternative to the F-35. They can show that SAAB can deliver on time or else SAAB eats the cost. Which is why Believe that countries who brought into the F-35 propaganda should be having a plan b in case the F-35 fails to deliver as promised. Even the US navy has quietly made plans to upgrade the Super hornet and made plans to buy more in case the F-35 turns out to be a flop.
DeleteOf course they should...
DeleteTrouble is, Saab has nowhere near the marketing bucks and Sweden has nowhere near the political clout to push the Gripen to F-35 customers.
Problem with Saab is they need a full PR campaign to and to do a Gripen NG Road show. If they did that, then they can expect some decent sales.
Deletehi guys,
ReplyDeletethe gripen will not sell well even at a low cost until american GE powerplant is replaced. I am from india and in the 70's we wanted a strike aircraft and selected saab viggen. unfortunately the viggen had a volvo/ford powerplant and the US state department refused export permit for the powerplant. this led to india buying sepecat jaguar.