[Tony Williams]

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....

This post has been edited by Tony Williams: 02 December 2008 - 0850 AM

[swerve]

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.

[Tony Williams]

swerve, on Tue 2 Dec 2008 1430, said:

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.

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.

[Junior FO]

Tony Williams, on Tue 2 Dec 2008 1620, said:

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.

[seahawk]

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.

[Lampshade111]

seahawk, on Tue 2 Dec 2008 1123, said:

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.

[Exel]

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.

[BJE]

Exel, on Tue 2 Dec 2008 2256, said:

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...

[zakk]

seahawk, on Tue 2 Dec 2008 1723, said:

I think nobody could understand how JSF could be cheaper then Gripen in the first place.

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.

seahawk, on Tue 2 Dec 2008 1723, said:

I hope Norway does not sign the JSF contract, it could leave them without an Air Force.

Thats a pretty stupid statement. Care to elaborate?

[Animal Mother]

zakk, on Tue 2 Dec 2008 2305, said:

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.

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.

[R011]

zakk, on Tue 2 Dec 2008 1705, said:

Quote

QUOTE(seahawk @ Tue 2 Dec 2008 1723) *
I hope Norway does not sign the JSF contract, it could leave them without an Air Force.

Thats a pretty stupid statement. Care to elaborate?

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.

This post has been edited by R011: 02 December 2008 - 1802 PM

[zakk]

Tony Williams, on Tue 2 Dec 2008 1446, said:

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.

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.aftenpost...icle2798506.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... <_<

This post has been edited by zakk: 02 December 2008 - 1835 PM

[zakk]

R011, on Wed 3 Dec 2008 0000, said:

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.

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.

This post has been edited by zakk: 02 December 2008 - 1838 PM

[JOE BRENNAN]

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

This post has been edited by JOE BRENNAN: 02 December 2008 - 2051 PM

[Yama]

Animal Mother, on Tue 2 Dec 2008 2239, said:

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.

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

[R011]

zakk, on Tue 2 Dec 2008 1820, said:

What is good enough for them as a substitute for F-35A/B/C will be good enough for us.

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.

[zakk]

Yama, on Wed 3 Dec 2008 0040, said:

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

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

[zakk]

R011, on Wed 3 Dec 2008 0049, said:

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.

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

[R011]

zakk, on Tue 2 Dec 2008 1856, said:

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

Good Point! :lol:

[seahawk]

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.

This post has been edited by seahawk: 03 December 2008 - 0144 AM