GinnerThanks for the explanation, and in my humble opinion you could be correct with regard from Saab, however there are at least an important detail that you have been missed so far, the agreement has not been only between Saab and Embraer, but between the Government of Sweden and the Government of Brazil.
The agreement with Gripen NG are not between two companies( Embraer and Saab), but between two governments, once it was the Government of Sweden that has been funding the contract, beyond this was not the Embraer who has bought the Gripen NG, but the Government of Brazil
The Government of Sweden has had full access about all technological aspects of each single part of the Gripen NG , and it not just about the item that Saab has beem assembling or manufactoring so far. After all the Goverment of Sweden has been keeping only important suppliers from their allieds countries as ie:US and UK.
However this does not necessarily meaning that Saab has been keeping all knowledge about the Gripen NG, just as example the Volvo company that it has beem manufactoring the F414 engine in Sweden too.
Transfer of technology should not have been confused with manufacturing rights, as to develop and produce such modern fighter, then it has been necessary full knowledge in all aspects of operation and construction of each item, as well as engines and avionics.
I don’t have any copies of these 36,000 pages that has been describing the entire process of the 100% of ToT in Brasil, however 100% of something like the Gripen NG in fact should be every single bolt and nut, as weel as its engine and avionics.
In fact I guess that the same 100% ToT does not apply to weapons of the Gripen NG, even the software of those, since those weapons are not part of the aircraft, but every single part that has been assemblyng in the fighter, it should be part of the 100%.
Unless 100% does not mean anymore 100%.If someone prove it, may be could be nominated to the Nobel Prize in Mathematics.
Saab cannot transfer the IP for the Selex radar, skyward irst, britecloud and not for the engines etc….Anything the developed to make those systems function on their platform…that’s another story.
GinnerThe russian bombers are not stealthy so they would be easy to detect at long range. AESA radars have good anti-jamming capabilities and BVR missiles have HOJ.
The russian cruise missiles have a low RCS but they could be intercepted by the terminal defenses.
I like the idea of a mix of a high end fighter and an armed trainer. The high end fighters would intercept the bombers before they launch with long range missiles to cover a large sky volume ( 120D, meteor or even something bigger ). The armed trainers would fly right over the air bases to intercept the cruise missiles. They would have an AESA radar for detection at significant range and would be datalinked via link-16 to ground launched AMRAAM launchers to engage them ( HUMRAAM style or say a 5 tons trucks with 10+ AMRAAMs ). They wouldn’t need that much time on station because they could quickly land to hot refuel.
I think the actual requirements are a lot more strightfoward than your scenario. We need a modern replacement for the capabilities delivered by the CF 18 that could deliver 25 years in service with a total program life of 35 years from now until disposal. Maybe longer.
As much as I love the Gripen tricks of landing on roads…or the idea of Super Tucano’s as a CAS platform……the Growler F18…..carrier capable landings….cruise missile loadouts….we simply need a relatively future proof version of what we have right now.
GinnerI’ve always taken that to mean ‘full transfer of the technology we own’ – but as you say, that isn’t what a lot of people understand by it.
That seemed self evident but that’s nice and specific.
GinnerWell, that shows progress at least because here is what you said previously:
Yes they do. The code they developed for the platform they own.
GinnerHopsalot
Don’t quote me and then twist what I said. I never once suggested full tech transfer…..obviously there is a lot they don’t own….just made that point here yesterday….like five posts up.
GinnerI did not know that Volkswagen has been a Brazilian company, I thought it were German.
However what really matters about this issue are where those projects has been tested and approved for production.By the way: how many Brazil designs has been produced in the Germany by the Volkswagen ?The fact could be resumed that a project has been made in Brazil by a company like Volkswagen will only be approved after the same had been examined by the company’s headquarters ( Germany). if it were not necessary to change the design that could have been demanded by the headquarters, then its project will be approved and frozen by the headquarters.
Even today problems in the production or manufacturing process in many cases can only be resolved by headquarters staff (technicians, engineers), since there are a lot of control over access to sensitive technology in those companies.
The Embraer had been a state-owned company in Brazil until 1994, and it was privatized in 1994 due to a large financial debt in reason of the AMX program with Italy. In fact Embraer as state-owned company paid for the whole development of the AMX from Brazil side , and after this the Embraer had been donating 53 AMX for the the Brazil Air Force , once the Brazil Air Force had no budget to buy this.
If in the decade of 80 Embraer were a private company, now in Brazil there would not be a single AMX in Brazil Air Force, as well as the Embraer would not have had technological conditions to develop its great commercial success as the EMB 145 in the 90’s. This were only possible in reason of technological advances from AMX program, besides the credibility that had been gave from AMX program in the international market from jet aircrafts.
The Gripen E will not be equivalent as AMX for Brazil today, once the Gripen E project has been entirely developed in Sweden. For this reason I doubt the Gripen F will be fully developed in Brazil because this reason as well the short time to accomplish this task.
The Brazil are perhaps the fifth largest market in the world for computer processors, however it has not been manufacturing just a single unity of this in Brazil, as well as aircraft engines today. It appears that the R&R Spey from AMX were assembled in Brazil by state-owned company called Celma in the late 80’s.
If the promise from 100% ToT of the Gripen E will be required by Brazil, both the F414 technology should be transferred to Brazil, as well as radar technology from AESA radar of the Selex.
However I guess that Embraer has not interested in this aspect of the contract, once it does not produce aircraft engines or AESA radars.
So this is a rhetorical question: who will enforce this promise?
My answer: anyone in the Government of Brazil , in reason of this simple fact that same has been nominated the Embraer as fully responsible for the 100% ToT from Gripen NG.
They can’t transfer intellectual property they do not own.
GinnerIt’s a retrofit option, but there is currently no indication that any customer will opt for it.
Any idea why? Is there a downside to it? It seems the performance data was pretty impressive for a simple adjustment. Maybe just an ace up their sleeve if they compete with SH and Rafale?
GinnerThat has already been done, as evidenced by the CDI threat assessment. The problem becomes the uneducated or ill-informed who think they know better than the professionals.
Irony?
GinnerThe motivations of the Liberals were not regarding the value for money of the acquisition but a political opportunity to paint the Conservative government in a poor light.
Simply bull****! The conservatives halted the project because they were concerned about winning the election, because the auditor general tore them a new one, and because they were caught in multiple lies. The Liberals don’t need to paint anybody in a poor light now. They just need to do the right thing.
GinnerMin. offset value (as a percentage of the deal) can be specified by the govt. What’s the point of technology transfer? Canada (unlike Brazil & India) doesn’t have a defence industry that requires careful nurturing. In core areas of interest (Bombardier, P&W-C), its already ahead of Saab.
And how exactly is the federal govt and/or bureaucracy better equipped to assess what is still a technical issue (operating cost)?
Same entity is on the hook, even if Trudeau gets room to politicize the selection.
You can set a minimum offset value as percentage of the deal but you still think of how that is going to manifest itself. That’s not the purview of the military to figure out….at all….not even a little bit. Given the investment we made in the F35 project and the potential (non guaranteed contracts) that might result in Canada, the evaluation of industrial (and tax revenue related) benefits have to be balanced against program costs. If not, you should just ignore the supposed 11 billion dollars in Canadian contracts from the mix right? You can’t have it both ways.
So the assumption is that the Liberal are politicizing the acquisition and the conservatives were not? Hello? What? “11 BILLION dollars in business”. “Will crater the defense industry”
The conservatives lied about the intention to sole source, lied about costs, lied about the decision to sole source again, lied about costs again, and got called out twice, and then finally decided the optics were too horrific to continue.
I do chuckle when I hear how irritated that some people are that there is a competition. Particularly people that are not paying for the plane and benefiting from being defended by it. I can only think of two reasons for that….pomposity or personal benefit.
GinnerHave there been any development on the availability of Aerodynamic Modification Kit since the testing last year? Is that a 3B capability? Will they retrofit it or offer on new builds only?
GinnerThey should leave it to the Air Force in question. Just give them a budget.
A nice idea on the surface, it does not make sense in reality. First, rightly or wrongly industrial offsets have become a huge part of the equation in most countries and those need to be negotiated. the military cannot do that, and fundamentally don’t care (why would they). The same goes for transfer of technology. Second, with a project like the F35 or Gripen E where the aircraft are in development how are you supposed to know what those costs are going to be without operational experience? LM and Saab can make lots of claims on how cheap their planes are going to be to maintain and fly, but it’s all marketing until it’s proven, and you have to make a call before it’s proven or potentially end up with the wrong plane.
It’s a nice idea to give them a budget for total program costs over say 30 years, but who is on the hook if those costs are misrepresented (or just underestimated) as they cannot be guaranteed. Governments need to have oversight into spending and need to ensure that competitive bidding takes place in order to keep prices down. If there are alternatives, they must have a competitive and transparent process. I don’t realy are what other countries do in this regard. I’m Canadian and it’s what I expect a Canadian government to do. Clearly most Canadians feel the same way.
GinnerBecause the Canadian Liberal party had an issue with the sole source selection of the F-35.
As it should have.
GinnerSAAB not bidding will likely be for only two reasons, first they cannot compete on the low observability requirements or second they cannot compete on the industrial requirements. Why would the government exclude a single engine jet when it would increase the number of bidders and therefore almost certainly reduce the overall offers due to increased competition?
Perhaps but the shorter the bid list the more of a farce this competition will become from the open and transparent one promised and the more likely it will be that Canada pays more than they should.
Just to be clear….I am not suggesting whatsoever that saab and Dassault won’t be invited to the party…I’m suggesting they may take one look at the requirements and realize it’s a waste of time. I work with sales teams all the time on RFP responses and issuing a “thank you but we’d rather not waste our time here” is a great way to illustrate to the buyer that you know they’ve already made a decision. It’s also a great signal to the stakeholders that the competition is not genuine. Saab employ this tactic to great effect. I’m not suggesting that’s a certainty here…but if the competition looks wired they will be the first to illustrate that point. Make sense?
GinnerJust so I understand what you are inferring, had the Liberal government been in charge when FWSAR began they would have released the requirements?
If so, again you are mistaken. There is nothing special about the Liberal Government and the underlying agency in charge of running the procurement has not changed, hence why would this now be different?
Why should the public consultation period provide that info? As with the recent Australian Senate hearing, the committee was bombarded with a whole bunch of crazy suggestions not bounded in reality. If the Government is looking for a report on the value and importance of low-observability to military capability for the future, they will look no further than CDI and an updated version of the already produced Threat Capability Assessment for Canada’s Fighter Aircraft Capability
http://forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/threat-capability-assessment-en.page
which would logically have a classified version available to appropriately cleared Government staff. The above report made it quite clear that low observability is a necessity moving forward.
If you look at the report in more detail, CDI make it very clear how important low observability will be…
SAAB not bidding will likely be for only two reasons, first they cannot compete on the low observability requirements or second they cannot compete on the industrial requirements. Why would the government exclude a single engine jet when it would increase the number of bidders and therefore almost certainly reduce the overall offers due to increased competition?
Perhaps but the shorter the bid list the more of a farce this competition will become from the open and transparent one promised and the more likely it will be that Canada pays more than they should.
I’m going to leave my reply to this as: we shall see.
Sign In
