Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gripen operational cost lowest of all western fighters: Jane’s

Discussion in 'Air Force & Aviation' started by Zhaow, Jul 4, 2012.

Share This Page

  1. Zhaow

    Zhaow New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New England, USA
  2. STURM

    STURM Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Messages:
    2,456
    Likes Received:
    16
    Saabs main selling point for the Gripen has long been that of it being cheaper to buy - by virtue of having a single engine - and being cheaper to operate and maintain, compared to its twin engine competitors. And Saab has also made mention of the fact that Sweden was one of the pioneers in the use of data links and that the Gripen, when paired with Eriye, offers customers a capability trhat would be much more expensive to buy if sourced elsewhere.
     
  3. Comrade69

    Comrade69 Banned Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles CA
    this..

    its pretty obvious maintenance cost is lower for 1 engine rather than 2..

    But it is kinda shocking that the Griper is cheaper to operate then the Fighting Falcon..
     
  4. STURM

    STURM Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Messages:
    2,456
    Likes Received:
    16
    Yes, I know its obvious but I was just illustrating a point..

    A lot of it also has to do with the cost of spares. Saab people I've spoke to at exhibitions claim that spares for the Gripen are comparatively 'cheap'. As we all know, Saabs marketing campaign has targeted countries that want a modern multi role capability yet do not want to spend the cash on twin engine MRCAs, and so far it has been successful .
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2012
  5. Zhaow

    Zhaow New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New England, USA
    I think for countries that are tight on cash, can see why the Gripen would cost less to operate and run. I think the Gripen's selling points could be the lower operating cost and paring with SAAB Eriye
     
  6. surpreme

    surpreme Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Newport News VA
    Also offer maintainance to train along with the pilots. This is the plan the Thai Air Force has recieved. For countries like Saudi Arabia this is perfect plan ordered some Gripen and some Eriye and Sweden is open to given it technology with no conditions such as the US did on the E-3's. It's northern front toward Israel will be defended well with Eriye's in the northern area. The Sweden equipment is just as modern as the western air forces. The Saudi has the money to get the Gripens and Eriye's
     
  7. StobieWan

    StobieWan Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,998
    Likes Received:
    41
    Tech transfer isn't an issue for the Saudis as they have no ambitions to manufacture locally - they've traditionally ordered high end systems from the US and UK and tended to use a lot of manufacturer support.

    I did hear rumour of a deal in the offing with Libya for Gripen - might be a good match with it's low support requirements etc.
     
  8. Comrade69

    Comrade69 Banned Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles CA
    Slightly off topic, but I'm just thinking about the MMRCA competition, which the Gripen was involved in...



    What makes a fighter better then the rest?
    In this case Gripen vs the EF, Rafale, F-18 and Mig-35...
    Its avionics, and how strong its radar is? Its radar cross signature? The amount of payload it can carry? Range it can travel?


    Because after reading that article, I think India would of been better of choosing the Gripen...the Rafale is WAY more expensive to operate as well as cost per fighter, and I honestly think the Rafale is overkill for their air force.

    Im not trying to do country vs country here, but lets be real: their only real enemy is right next door which is Pakistan and they best they got is F-16's and JF-17's...

    while India still has Pak-FA's on the way in the future...


    sorry if I went way off topic....
     
  9. STURM

    STURM Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Messages:
    2,456
    Likes Received:
    16
    It all depends on the customers operational requirements. Whats good or one air arm, might not work for another. For many air arms, the costs associated with operating and maintaining their fighters is a prime consideration.

    Why would the Rafale be an overkill for the IAF and not for others?

    Pakistan is indeed India's traditional foe but Indian military modernisation is largely aimed at China not India. India has long reached a stage where it has superiority at many areas over Pakistan but the same can't be said for China.
     
  10. Comrade69

    Comrade69 Banned Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Los Angeles CA
    Gripen>Anything in the PLAAF
     
  11. anan

    anan Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    India has an increasingly global focus, including the protection of global sea lanes, global trade and global investment. Their primary focus of the Indian Air Force is on China.

    The Gripen lacked the technical capabilities that the Indian Air Force wanted. Ideally, India would likely have bought the F22 if it were available.

     
  12. RobWilliams

    RobWilliams Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,758
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I completely disagree, the clue for what the Indians wanted is in the name; MMRCA - Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft so why would have they gone with an extremely techy 5th gen mainly air supremacy aircraft which is inferior to other aircraft in other areas which make up 'multu role'?

    If the Indians were looking for pure air superiority (which is what their requirement would be to pick the F-22) then they would have gone with the EF out of the selection but they didn't, why? Because the Rafale does the multi-role part better than the EF and the F-22 which is why it got selected, it was the best combination of performance and ability out of the selection.

    If anything, the F-35A suits the competition name more than the F-22.

    Of course, this is all academic because India never had the choice.
     
  13. anan

    anan Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    My primary interest in these forums is on life cycle costs of various weapons platforms for a given set of specifications and various scenarios of possible use.

    If a country wanted to buy a Gripen and operate it for 20 years, what would the cost be?
    -country plans on a major upgrade of the Grippen 12 to 15 years into its product life.
    -country plans to fly the Grippen 1000 hours a year for 20 years, or fly it 20,000 hours in total over 20 years.
    -includes cost of procurement CAPEX, upgrade CAPEX, new engines, spares, maintenance hours
    -does not include cost of discharge missiles

    My estimate is $400 million over 20 years, or $20 million per year. The cost comes from:
    --$90 million initial CAPEX (this is a high end Gripen with high end sensors, electronics and radars)
    --$50 million upgrade cost 12 to 15 years into life of the bird
    --$200 million cost of fuel, maintenance hours, spares excluding engines ($10,000/hr times 20,000 hours)
    --$60 million cost of engine replacements over 20 years

    Is this a reasonable estimate. What are everyone else's thoughts?

    Does anyone have thoughts on what comparable numbers might be for the:
    -Indian Tejas,
    -South Korean T-50, AT-50 and FA 50,
    -Chinese JF-17 Thunder
    -Chinese L-15 supersonic trainer

    Would love to learn from the rest of you about how better to calculate life cycle costs for various aircraft.
     
  14. anan

    anan Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Eurofighter and Rafale were the two finalists. India nearly went with the Eurofighter, which is the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world after the F-22 and F-35. It looks like the F-35 was evaluated. The F-35 will not be available for India in the quantities India wants quickly enough. However, India is considering F-35s for aircraft carriers.

    You are right that the F-22 is merely an academic question, because India never had the choice.

    My biggest point is that the Gripen was never a serious contender for the Indian Air Force decision makers. It was probably added to the competition as a way to negotiate a lower price with the ultimate winner of the competition, and to improve the optics of the India/Swedish friendship. :) Maybe it was a serious choice for India's ministry of finance. But their influence over the final decision was . . . shall we say . . . limited.

     
  15. RobWilliams

    RobWilliams Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,758
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    My understanding is that India have already purchased Mig29K for INS Vikrant but i've yet to see anything that suggests India is interested in any variant of the F-35, a source from you would be welcomed :)


    I saw the Gripen as neither particularly brilliant in any particular area when compared to some of the other contenders and seeming as in the initial phases (i believe), the decisions were being based on "if price was no object" because they wanted to splash out on some top of the line aircraft rather than looking at examples and thinking "Hmmmm, it's a bit expensive :roll"