This is a discussion on Gripen NG within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Saab made some new claims on Gripen NG today:
Gripen revives war of words over Norwegian fighter assessment
What grabbed ...
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
Last edited by Vivendi; June 12th, 2009 at 03:28 AM.
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"...
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.
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?
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
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
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...
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
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
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Last edited by gf0012-aust; June 3rd, 2009 at 06:55 PM.
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...
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,131
Threads:
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.
...
- 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois
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)...
...
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.
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.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndiPandi
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndiPandi
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndiPandi
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndiPandi
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!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndiPandi
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.
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
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 !!!
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
...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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois
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?
