The South African Air Force recently signed a steady state support contract for Saab Grintek Defence to maintain its 26 Gripen aircraft, a move that has effectively saved half of the fleet from being mothballed, and keeping them all in a state of operational readiness.
However, the benefits of the contract have a wider reach, says Saab Grintek Defence’s South African country manager Magnus Lewis-Olsson.
Since the SAAF took delivery of the Gripen fighters, it has operated them under a series of interim contracts, which means that Saab hasn’t been able to dedicate resources to the South African fleet.
“Now that we have a long-term contract, we are able to set up systems that ensure 24/7 support and share technical publications as they become available,” Magnus Olsson says.
He points out that a fighter jet has a lifespan of about 30 to 40 years and, during this time, upgrades need to be made and information shared.
The South African Gripens are slightly different to the others shipped in the rest of the world, most notably because they include the locally-developed HMI system.
“In fact, when they were delivered, the South African Gripens were the most modern in the world,” Magnus Olsson says.
The SAAF has bought 26 Gripens – 17 single-seater Gripen Cs and nine double-seater Gripen Ds – which are operated by 2 Squadron at the Makhado Air Force base.
Having a steady state support contract is good way to ensure the aircraft remain up to date, Magnus Olsson says. “Traditionally, high-tech aircraft like the Gripen would receive a mid-life update to help them to stay current and relevant in a changing market,” he explains.
“Saab, however, employs what it calls spiral development that updates the craft in smaller increments every couple of years. This means they are always as up to date as possible and avoids periods when technology may not be current.”
Because they haven’t been covered by a long-term contract until recently, the SAAF’s Gripens have already missed out on one upgrade edition – a situation that can now be rectified.
“With the South African contract signed, Saab can now dedicate resources to the fleet and get it on to the upgrade path,” says Magnus Olsson. “This includes updating the operating software and hardware, which is released every two years or so.”
The contract has also saved almost half of the fleet from being permanently grounded. In 2013, the SAAF investigated the possibility of mothballing 12 Gripen aircraft due to the low number of flying hours allocated for the next year.
The new contract allows for a less costly maintenance process that allows the aircraft to be more readily available for flying; now every Gripen is flown at least every 60 days and will be available for active duty within two days.
Nicknamed the “Flying Cheetahs”, the SAAF’s Gripens have seen a number of active assignments although a number of them have experienced woefully few flying hours.
When mothballing part of the Gripen fleet was mooted, part of the problem was that the aircraft weren’t getting enough flying hours.
The issue of aircraft hours and pilot skills are interlinked and Lewis-Olsson explains that budgets have kept the Gripens from flying, and this has also restricted the ability of pilots to become skilled Gripen fliers.
“Now that the full fleet will be in the air, it should be possible to get more pilots trained up, with flying hours under their belts,” he explains. “There is currently a push to get more fighter pilots for the Gripens.”
The bottom line, according to Lewis Olsson, is that the long-term contract means the Gripens will be more cost-effective to fly; they will be more available; and they will be constantly updated to remain modern and relevant for their full 30 to 40 year lifespan.
In addition, Saab will be able to dedicate full-time resources to the SAAF fleet, while holding spares locally. As a added bonus, South African fighter pilots will be able to keep flying, and bring on new pilots as well.
Questions have been raised in some circles about whether South Africa needs a fleet of modern fighter planes. Lewis-Olsson explains that the Gripens have seen action supporting South African troops in central Africa, and have also been deployed for local events like the Soccer World Cup
During the World Cup, he says, the Gripens were in the air about 50 times – in fat, at every match there was a fighter plane overhead, in constant communication with the control centre and other aircraft types in operation.
Any idea as to upgrades of the PS-05/A Mark 3 radar to a variant with a new AESA antenna instead of the mechanically scanned antenna?
Also, are there upgrades to the RM12 engine without changing it to the F414 like the Gripen E/F variants. Would be great if SA were allowed some R&D to enhance our Gripen’s combat radius.
Also, regarding weapon integration. SAAB has always mentioned that munition integration on the Gripen would be cheaper than other aircraft. Why then is the SAAF saying that integration of the Umbani (Al-Tariq) would be drastically expensive.
From this one would assume that it would be too expensive to integrate the Mokopa or Raptor II.
Also is the SAAF restricted to only being able to use the Swedish made TAURUS KEPD 350 or RBS-15 Mk. III? Would Denel be unable to integrate it’s cancelled Torgos if it were to be brough back to the fore again?
Saab has not yet provided specific information on what types of upgrades would be available for C/D users, but they’ve claimed the options will be substantial. R&D does happen locally on the Gripen, SA is after all the only country outside of Sweden to have a full Gripen test flight facility, but it’s limited by the small amount of funding available locally.
Although Saab says the Gripen is cheaper to integrate weapons onto, they mean in relation to aircraft of similar performance and capability, such as the Typhoon. But it’s still very expensive in absolute terms, requiring dozens of test flights and hundreds of man-hours in time to qualify a new weapon onto a high-performance aircraft like the Gripen. By comparison, it was simpler and cheaper to integrate the Umbani/Al-Tariq onto the Hawk Mk.120.
It’s also a matter of necessity: The SAAF has adopted a policy of only performing integration where necessary or where doing so provides a competitive advantage. So the A-Darter has been integrated onto the Gripen and the Umbani onto the Hawk, but as the Gripens are equipped with LITENING pods with laser designators, the SAAF was able to acquire Paveway II laser-guided bombs and give its Gripens an equivalent precision-strike capability without having to spend any extra money.
That brings to the fore one big advantage of the Gripen and that’s the regular software updates that Saab sends out to all users. It means that improvements and fixes can benefit everybody and also that if one country integrates a weapon the relevant system logic will (unless prohibited by contract) reach all users. So when the SAAF’s Gripens receive the latest MS20 software update they’ll be fully compatible with the MBDA Meteor BVR missile and Boeing’s GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, all without any extra work needed by the SAAF.
I would not rule out an eventual Al-Tariq integration onto the Gripen in order to simplify logistics, but it would depend on the Defence Budget being increased enough to allow for it. I don’t foresee the Torgos being resurrected and I believe the SAAF is unlikely to acquire the Raptor II.
The tech transfer specified as part of Projects Ukhozi and Winchester ensure the SAAF is capable of integrating its own ordnance on both the Gripen and Hawk, but in practice for the Gripen the A-Darter approach is followed where Saab is contracted to perform the integration work. They’re very good at it, are able to keep costs low through good planning and co-ordination and can perform the flight testing in SA.
Thanks Darren,
Do you foresee the SAAF acquiring any land attack/anti ship missiles for our Gripens?
Would Denel ever look at building or would this be too far out of our depth because of skills and funding and necessity? Given that Denel possibly assisted Pakistan with their cruise missile projects, one would think that there is a capability to build.
I noticed some Blogs mentioning that South Africa was interested in the supersonic Brahmos cruise missile or the Swedish RBS-15.
Eventually, yes. The SAAF would like to regain the anti-shipping capability that it lost with the retirement of the Buccaneers, but it’s not a high priority at the moment.
It’s hard to say whether Denel Dynamics would approach it, it’s quite a big exercise to build a modern anti-ship missile that’s competitive. They would probably punt the anti-ship warhead option on the Mokopa instead.
So should the requirement emerge the RBS-15 is the most likely option purely because it’s already integrated. Similarly, the Taurus KEPD 350 is probably the best cruise missile option and will have an anti-ship variant at some point.
I can understand that there are obviously more pressing needs for the SAAF such as strategic airlift and maritime patrol capabilities.
Would the Mokopa warhead not be too small to make significant damage or would it be just for small boats?
Why wasn’t the SAAF Gripens acquired with the RBS-15 and BVR Missiles like the Thailand Gripen acquisition?
Why is the Taurus KEPD 350 the best solution in your opinion?
Would the KDA Naval Strike Missile and Brammos not be an option as well since it would be costly to integrate?
Yes to both, the Mokopa would never be a true anti-ship missile, but useful for a lot of the lower-end applications.
Anti-shipping wasn’t specified as a core requirement in the Gripen User Requirement Specification. The initial contract did include the integration of the R-Darter BVR missile, but the SAAF decided for other reasons to retire it instead. So that’s where the BVR gap comes from.
I should have clarified more on the KEPD, I mean it’s probably the best option that’s currently integrated. While the JASSM and Storm Shadow are both capable, they’re not integrated onto the Gripen as yet. Having the option of an anti-ship variant would also ease commonality.
Of course, should the Defence Review bring about enough funding the SAAF may start looking purely at which option best fits its requirements, regardless of whether it’s already integrated or not. And then other options like the NSM, Brahmos, et all would enter consideration.
Thanks Darren!