Procurement Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Getting A Gripen On It
   Next Article → AIR TRANSPORTATION: The Legend Continues
February 11, 2012: Sweden continues to succeed, where other European jet fighter manufacturers fail, in making sales. The latest example was the recent deal where Hungary renewed its lease for 14 Swedish JAS-39 Gripen jet fighters. The original lease began in 2001, and the extension takes it to 2026. At any time Hungary can buy the Gripens. But since the lease arrangement includes guaranteed prices on maintenance and upgrades these aircraft may spend their entire service lives on lease. This sort of thing is becoming increasingly popular.

The Hungarian lease extension comes two months after Switzerland decided to buy 22 Gripen fighters to replace their elderly F-5s. It is also used by Sweden, Thailand, South Africa, and the Czech Republic.

The 14 ton JAS-39 is roughly comparable to the latest versions of the F-16. The Gripen is small but can carry up to 3.6 tons of weapons. With the increasing use of smart bombs this is adequate. Often regarded as an also-ran in the current crop of "modern jet fighters," the Swedish Gripen is proving to be more competition than the major players (the F-16, F-18, F-35, Eurofighter, Rafale, MiG-29, and Su-27) expected. Put simply, Gripen does a lot of little but important things right and costs about half as much (at about $35 million each) as its major competitors. In effect, Gripen provides the ruggedness and low cost of Russian aircraft with the high quality and reliability of Western aircraft. For many nations this is an appealing combination. The Gripen is easy to use (both for pilots and ground crews) and capable of doing all jet fighter jobs (air defense, ground support, and reconnaissance) well enough.

The aircraft entered active service in 1997 and has had an uphill battle getting export sales. Sweden does not have the diplomatic clout of its major competitors, so they have to push quality and service. Swedish warplanes and products in general have an excellent reputation in both categories. Nevertheless, the Gripen is still expected to lose out on a lot of sales simply because politics took precedence over performance.

Next Article → AIR TRANSPORTATION: The Legend Continues
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Twinblade       2/11/2012 6:58:23 AM
SP should update its stats on Gripen, those stats are for the the A/B variant of Gripen.
 
Quote    Reply

J3       2/11/2012 8:15:08 AM

In fairness to the Grippen's competitors for the Swiss order, the Gripen was perfect for Switzerland's mountainous terrain because it is designed to operate in Sweden's similar environment,    including out of mtn bases and from roads.  As a point of interest, I read during Gripen’s campaign for the Brazilian order that the plane's rate of sink for landing on roads was similar to that of a naval fighter's for arrested carrier landings.  The idea was to sell the plane to Brazil's navy as well as its AF, and also to the USMC.  I seem to recall that the Swedes hired an English firm with experience building carrier planes to advise them. 

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

ruethan    Swedish efficiency   2/11/2012 5:22:59 PM
Sweden develops and builds modern a/c , ships, and subs for much less than the UK. Its  population is about 11 milion, compared to 62 million for the UK, and 312 million for the US.  They are doing something right.
 
Quote    Reply

violentnuke       2/12/2012 12:03:07 PM
What they are doing right with the Swiss is replacing the F5.
 
Whatever "genius" in DC decided to sink the F20 so it would not compete abroad with the F16 in replacing F5s was an idiot.
 
THe Swedes' Grippen is now replacing what sales of F20 it would have been, an aircraft that was not even subsidized for development and thus of much better quality.
 
Quote    Reply

Skylark       2/12/2012 2:53:23 PM
IMO, the F-20 could have been a real winner, but it arrived at the wrong time.  The F-16 was just coming on line, and the economy-conscious export market was already saturated with Tiger-IIs that had not been used up yet.  There was also an issue of the cramped spaces within the F-20, like the F5-TigerII before it, that limited the avionics options when you take into consideration what was available in the 80s.  The only nation that showed any real interest in the F-20 was Taiwan, and they were denied permission by the U.S. to purchase them, primarily due to the engine, which pretty much doomed the Tigershark as an also-ran.  That said, I agree that the F-5 derived F-20 could have eventually found a market, if Northrop had stuck to it, at least until the Tiger-IIs started to wear out, but head-to-head, I don't know if the Tigershark could have outperformed the Grippen in a dog-fight either.  But, from a cost perspective, at least, I'm sure the F-20 would have won, hands down.
 
Quote    Reply

ruethan       2/12/2012 3:53:58 PM

 
What they are doing right with the Swiss is replacing the F5.Whatever "genius" in DC decided to sink the F20 so it would not compete abroad with the F16 in replacing F5s was an idiot.
THe Swedes' Grippen is now replacing what sales of F20 it would have been, an aircraft that was not even subsidized for development and thus of much better quality.
  All true. But Sweden seems to avoid the overspecification and overmanagment endemic to US and UK defence programs, with a very small design and developemnt establishment . This is a bit off topic, but the article offered an opportunity I couldn't pass up. : - )

 
Quote    Reply

LB       2/12/2012 8:47:38 PM
It's a light fighter powered by an F404.  If one wants to note it's about half an F-16 fine then it's worth noting the South Korean and Indian F404 light fighters cost half of Gripen.
 
Quote    Reply