South Africa's selection of JAS Gripen

Evaluation summary based on Auditor-General's investigation

Highest technical score – Best performance-to-cost ratio – Largest Industrial Participation

A source of many reported mix-ups is the fact that Gripen actually participated in two tenders.

South Africa's air force (SAAF) had to buy trainer aircraft with secondary light-combat capability
as well as a new multirole combat jet. As a true supersonic fighter, Gripen was obviously costly
compared to simpler subsonic trainers. Gripen did not get on that shortlist due to 'unaffordability'.

The other program was for the tactical fighter and shortlisted were the AT-2000 by Daimler/Denel
(a non-existing plane that would have to be developed), the mature Mirage 2000/5, and finally the
next version (C/D) of the world's first 4th generation fighter, Gripen.

Military evaluation:

An evaluation of the jets, as delivered by the defense procurement agency Armscor 1 July 1998 had
been produced on Staff Target and Staff Requirements reviewed by the SAAF Command Council
and signed by the Armaments Acquisition Council.

Claim: Gripen was more expensive than the competition.

Answer: Marginally higher than 'unverified' costs of AT 2000. Gripen had however the highest cost-
effectiveness ratio.

Claim: Gripen unsuitable for the SAAF.

Answer: It received the highest military score.

Claim: Inflated price of Gripen. Expensive compared to other fighter jets.

Answer: The average unit procurement price of South African Gripens (without surrounding costs)
as reported by the auditor is US$ 34m. A cost below that of comparable multirole fighters and in
line with Swedish Air Force procurement costs.
IP - Industrial Participation (offsets) : As a joint development program AT-2000 scored high
on defence participation but also came with high risks for the air force if left as sole user.

Ranked second on defense offsets the Gripen offer had however significantly higher offers towards
the civilian sector whilst the AT-2000 ranked very low:

Overall the Gripen offer ranked #1 on IP by significantly outperforming the competition.

The Gripen offer could also offer financing something the other jets failed to provide; and
thus they scored additionally lower as a whole.

As the Chief of Acquisitions recommended Gripen and Hawk to be winners of each respective
tender, then Secretary of Defence Pierre Steyn wrote a memorandum dated 7 Sep 1998 that Hawk
was in his opinion not the ”best” trainer for the SAAF (due to costs) although it scored highest on
capability. Pierre Steyn made no apparent criticism of the Gripen in this memorandum to the
Chief of Acquisitions nor has any other such opinion been voiced throughout definition of staff
requirements and the evaluation.

Ultimately South Africa decided to select a UK proposed Strategic Defence Package with strong
focus on industrial participation with the highest performing jets from each of the two tenders.
Additional notes:

The fact that Gripen was rejected even before the shortlist from the trainer program on the basis of
unaffordability suggests that there was no push to force South Africa into buying Gripen for both jet
requirements.

AT-2000 never materialized and Mirage 2000 went out of production 2007.

Source document: http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/2001/arms/chap4.pdf

Investigative report by South Africa's Public Protector, Auditor-General and National
Director of Public Prosecutions 14 November 2001.

Seven SAAF Gripen's in formation flight during Air Capability Demo, 12 May 2011

Compiled by Signatory/Gripen News Thread mp.net No connection with SAAB/BAe.

Photo: Dean Wingrin saairforce.co.za