Does anyone know more about this?The Bulgarian Ministry of Defense has been presented a complete and extensive package including 16 new generation Gripen C/D aircraft (12 single and 4 two-seater) with full support and training provided in cooperation with the Swedish Armed Forces. The flexible package outlines several options regarding financial solutions. The first aircraft could be delivered already two years after a contract has been signed.
The aircraft proposed are fully NATO compatible Gripen C/D multi role fighters prepared to carry an extensive range of armaments from Europe, the US or other countries. Equipped with an in flight refueling system, a fully autonomous Tactical Information Data Link System (TIDLS) and a NATO standard Link 16 the Gripen C/D is well suited for meeting all national defence requirements as well as being able to participate in NATO operations.
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/pub...o_Bulgarian_fighter_requirements_20060824.php
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2006/060823_bg_rfi.htm
http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2006/060823_bg_rfi.htm
Gripen to Bulgaria?
- Thread starter rattmuff
- Start date
contedicavour
New Member
Agree. 18 Typhoons would be dangerously close to the max 1.4bn expenditure... though by now Dassault must be ready to do very crazy things to get their Rafale sold, so this bird could remain in the race for a long while.Izzy1 said:
cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
With the 100+ ex Swedish Air Force Gripen's that are about to come onto the market, these advanced 2nd hand aircraft will no doubt become as attractive and possibly moreso than 2nd hand F-16', given their later generation and capabilities...
As I understand it the Gripen is one of, if not the, cheapest fighter to operate, that has got to a major bonus to any small air force with continual budget restraints.Aussie Digger said:
ThenWhiskyjack said:
1) why do not these "small air forces" (what is small?) order these aircraft?
2) which is cheaper to operate: a Volvo in a residential area used for occassional drives within city limits to pick up family members and do monthly supermarkets, or the same car under adverse offroad conditions (please do not quote operating it from the middle of the forest, please, as they are kept under shelters). Cost of operation is dependent on the use of the asset: look at your shoes. Compare facts with facts and do not repeat marketing.
In my opinion Gripen is the most expensive aircraft - to market ;-), look at their success in competitions.
They do. Czech Republic, Hungary, South Africa. What is small? Well, the Czechs and Hungarians ordered 14 aircraft each, the South Africans 28. By comparison, Sweden has about 200. Poland would also likely have bought the Gripen, had it not been for a last-minute upgrade of the US offer from older F-16 A/B to both much newer F-16 C/D Block 52 and a very large offset, including deals on technology and contracts in other military/aviation projects, which the Gripen consortium could not match. There were also political factors, including strong politcal pressure from the US government (which must also have influenced the upgrade of the offer). In many ways the actual costs of the aicraft themselves were the least important factor in that deal.Razor said:
I'm not sure what your point is here. Sure, if you use you aircraft heavily, they will cost more in maintenance and fuel than if you use them rarely; conversely, the infrastructure costs will be higher as a proportion of total costs for rarely used aircraft (or cars!). But this applies to all aircraft. However, the Gripen is specifically designed to operate from small countries with minimal infrastructure and low maintenance. Commonly quoted operating costs for the Gripen are 2000 USD per hour agains 3600 USD for the F-16. This is significant for a small user on a low budget. (Don't forget, the Czechs cut their order from 30+ to 14 and delayed it by a year because of budget problems due to severe flooding in the country -- can you image the US doing that?)Razor said:
Where cost/performace ratios have been more important, the Gripen has generally won in recent years. The F-16 is usually bought either by operators who have it already, or for politcal reasons, or sometimes when used F-16s are going cheap -- the second-hand market for F-16s is big because there are so many around. Where costs are less important, Eurofighter or F-18 (or JSF participation) wins. I think you will see more Gripen sales in the future as momentum picks up.
Just about everyone in Hungary who read the papers in September 2001 knows that Gripens were selected for the offset and against the proposal of the Ministry of Defence.Reg Shoe said:
Sweden does not operate 200 Gripens - they ordered them but do not use them.
Yes, the US government realized that if it does not provide more support to foreign sales, as e.g. the Swedish government does, their products will continue losing because offset is so important nowadays in defense contracts.
Actual cost of the aircraft was very important in Hungary, that was the reason why suddenly not 24 but 14 aircraft was asked for. Not defence considerations, but financial considerations.
The Gripen consortium could not match the fighter capabilities, not the offset, look at South Africa, please.
Yes, this was my point.Reg Shoe said:
Nope: Gripen was designed to operate in Sweden against Soviet (and Western) threats. No export was envisioned at that time.Reg Shoe said:
I do not think these figures are comparable, or meaningful at all. We do not know how the soldier, the hammer, the screw are costed, what cost items are included in these figures. Again we come to that which aircraft you service/operate? It is very cheap to operate a fleet with very low fly hours a month, no combat activity, etc.Reg Shoe said:
The Czechs (just as Hungarians) did not have the slightest idea how much operating the airframes in their country will cost. Of course, they may have had projections.
Just when and where did this happen? Chile? Greece? Far East? Yes, it may be very important to have a good cost/performance fighter on one's hand. But what about wars and combats and close air support, etc...? A versatile fighter with a higher price tag may be more justified for countries where capabilities do count on a day-to-day level. If you only count your money, why buy in the first place?Reg Shoe said:
I think you should broaden your sights a bit: look at aircraft capabilities and proven track record. These may also be important for some air forces, do not you agree?Reg Shoe said:
These are two-engine aircraft, quite dissimilar to single engines. JSF participation just does not exlude F-16 purchase/lease (Italy, Israel, Turkey); on the contrary, F-16s are a fine path to the Lightning II.Reg Shoe said:
I think your narrow view on fighter aircraft acquisitions as a single issue of cost/performance is just not right here.
I'll start with this, because you seem to be misunderstanding me. Look again at my post, I mentioned cost/performance, running costs, maintenance costs, political issues, offsets, existing equipment and so on as being important to various buyers in various contexts. Nowhere did I imply that the cost/performance is the single issue when buying aircraft, quite the opposite.Razor said:
Okay, now for the specifics (I re-orderd a few of your points for clarity).
According to what I've read, the US offer to Hungary was about the same in value as the Swedish offer, but I don't have numbers. I don't read the Hungarian papers, but 'just about everyone' in Poland who read the papers knows that the pilots and MoD prefered the Gripen, morever the Gripen deal was almost signed at one point. But this is all hearsay. The real fact is, the political and offset issues greatly complicate the issue; nonetheless the Gripen as an aircraft is a serious contender and a viable option, both because of its capabilities and its relatively low costs. It this were not the case then no one would buy it.Razor said:
Doesn't that suggest that the Gripen was, in fact, selected because it was more cost-effective, which was the point of this discussion?Razor said:
I said that Sweden had 200 Gripens to contrast them with the 14 bought by the Czechs etc., since you were asking for a definition of a 'small' airforce. Even allowing for the fact that they will downsize to 100 operational Gripens, that is still several times as many as the Czechs.Razor said:
Sweden is a small country. The population is about 9 million against 10 million or so in Hungary, moreover with a vastly bigger area, which makes infrastructure a problem. So, granted, I should have said 'designed for use in a small country' (singular), but either way the same properties required by the Swedish AF also make it a desirable option for other small countries. To quote the CEO of Gripen International (in the context of Gripens for Brazil):Razor said:
Rubbish. The US government has always provided significant support for foreign sales (at least to countries it likes), usually in the form of credit. Look up the 'Foreign Military Sales' program, it is why there are so many F-16s out there today. The US can (and does) give enormous support when it wants to. Why do you think Israel has so much US equipment? The US pretty much gives it to them. SAAB partnered with BAe when it wanted to export the Gripen in order to give itself a stronger negotiating position, and even then it wasn't enough in the Polish case.Razor said:
Please explain. Could not match what fighter capabilities? As for South Africa, I'm sure they would not have bought it if it didn't fit their requirements. They're not stupid, and they have some very good aircraft (look at the Atlas Cheetah). Yes, they got a good offset deal. They also got an effective, reliable, low running cost and low maintenance aircraft (to summarise official statements), which is what they wanted.Razor said:
I'm sure their 'projections' were a lot more precise than you imagine. You do not buy several multi-million dollar aircraft with expected lifespans of 15-20 years and similar-length contracts without working that sort of thing out. The question is, which aircraft is cheaper for the same user using the aircraft in the same way, not for different users or usage patterns.Razor said:
Only Chile is a valid comparison, and it has strong ties to the US (including military financing through the FMF program). Greece and all the Far Eastern countries were prior F-16 operators, who got their first F-16s in the late '80s/early '90s before the Gripen was offered for export. The interesting choice to watch now will be Brazil, which is much less strongly tied to the US.Razor said:
Very few armed forces can buy any hardware they want; even the US has difficulties sometimes because of budgets. Price/performance is always one of the variables sometimes it is more important, sometimes less. Of course a more versatile fighter with a higher price tag may be more justified for some countries, but by the same token a less versatile but adequate-for-the-job and cheaper fighter will be better for others. Moreover, if you can buy or run a plane more cheaply, you can maybe buy more of them, or spend the money on something else. The Gripen in an excellent defence fighter, with good capability in other areas. Its capabilities have been tested in exercises. It has not seen combat, but then neither has the Eurofighter. While the Czechs and the Hungarians may have compromised, I'm sure the South Africans were quite careful in their choice. They are the regional power, and their track record on aircraft and combat is impressive enough.Razor said:
If it is enough to fill its mission, then why buy a more expensive aircraft?
I'm confused, what is your point? The discussion was about the Gripen being a suitable aircraft for small(er) airforces with constrained budgets, as mentioned by Whiskyjack and others, and which you seemed to disagree with. These are not countries which can afford Eurofighter or JSF, or even Hornet. These are also not countries which generally need to conduct large military operations (except for SA). They need a capable, reliable and cost-effective aircraft primarily for air defence, whith some strike capability, and the Gripen fits that bill. So does the F-16, and some countries buy it, particularly if they have F-16 already. Countries which can afford Eurofighter, JSF etc. (and need them) buy them (the UK for example), but they have never been in the market for Gripen (or F-16, except as a stop-gap).Razor said:
Last edited:
Sweden has ordered 204, but not all have been built yet. But the full order will be built, despite the reduced requirement you mentioned. The JAS39C/D (including some originally built as A/B but upgraded) will be kept in service, & the A/B offered for sale or lease, as is or upgraded, depending on customer preferences.Reg Shoe said:
Weren't the Hungarian & Czech orders filled from the Swedish air force order? I seem to remember that the Hungarian planes were rebuilt from A/B to C/D standard, from Swedish surplus. This surplus means they can meet orders very quickly indeed, with A/B deliveries, to be replaced by either new built C/D, or ex-SwAF A/B to C/D.
One thing's for certain: you don't buy F-16 rather than the Gripen because of the performance!
I believe you buy it, because over 4,300 of them have been produced. This means, the F-16 market is huge. This means that there are many weapons, systems, etc that can be bought. And it's not bad to have the US as your mate
I believe you buy it, because over 4,300 of them have been produced. This means, the F-16 market is huge. This means that there are many weapons, systems, etc that can be bought. And it's not bad to have the US as your mateAnd that is why I would go with the F-16, unless I had a real real tight budget and it could be demonstrated that the Gripen was significiantly cheaper to operatezetruz said:One thing's for certain: you don't buy F-16 rather than the Gripen because of the performance!
contedicavour
New Member
Does anybody know at what approx price the Swedish Air Force could make its surplus Gripen available ? Would the price tag be comparable with the USN/ANG F16ADF ?
cheers
cheers
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #16
So there will be atleast 100 secondhand A/B Gripens for sale when every plane is delivered. These 100 A/B Gripens can't have the same pricetag as the export versions. I don't know the pricetag on a USN/ANG F16ADF.
By looking at http://www.gripen.com it seems as Slovenia, Romania and India have shown interest in buy/lease Gripen fighters.
Last edited:
Hi RazorRazor said:
Could you possibly explain this sentence further? We (South Africa) got a pretty good offset deal from Gripen and SAAB is actually ahead of its offset commitments. It is a bit of a odd one in this world of offset politics - having a company actually deliver on its promises, ahead of schedule...
For what its worth - the first South African Gripen also flew slightly ahead of schedule.
There's also a possibility of the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) setting up a joint fighter squadron to replace the current rotation of fighters from other NATO air forces. A lease of some Gripens is way out in front of all the other contenders. IIRC, the USA has offered used F-16s, but being able to have maintenance done in Sweden is a big selling point for Gripen.rattmuff said: