The other thread on JSF has drifted wildly off-topic, so I thought I'd better start a new one to get back to the Norwegian decision to choose the JSF. It seems that I was not the only one to be surprised by the statement that the JSF would be significantly cheaper than the Gripen. According to JDW, this is now being strenuously questioned.

The Norwegian government had stated that LM would supply 48 F-35A for USD 2.59 billion (at current exchange rates), a unit cost of just under USD 54 million. However, the US DoD FY 2009 budget puts the unit cost at USD 96.8 million, assuming a 1,763-plane production run, with early aircraft costing as much as USD 237 million each. So the cost of the Norwegian order ought to be somewhere in between these figures, or between two and four times as much as stated. Furthermore, a Holte Consulting report for the Norwegian MoD produced an estimated JSF unit cost for the 48-plane order in the region of USD 150 million (max/min range 120-180 million). So where the heck did the 54 million come from?

Furthermore, there are no cost guarantees in the JSF offer. In contrast, the Swedish government has guaranteed a fixed price for the Gripen equivalent to USD 72 million per plane.

Finally, Norway's official report considered life-cycle costs. Norway had asked for a 20 year support cost, and Sweden had guaranteed the Gripen's costs at USD 1.6 billion including fuel, lubricant and other consumables. However, the report considered 30 year costs, producing an estimate of 24 billion for 56 JSFs. Gripen's 30 year costs were arbitrarily estimated as USD 28 billion in the report.

Incidentally, the unit cost of the Israeli 75-plane JSF order works out at over USD 200 million, including support and equipment.

Something smells very, very fishy to me....

I have read that a very large part of the predicted Gripen costs were under the heading "risk", supposedly to allow for the possibility that huge sums would have to be spent on upgrades to keep it current, or that Sweden would abandon it, or that Sweden would raise prices because the predicted manufacturing cost was too low - etc., etc.

BTW, the Gripen offer was from FMV, the Swedish state arms procurement agency, not SAAB. It was a government to government offer, with a Swedish state guarantee of costs.

Assuming an increase from a guaranteed USD 1.6 billion over 20 years to a seemingly guesstimated 28 billion over 30 years (not based on info from Sweden) seems somewhat questionable as a basis for such a major procurement decision. And the JSF costs weren't guaranteed anyway.

At least it's clear which aircraft some people really really want.

I think nobody could understand how JSF could be cheaper then Gripen in the first place. I hope Norway does not sign the JSF contract, it could leave them without an Air Force.

Too late, no getting off the boat now. But if it goes down everybody involved gets screwed, so don't feel bad.

Is it possible that LM has simple offered the JSF below actual production costs to get a head start with subsequent competitions? They sure can afford it, what's 48 planes in a total program of potentially thousands of planes, but they are putting some serious hurt on SAAB, one of their key competitors.

Thats a possibility. But why would Denmark and the Netherlands be willing to pay a higher price than Norway? Or the US Congress for that matter? Seems a risky thing to do for LM...

Nobody? I wouldnt go so far. You and some other perhaps... Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Gripen as produced now is a relatively cheap aircraft? Heres a surprise for you and all other who didnt read the reasoning behind the cost predictions, or didnt bother to try to understand: The Gripen offered to Norway is not the Gripen produced now. We are talking about an entirely new Gripen, with new electronics, radar, avionics, engine, intakes, undercarriage, body. Sweden promised to buy 8 Gripen NGs if Norway chose Swedish... Norway could end up with a fighter with a production number of 56. The plan is to keep the new plane effective for 30 years plus. Which means several upgrades. Meaning that Norway would likely have to pay for all upgrades itself. Compared to split the cost of upgrading between 2400 planes. Guess whats most expensive per plane? Add to this the fact that the Sweden did not (repeat: did not) offer a complete package. Weapons, even certain electronic equipment in the Gripen NG wasnt included in the offer. In contrast, the F-35 offer was complete.

I dont know how Gripen has been promoted in other countries, but here in Norway we have heard Gripen cheap, JSF expensive, Gripen flying, JSF paper plane, Gripen fast, JSF slow, Gripen in production, JSF probably not going to be produced, Gripen good for defence of Norway, JSF good for attacking Afghanistan and other BS from the Swedish team for the last couple of years. Now, when for the first time a thorough study of the probable cost and combat efficiency has been made of the Gripen NG and F-35A, and the conclusion turns the Swedish propaganda upside down, then everyone not in the knowing is crying foul. Pathetic.

Just to illustrate how pathetic it is: The Norwegian government is made up of three leftist parties, Arbeiderpartiet (Labour), Senterpartiet (Farmers Party) and Sosialistisk Venstreparti (Sosialistic Leftist Party (!)) The last party is against NATO, for peace & love, against anything that comes out of USA or is remotely linked to USA, sees Israel as The Big Satan, against EU, loves Chavez and Castro, opposing any weapon purchases for Norways own military forces, it goes on nad on, you get the picture. Sosialistisk Ventreparti also happens to have the Finance Minister of the government, Kristin Halvorsen. Sosialistisk Venstreparti has been opposed to buing any new fighter planes for the air force, and instead using the money to build tracks for high speed trains around Norway (I shit you not). For the last couple of years, as Plan B, a number of people from the Sosialistisk Venstreparti has been promoting the Gripen, to secure that IF Norway decides to buy new fighter planes, it would be anything else than American. So when the expert group made its recomendation to the Government, and ranked the F-35A as a better and cheaper plane than the Gripen NG over a period of 30 years plus, it came as a shock to the mainstream media and the socialists. The finding in the study turned the world upside down for those who for so long had bought the Swedish drivel against the JSF and propaganda for the Gripen. Kristin Halvorsen said that it was very sad that the US plane was the cheapest, and that she had nothing else to do than accept it, however bad she felt about it. Mind you, this is the Finance Minister, with a staff filled with the brightest economists in country. Not her or anyone else has so far been able to point to any misdoing, miscalculation or bending of facts in the work done by the fighter study group. And it has been reviewed by two independent private consulting companies.

Good enough for me. And Im paying for the shit. Not you.


Thats a pretty stupid statement. Care to elaborate?

Excellent post, and summed up my opinon as well. IMHO comparing the Swedish Gripen now in production and the Gripe NG is like comparing the Hornet and Super Hornet.

There's a good chance the US will decide not to buy the F-35. If so, that leaves Norway without a fighter when the current generation of jets needs to be replaced.. If the US cancels the program immediately, then it will still add year or too to the process as Norway then has to start agin from the beginning. The longer it takes the US to do so, the worse things will be for Norway.

The rest of your post was quite illuminating, though, and what was otherwise inexplicable now makes much more sense.

I hate to tell you this Tony, but Janes has allready lost most of its credibility in this case. At least here in Norway.
To give you a little bit of background: The Norwegian correspondent to JDW, John Berg, has been probably the most outspoken critic of the F-35, to the point that he has been taken in telling almost outright lies about the F-35. Lately, he has also come out as the biggest fanboi of the Gripen in Norway, driveling about how much better the Gripen is than the F-35, that the F-35 is no good for A2A combat and only good for attacking other countries. The most interesting fact about him is probably that he only turned a Gripen fanboi and F-35 hater after his involvement in the Eurofighter Typhoon promotion campaign ended. The latest outcry from him has probably a lot to do with the fact that he was proven wrong on all accounts by the fighter study group. Now, this is a person who is making his salary as a self proclaimed military expert, and often used in Norwegian media as such. How would you feel if a group of about 100 experts (in finance, economics, aircraft, operational, military, strategies, logistic, weapons), the best in country, comes to completely opposite conclusion than you? And for the last year or two you have been quoted and interviewed in most newspapers and TV-channels about your "facts". Its only human to scream as loud as you can, and accuse everybody else for doing mistakes, isnt it?

The other event that has made the credibility of Janes going down the drain in Norway, is a couple of statements by Robert Hewson. You know who he is. Here is one link to an interview with him in Aftenposten (continuing the papers crusade against F-35): http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2798506.ece
My translation:

"Choosing the F-35 makes Norway look like a Banana republic.
After listening to the Norwegian Government chosing the JSF and critics of the Swedish JAS Gripen, Hewson boarded a plane to Norway to find out what had happened.
-I dont understand it. The whole world watches you, everybody thought that Norway was methodically choosing a new fighter. But then you have landed on a price that doesnt exsits, and a capability that nobody can prove exists. It looks like all analytical tools was thrown out the window the last 48 hours before choosing. It is sad for Norway and an air force that is looked upon with so much respect out there, Hewson tells Aftenposten.

He tells that USA, as opposite to Sweden, does not guarantee the price, and that JFSs story until today, indicates that todays cost is not the final cost.

-Nobody except the project management believes in the plane. It is delayed, and over budget. What is included in the price from Lockheed Martin? I dont think it includes spare parts, weapons, logistics, training, maintenance.
-I dont think we can believe in the numbers. I want to know whats included. At this point they can promise anything without anybody being able to face them. Nobody knows what final cost will be, says Hewson, who has covered international aircraft industry for 15 years.

When he now writes about the Norwegian fighter buy, it will be read by the top brass in the international military and civilian aircraft industry.

It is part of the history that Hewson earlier has spoken very highly about the Gripen.
-A better plane than Gripen C/D you cant possibly get hold on, Hewson said to the Swedish publication Ny Teknik in April. And he added: -Someone has to have the guts to say "no, we are not buying JSF. We can spend our money wiser."

-I dont think that there is any price guarantee made by the US Government. I cant believe that they guarantee the price, because if they do, they are offering the most advanced, reffined and technical superior plane to the lowest price, he says.

Hewson also points to the fact that JSF has just left the drawing board, when Gripen is in daily use.
-Today JSF exists only as two prototypes, but none of them has undergone advanced testing yet. To estimate the capability of the plane is just guesswork, he says.
-Everything is new about the JSF. If everything is working when it is finished it is impressive. 100 years of experience with air industry have never seen the like of this. The planes have allways come out more expensive and late.

-But stealth-technology gives JSF and advantage, doesnt it?
-For USA it is hugely important. Stealth can be used offensively to invade countries like Iran, Iraq and perhaps even China. A small country like Norway is paying hugely for something they dont need. Anyway stealth and all other technology is secret, and will be under the complete control of the USA.

-Norway wouldnt even get the same planes as USA. One type will be produced for USA, one for Great Britain and one for all other countries. When JSF at some time in the future is a finished product, it will probably be a good plane, but expensive and delayed, says Hewson."

Ok, I almost dont know where to start. Over the last years we have witnessed the various Janes products going down both in quality and accuracy, but I didnt think I would see a Janes editor produce so much bullshit, ever. Allmost everything he says is either wrong, false, illogical or outright stupid. The whole thing is embarrasing for Janes. Nothing less.

And I still havent seen anything that puts the Norwegian choice of the F-35 into doubt.

Something smells very fishy about the Janes coverage of the Norwegian F-35 deal...

Actually not. We will get our first F-35 in 2016. Eight years from now. The contract negotiations will go on until 2014, and the contract signed in that year. In five years from now, we WILL now if the F-35 will be produced or not. AND we wil know what the USA will replace the F-16s, AV-8Bs, A-10s and F-18C/Ds with if the F-35 goes down the drain. Because we all know that they need to be replaced. Even with Obamessiah in the White House, the US will certainly maintain the largest and most advanced air force in the world. What is good enough for them as a substitute for F-35A/B/C will be good enough for us. Besides, if everything goes bad and USA turns Kongo, there is allways the Eurofighter Typhoon. Heck, even the F-16 will probably still be produced in 2014, as F-16W or something.

So no, we are not i any bad position.

To reiterate Zakk's post, the Gripen offered to Norway is probably as much or perhaps more of paper plane than the JSF at this point. Past costs of existing Gripen models are of limited relevance, and politically/technically though it's fun (and often deserved) to bash US procurement programs, it seems ridiculous to me to make out Sweden's follow through on a new generation Gripen as less risky than the a US-led multinational consortium's follow through on the JSF. JSF bashing is overdone generally IMO, sure the airplane will cost more than its now supposed to because fewer will be built than planned, inevitably. But, there isn't any really basic technical problem with the program as of now and it's getting to be quite far along. And, as mentioned, lots of air arms are screwed if it doesn't work out: so it probably will be made to work out.

On prices, Lockmart alone is not totally free to set a price, the JSF project office is also involved. Obviously preferential pricing wouldn't be allowed and again though prices are not gteed for anybody there's no reason to believe they are any less reliable for Norway than for the program in general. On $96mil v $[54]mil, the former was described in recent AW&ST artilce as all-in program cost in then year dollars (ie. including inflation) for all JSF's (including more expensive F-35B's and C's) produced to the end of the program, $[54] is the fly away cost of Norwegian F-35A's, I don't know which year $'s. As usual, it would be necessarily to pore through a lot of details, and an advanced accounting degree would help, to compare published fighter unit costs on completely apples-apples basis. Norway for example has paid R&D money into the JSF program too.

Joe

So...Gripen NG will offer no improvment in A2A for twice the cost?

Perhaps, but the reality is that you will have to either decide to buy whatever the US buys in place of F-35, if it buys anything right away, and if it allows what it chooses to be exported, and do so on its timetable, or begin with a new Request for Proposal and competition. At the very least. I should think there would be a delay of a year or two.

Heh, the Superbug at least have a better radar for A2A work.

Yes, but at least we know by now what plane NOT to buy. I makes decision a little bit easier.

Good Point!

Gripen NG is not a really new airplane. The engine is a F414 adjusted for mounting in Gripen, just as the current engine is a F404 adjusted for installation in Gripen. F414 will be around for a long time in the Super Hornet.
The AESA radr will fit into the NG and the older versions as well. So that leaves the changed landing gear assembly as the biggest difference to the current version.

I fail to see how this could skyrocket the price to a JSF level. Add that Sweden offered a government to goverment fixed price deal, while LM did not offer such a deal, I must say that the offer from LM is worth nothing, as the price is not fixed.

So if we think it will increase to a per unit price similar to what Israel or the HSAF expects to pay, then Norway will have 36 fighters at best in the future. Not a healthy outlook for the Air Force. If the price increases further it could well be 24 fighters only.

Colonel Robert K. Simm participated in web based Q&A session yesterday with a major "newspaper" in Norway. He answers a lot of questions about the F-35s capabilities and addresses some of the issues with the Norwegian price estimate. Below I've quoted a question regarding the Israeli price estimate compared to the Norwegian.
In my rather limited understanding of air force requirements the F-35 is much more capable platform then the Gripen and I'm very pleased that we for now are going for the F-35. The final decision won't be made until 2014 so I hope that the JSF program doesn't screw up to much before then, so that the US procurement will still be on track.

"Newspaper" link to the article, Q&A session is immediately below the article, below quoted items is question #2 form the top.

Oh yes it is indeed. A number of parts are common between the variants, but whats driving price up is whats new, i.e. electronics, avionics, radar, fitting a new engine etc. The comparison of the relation between F-18C/D and F-18E/F on one side and Gripen C/D and Gripen NG on the other is not that far off. We are in effect talking about a new plane.


Do you claim that the F414 can fit in the same space as the F404 in Gripen? With no altering of the internal construction and intakes? Wow.


Off course it will. But is still needs to be developed and paid for.


That is so wrong that its not even funny.


What you seem to not understand is that the "government to goverment fixed price deal" that Sweden offered let a lot of empty spaces to be filled in and paid for as extra, when Lockheed Martin included these in its offer. What you also seem not to understand, is that the fighter study group included any believable price uncertainities for both the Gripen and the F-35 in its estimate. So the Gripen cost escalated compared to what SAAB wants you to believe. Heard about marketing trick? The crying from Sweden now is also because the Gripen was slammed as not suitable for the Norwegian need, and considered to be markedly less capable than the F-35. Not good for any future sales. The Swedes is coming to Oslo tomorrow to be briefed on the Norwegian decision. We will probably hear a lot of crying after that meeting too.


Your guess is slightly less relevant than most guesses I have seen until now. FYI Norway could easily afford to buy 48 F-22s instead of the F-35. And buy Volvo and SAAB and half of Sweden at the same time. Its not a question of money, its a question of political will. The level of defence spending we have now will increase if the leftists government is pushed out of the offices in the next election. Different from most other countries, the Norwegian government has so much money that they are afraid to use it, even after the latest international financial breakdown.

Or perhaps a creative accounting degree?

Gross exaggeration. The F-18E has a bigger wing, is longer, fatter, taller, & about 25% heavier empty than the F-18C. It is a different, bigger, aircraft, which is aerodynamically (& therefore visually) similar to its predecessor.

The Gripen Demo is both a prototype of the Gripen NG, & a test bed for the upgrades which will be in the NG, & which can be - piecemeal - applied to earlier Gripens. It is the same length, same width, same height, & has the same wing (only the roots changed) as a JAS-39D, & is <5% heavier empty.


1. Yes. It's been done. What do you think the Gripen Demo is? It isn't a new-build Gripen NG airframe, it's a modified Gripen B - with an F414.
2. No, there have been minor modifications to both the engine bay & intakes. The intake modification is the replacement of a section designed to be replaceable, to make the intakes a little larger.

BTW, the F414G is cheaper than the RM12.

So what I claimed is true then. The internal construction and intakes have been altered to fit the F414.

I wrote that the comparison was not that far off. For me "not that far off" doesnt mean "the same". Perhaps my English isnt good enough?


And then lets talk about the internals, shall we?

Yet, the airframe development risk for Gripen NG seems not bigger then for F-35. In fact they were quite quick to rebuilt a first generation version to NG standard. All changes seem rather minor an not much bigger then between an F-15A and F-15E for example. For the contract I see no big difference. Sweden offered a fixed price with some things missing, LM included those but did not offer a fixed price. Both can see the price going up.

And I do know that Norway could buy any fighter it wants in any number it wants, I do doubt that they would spent much more then currently planed.

The NG demonstrator is not built to NG standard. Most of the internals is still under development or development not even started yet.

Yes, that is true. And taken into consideration by the fighter study group. With Gripen NG coming out with likely the highest cost.

I'd say it is very far off. "Not far off" doesn't mean the same, but it does mean similar - and I don't think there is much similarity. Adding 3% to the empty weight without changing the external dimensions or wing area is very far off adding 25% to the empty weight (& same to the wing area) while increasing all external dimensions. You're talking something like 90% airframe commonality vs 10%. Very, very far off, on the same scale as the F-102 & F-106. The F-18C & E only share a number for political reasons. The E should really be something like the F-24 or F-25.

Ah yes, the internals - all of which, including the engine, can be retrofitted to a basic Gripen. The whole point of the NG is that it isn't completely new. The airframe is mostly the same as the JAS39C/D, & a C/D can be NG-ised, either wholly or in part. The Demo started life as a B, then became a D, & was then modified again. To Super Hornet-ise an F-18C you'd have to start by throwing away almost the entire airframe, as well as the engines. What the first F-18Es did have was a high degree of avionics commonality with the C, though not the A, but that went years ago, as did the very small degree of airframe commonality the F-18C & E originally had.

New engine. New intakes. Modified engine bay. New radar. New cockpit and avionics. New EW. New comms. Improved flight software. New internal tanks. Moved and modified undercarriage. New wing roots. New hard points. For me thats a new plane. So you can put most of the stuff back into a Gripen C/D. So what?

Not the Norwegian public though. A vast majority prefered Gripen. But as we all know, what folks in general want doesnt mean sh!t when it comes these things.

Your original premise was the Gripen C to NG changes are comparable to those from the F-18C to E. That's obvious bollocks, the changes being of a completely different scale. You're now realigning your view to re-classify half the worlds combat aircraft as new models, to fit your premise that the Gripen NG is a new aircraft. Come on mate, what is this all about? Swede-bashing for the sake of it?

BTW, it doesn't have a new cockpit, it keeps most of the original hard points, the intakes aren't completely new, & the engine bay mods are like those to fit an alternative engine to the F-16 - which also has a choice of intakes, different radars, cockpits, EW, comms, flight software, & significant structural differences. By your reckoning, how many different aircraft is the F-16?

Well I'm not sure the public opinion is the best way to choose items with in military procurement.

Disagree completely. I never wrote "comparable". And you know it.

Its what we do here in Scandinavia.

Everybody loves Danes though.

We all know that the average housewife, taxi-driver or social-client have proper qualifications to decide if either F-35 or Gripen NG best meet the operational and economic need for the Norwegian air force in a 30 year perspective.

To bad we didnt have an opinion poll to decide what new assault rifle to equip the army with. Because the G36 looks so cool...

Considering the hash that so called "professionals" make of procurement projects, I doubt the average houswife, taxidriver etc. collectively can do any worse.

For me it looks like they had to make F-35 cheaper, because they want it as it is the better and safer solution, even if it costs more. It has reduced RCS features, the full range of US made weapons will be certified for use, it will have a save upgrade path, the cost for the development will be shared by many user nations. While Gripen NG might only see the 48 for Norway being built ever. So nobody will pay for developing upgrade options for it, except Norway. And who will upgrade it, if Saab goes out of the fighter business?
I can fully understand the decision made by Norway, I just think the official reasoning is wrong.

That is often correct, yes.

However, sometimes they get it right. Like the HK416 buy for our army and Home Guard and the F-35 for our air force.

I wish the Norwegians ignored popular opinion also in regards to EU membership.

I used to agree on this before. Not anymore. We are fine as we are, thank you.

Yup, bound by every regulation but unable to influence them.

Thats the downside. The upside is that at least we feel free.

Anywho, back to topic:

After the meeting between the Norwegian MOD, the Swedish MOD, FMV and Saab, Saab says that they are returning home to make new calculations based on the briefing:
http://e24.no/makro-og-politikk/article2806727.ece
The main points:
-The fighter study group is confident that the calculations made by them are correct.
-The fighter study group debriefed the Swedish MOD and FMV first, then Saab.
-The Norwegian MOD considers some comments made by Saab to be "to much".
-The Norwegian MOD says the language used by the Swedish MOD and FMV has been on a completely different level than the language used by Saab.
-Saab was not willing to comment on their verbal reaction to the Norwegian decision.
-Saab still disagrees.

Updates from other sources:
-The Norwegian MOD accuses Saab of not telling the truth. Saab had stated that they had received a promise to get the results from the Norwegian governement 24 hour before it was made public. MOD said that no such promises had ever been made, and that it would have been a blatant breach of Norwegian law to do so in this or any other public buying process.
-The temper from the Gripen supporters in Norway has come down remarkably fast after the decision was made public. Hardly anything s heard anymore from the various socialists, certain newspapers, Norwegian JDW reporters, sociologists, US-haters, conspiracy theorists and small businesses that has been pro Gripen. Only noise now seems to be coming from Saab.

Ofcourse not. I was only talking about the public opinion in Norway, nothing more.

And for the record, I belive the Norwegians made the right decission and I never really belived in a possible Gripen sale. But I also have a feeling this will cost the Norwegians way more in the long run than what LM has prommised them.

Man, now I just wait unpatiently for Gripen to get the new AESA radar so we can down our dear neighbours in their shiny new golden birds in mock dogfights! That would be soo sweet..

How would that go on when the F-35 would appear on the Gripen radar only a second before the Amraam impact?

That will go just fine since our new G/H model has been up armored to withstand any AMRAAM inpact. And then we´ll blast you with 27 mm Mauser WWI style... And I have no doubt the new AESA will grant us at least one or two Meteor BVR shots before that (considering the current RCS of F-35).

Who would have thought : http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/c...;modele=feature

Are you being serious?

100%

Unless the Swedes have invented some sort of plasma shielding, there is no way a Gripen could take a direct AMRAAM hit, neither could a F-35. Even an A-10 would have to get very lucky! Plus, even the best AESA radar on any fighter flying today would not be able to detect the F-35 at such a range. Unless that F-35 was carrying external stores.

When it comes to gunfighting, I imagine the pilot would be the deciding factor and not the F-35 or Gripen NG. Both are very maneuverable, and their cannons (25mm GAU-22/A vs. 27mm BK-27) both seem to be of a similar capability. More ammunition would be nice though.

I am not saying the Gripen is a bad fighter, in fact it is a fine design. One that has come a long way from what once was considered a "poor man's F-16."