Saab India Chairman offers Gripen E over MMRCA deal to India

[A.P. Richelieu]

I copy pasted from Wikipedia, and each sentence in it seems to be sourced. However, many of them are in Swedish:

Svensk Gripen E påstås dyrare än schweizisk - NyTeknik

In any case, my post was not about the costs; it was meant to clarify that the Gripen-E and Gripen-NG are the same thing. That was the point I wished to convey with that post.

Those figures are from "TagesSchau". A Swiss daily TV news program.
Would rather put my trust in Aviation Week.

The article makes a point in that the Swedish Government has not commented on the flyaway price,
so they do not confirm or deny the figures from TagesSchau.

 

[sancho]

Those figures are from "TagesSchau". A Swiss daily TV news program.
Would rather put my trust in Aviation Week.

The article makes a point in that the Swedish Government has not commented on the flyaway price,
so they do not confirm or deny the figures from TagesSchau.

But the Aviation Week article was talking about the cost for the initial order of modified Gripen Cs to E standard, so that's outdated too, however the flyaway cost should be around $50 millions only and not the $100 million as the wiki source stated. Brazil now seems to get the Gripen E for $125 millions "system" cost and it's interesting to see them trying to sell Gripen to other S. American countries before they even fixed their order. That fighter will be more Brazilan than Swedish at the end, since main development and production parts seems to end up there.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

But the Aviation Week article was talking about the cost for the initial order of modified Gripen Cs to E standard, so that's outdated too, however the flyaway cost should be around $50 millions only and not the $100 million as the wiki source stated. Brazil now seems to get the Gripen E for $125 millions "system" cost and it's interesting to see them trying to sell Gripen to other S. American countries before they even fixed their order. That fighter will be more Brazilan than Swedish at the end, since main development and production parts seems to end up there.

$50M sounds much more plausible.
Sweden will have the main responsibility for the development of Gripen-E (single seater)
and Brazil the main responsibility for Gripen-F, twin seat trainer.
Gripen-M (Sea Gripen) to be decided.

Where production ends up will be dependent on orders.

Anyway, the more countries using it, the better it is for the users, since MLUs can be spread out.

The wet dream is beeing the F-5 of the 21st century.

 

[WAR-rior]

So shud I assume, Gripen E which is a 5th gen plane can be a viable option for our AMCA codevelopment?

 

[sancho]

Sweden will have the main responsibility for the development of Gripen-E (single seater)
and Brazil the main responsibility for Gripen-F, twin seat trainer.
Gripen-M (Sea Gripen) to be decided.

Where production ends up will be dependent on orders.

For the development of the single seater, but the production of them for Brazil will largly be based in Brazil (some sources say up to 80%), not to mention that the deal includes production of parts for export countries, so even if a Gripen will be exported outside of S. America, Brazil will have it's share.
The twin seater and naval version will be mainly developed by Brazil, which is where the ToT advantage comes in mainly, since Brazil is part of the design & development stage, which no other fighter offered. And if we include the custom systems and weapons they seems to add, it does get a large share of Brazilian origin. In fact, it's close to what we get from the FGFA deal (co-development of a custom version, design responsibility of the twin seater and the naval version if required, custom systems and weapons...), just that we also co-own our version and should benefit more from exports. But for Brazil and it's aero industry this deal is a great one, since no other offer would had got them so much benefits, at so little costs. Operationally and most likely even in critical ToT of key techs, the Rafale might had been better, but at higher costs and probably not affordable for them anymore.

So shud I assume, Gripen E which is a 5th gen plane can be a viable option for our AMCA codevelopment?

No, it's a 4.5th gen fighter without any stealth capabilities, just as any M-MRCA contender. Saab has the knowledge to design and develop a stealth fighter though and is proposing design or development partnerships to S. Korea or Turkey. But these countries understands the value of joint developments and JVs, while we want to develop anything on our own.

 

[C130]

where are you all getting over 100 mill for a Gripen?
might as well go for the F-16 blk 60 if that's the case.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Get JfF17 thunder

 

[ApparentRaceTraitor]

Get JfF17 thunder

is TOT and source codes included?

 

[sancho]

where are you all getting over 100 mill for a Gripen?
might as well go for the F-16 blk 60 if that's the case.

System cost, including training spares and so on, in Brazil as stated $125 millions each, while the Swiss offer was $150 million per unit, since the total order was lower.

 

[sancho]

Brazil has signed the contract for 36 x Gripen E/F:

Saab and Brazil sign contract for Gripen NG


Interesting that the costs are higher than initially estimated, with $5.3 billion dollar, the unit system-cost is now up to $147 million each Gripen.

 

[surya kiran]

No, it's a 4.5th gen fighter without any stealth capabilities, just as any M-MRCA contender. Saab has the knowledge to design and develop a stealth fighter though and is proposing design or development partnerships to S. Korea or Turkey. But these countries understands the value of joint developments and JVs, while we want to develop anything on our own.

We have bunch of brainiancs stuck in the 50s emphasizing on swadeshi in areas we are still learning how to hammer a plate. We dont even know how to make the hammer. If we get into a JV with a Dassault or SAAB or any of the global majors for the AMCA we would probably have the fighter up by 2025. I dont understand why we should learn everything the hard way like Kaveri. Is one mistake not enough???????

Bunch of twats is what we have in DRDO. They have not been able to deliver an operational engine in 30 years. Hell, we could have a child born, then trained him since childhood only about engines and he could have a built in engine by now. Bunch of geezers............

 

[UKBengali]

We have bunch of brainiancs stuck in the 50s emphasizing on swadeshi in areas we are still learning how to hammer a plate. We dont even know how to make the hammer. If we get into a JV with a Dassault or SAAB or any of the global majors for the AMCA we would probably have the fighter up by 2025. I dont understand why we should learn everything the hard way like Kaveri. Is one mistake not enough???????

Bunch of twats is what we have in DRDO. They have not been able to deliver an operational engine in 30 years. Hell, we could have a child born, then trained him since childhood only about engines and he could have a built in engine by now. Bunch of geezers............

Jet engines are extremely complex to master.

Only the US/UK/France and Russia has fully mastered them, with China probably joining the club before the end of the decade is up.

India could not realistically have hoped by now to have produced a reliable and powerful enough engine for the Tejas, taking into account its overall technological capabilities.

 

[Speeder 2]

Jet engines are extremely complex to master.

Only the US/UK/France and Russia has fully mastered them, with China probably joining the club before the end of the decade is up.

India could not realistically have hoped by now to have produced a reliable and powerful enough engine for the Tejas, taking into account its overall technological capabilities.

one needs 3 conditions to make a competitive engine:

1. complete industrial value chain, and a globally competitive one as well.
2. huge amount of inventment across board.
3. sustaining this size of investment for a long time- about decades.

only 3 countries had/have above conditions and could do it after WW2: Britain (had), USA, and Soviet Union.

France got its engine tech from the US.

Germany and Japan, being the lossers of ww2, have not been permitted to have the related complete industrial value chain.

China had almost complete value chain back then, but not powerful and with too little investment.

China started to have the full value chain in the last 10 years or so. Still need more $$$ and time.

India will not be capable of making an engine on its own in the next 200 years, to say the least, because the full industrial value chain is distant dream for India. Talk-show hosts such as heads of ISRO , DRDO and HAL aside, India's current industrial infrastrucutre is next to nothing and mostly at stone age level (e.g. still can not even mass produce with decent quality a post ww2 level rifle or most 101 level ammunitions...).

 

[Basel]

India will need a single engine 5th gen jet in near future after fielding PAKFA / FGFA as single engine multi-role will be more available for missions then single engine and will be cost effective to operate, therefore India must look into the 5th gen project of SAAB as they need partner in it and it will be win win situation for both parties, as SAAB will have good partner and India will be getting a western class 5th gen plane with TOT, it may become more advance and reliable then Russian ones.

 

[sathya]

India will need a single engine 5th gen jet in near future after fielding PAKFA / FGFA as single engine multi-role will be more available for missions then single engine and will be cost effective to operate, therefore India must look into the 5th gen project of SAAB as they need partner in it and it will be win win situation for both parties, as SAAB will have good partner and India will be getting a western class 5th gen plane with TOT, it may become more advance and reliable then Russian ones.

You know about our dream AMCA , twin engine ..
Stealth plane with less surface control need thrust vector engine to be more manoeuvrable
Single engine thrust vector is even more complex

Saab asked for 51% share in mk2 LCA , which itself is totally unacceptable..
Lastly Saab also don't have their own engine and radar..