HammerThe air force is handing over 40 Gripens to SAAB for disposal. Scrapping them costs the air force nothing. Storing them costs the air force nothing. SAAB is accepting the risk, & in return, gets a bigger share (all?) of the money. This was part of the deal under which the government agreed to buy new-build JAS39C/D up to the original numbers, instead of cutting the order & upgrading JAS39A/B. Get it?
Man! Thank god I don’t pay my taxes in Sweden! So what you say is that the Government instead of footing the bill for scrapping older airframes GIVES THEM BACK TO SAAB FOR FREE??! Good business for SAAB. 😉
With the bigger cut in numbers now talked about, more A/Bs will become surplus, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they also go to SAAB.
As for none being sold yet – well, they aren’t spare yet. Advance notice has been given that they will become available. Think how long it’s taken for the Dutch & Belgian surplus F-16s to sell since being declared surplus. The lack of sales so far isn’t significant.
You are looking at the Dutch and Belgian lack of success in selling their F-16 as normal way of conducting the resale of fighters? I beg to disagree, to me it tells a lot about the current lack of demand in the second-hand fighter market.
Let’s see if the second hand Gripens really do get sold off… I doubt it. But believe me I’d love it to be true.
I hope Hungary and Czech Republic really do buy some 40 aircraft each and that the Norwegians quit the JSF and order brand-new Gripen-Ns…
Regards,
Hammer
HammerExactly, just what I was trying to say. More customers, more committment, more, know-how, more money, etc etc. It´s what we in Sweden call a “good cirkel”. And it does´nt matter if it is refurbished swedish JAS-39A being sold, it still means all of the above to SAAB (and Sweden), and it shure beats allmost brand new planes being scrapped. (Wich is basicly taken place everytime a JSF-customer cuts its order).
Hi Maskirovka!
in theory everything is great but allow me to insist, your logic only works if the clients materialize! Where are the countries that will purchase the new Gripens? I can’t seem to see them… Also the used Gripens are on the market for sale for the last year or so but still no takers… On the other hand the nation that choses the Gripen now has an option buy brand new c/ds or buy half price A/Bs? This situation is certainly to the better advantage of the buyer, not of the seller… SAAB certainly would rather sell new build units than recicled/refurbished airframes because there is always more profits on new airplanes. If the Swedish government says they’ll will SCRAP the planes if there are no buyers this gives the buyer the option to get the planes for free since scrapping shopuld be more expensive then just giving them away to some other Air Force, right? How can SAAB be happy to compete on the market with what would eventualy be termed as “free” JAS 39 A/B airframes?
Why is the government considering scrapping the older aircraft? Why not just keeping them? Because it is very expensive to keep them from rusting away… The Flygvapnet doesn’t need the planes and can’t afford to keep them in storage…. Thus scrapping. Scrapping the Gripens may be good and bad for SAAB, but it’s good for the Air Force and very good for the Government. It should be good for prospectibe buyers, only there are none to be found… 🙁
I only wish it was different… 🙁
Your JSF example is not similar at all. The huge percentage aircraft destined to the US air forces makes foreign clients quite disposable. If Norway is out so what, it doesn’t impact at all the unit cost of the F-35. In fact I’m certain the US never had any interest in selling the F-35 abroad… I believe their idea is to avoid sales from the tree current european fighters, Gripen, Eurofighter and Rafale. The high tech F-35 program intends to pospone the purcase of new fighters around the world until the 2010-2015 window…
Get it?
🙂
Comments?
HammerNo offense but your analysis seems very naive to me. I dare to say that the engineers know what this redesign means in terms of technical changes and expenses. The mere fact that the company has been designing aircraft for almost 70 years suggests that they know what they´re doing…
They would probably not do such a redesign unless there is a general demand for it. As for possible countries? Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Denmark and Switzerland are possible customers. I´m pretty sure there are more that are not official yet.
Well MP703, I’m sorry if my analisys goes against your own views… But let me enphasise the reasons behind my reasoning…
I love fighter planes and to me, the hard core aviation enthusist, the Gripen is as good a fighter as can be built these days and the SAAB engineers are very competent and technichaly savvy as the best in the world… but that alone does not an international market sales hit make. 🙂
Having said that:
a) The Gripen in my opinion is the right plane in the hands of the wrong country and I mean no disrespect by this! SAAB fighter export success in the last 50-odd years has been negligible, not because of a poor product lining but because of a government option to “stay neutral” and the lesson that the major sellers US, USSR and France is that if you want to win in the arms bazaar YOU HAVE TOP TAKE SIDES! The whole concept of a forward leaning peeple like the Swedes selling billions of US$ worth of fighter jets to a third-world country with high poverty rates is very hard to digest for the average swedish taxpayer.
b)If you look at these last half century there are two ways fighters are sold:
1) To rich countries like Saudi, Japan, China or pre-revolutionary Iran. The client has deep pocketbooks and orders the best available hardware in large numbers. You can boicott these purchases as the uS does with China and you can put political pressure to direct them towards this or that aircraft as the French learned painfully in the recent Saudi Rafale x Eurofighter dispute…
or
2) Give them away (or forgiving MAP debt for instance…) to a poor country such as the Kenian and Salvadorian F-5Es or all the MiGs “sold” to sub-saharan Africa since the 60s…
The problem is Sweden hasn’t got the funds or the global political leverage (“Punch” if you wish) to be the big cat in any of the two options above.
c) if you look at a purely industrial aspect of it the Gripen program is a major sales failure. 232 aircraft bought by the designing country 20 odd for the three other clients, two of wich in a Leasing deal that can be easily disengaged from in the future… Now the Swedish governmente anounces the decision to sell at any cost or scrap up to 120 older airframes… What does this signal to prospective buyers? that there is no future for this aircraft… unfortunately
d) The Gripen-N modiufications are very far from simple the testing and certification program alone may cost up to hundreds of millions of US dollars, ad a new engine the cost would balloon tremendously! The engine may even fit the engine bay but the weights and stresses are certain to be all diferent. Take a look how many years it took from thje first prototypes flight to the in service introduction of the Gripen, its absolutely no stroll in the park. And further if OI was a Swedish taxpayer I’d be very concerned with my hard earned tax money bein squandered in the development od a Gripen derivative with no prospective client signed on yet. No, I may be a great may things but “naive” is definetly not one of them. 😉
e) As I said above the guys at SAAB are certainly very competent but they are not free from screwups or they would never have wasted their lead un the regional aircraft arena by sticking to turboprops when the market moved on to Regional Jets in the nineties. Do they know what they are ding, some times, but this is the way the capitalist enterprise exists.
f)Finaly, can you serously see Bulgaria or Romania leasing more then 20 units each? I don’t… These two most certainly come under the “poor states” category the ones that need their fighters given to them. On the other hand Greece and Denmark have the money and the means to pick what they will fly but can you see any of them resiting US or UK-Germany-Italy and Spanish political pressure in a open bid? I don’t. Pakistan wanted Gripens, why didn’t Sweden sell them the plane?
These are not my rules I didn’t make them but they seem to exist, I may be wrong or you may be wrong it doesn’t really matter, but eventually we’ll know who got it right..
Please don’t get mad at me it’s nothing more then a friendly discussion
Best Regards
Hammer
HammerI just have some lingering doubts regarding this new Gripen-N…
a) What will these extra stores will do for the little planes drag, flight performance and radar cross section?
b) The landing gear changes seem to me as a very demanding and expensive engineering feat, the whole wing and lower fuselage will have to be redesigned, retested and recertified… who’s paying for it? I dare say: not Norway…
c) This new model seems only to make sense if other countries besides Norway decide to join into a major single purchase. Where and who are these other countries?
d) Hasn’t Norway just declared that they’d be sticking to their JSF commitments?
Lots of questions, but few good answers for SAAB…
Comments?
Hammer
HammerPersonally, I see nothing at all wrong with it. Ja’s spouted a load of rubbish and in the process insulted the Belgian Government. Still, nothing like going off half cocked when all you’re trying to do is advertise your own forum, is there?
Chill out Kev , your comments about Ja’s post was rude and unnecessary… Please respect that personal taste and opinions vary and we ought to respect them in order to run a good environment for discussion… Now if you don’t have your own site or discussion list on-line too bad. He has so what! Enjoy whats available freely on the net and try to ignore what doesn’t interest you.
Regards,
Hammer
HammerHi guys, just some input into this interesting debate…
Relations between two large modern nations is a very complex issue, there is no clear-cut black&white opposing grounds, each side has myriads of stakeholders and each has a differing and conflicting point of view.
For example
the US small business entrepreneur is helped by the low-cost ilegal immigrant labour, at the same time the US local unskilled un-educated labor force for obvious reasons abhors them.
The medical establisment (hospitals, clinics, private healthcare providers)and professionals (doctors, nurses) should have no complains about having more people to treat (clients). The Govenment health care accountants may be upset at having someone who has not contributed taxes benefiting from these services.
US based Spanish language media executives certainly have no complains about a balooning market place for their TVs, radio stations, records, newspapers, magazines, etc… products in the US
Nationalistic white america may feel threatened by the stunning growth os Sanish as the second language in a undeniably and growing muilticultural multi-language America.
These examples go on and on unlimitedly, every single economic sector has always someone to benefit and someone to loose from the immigrant tsunami hitting America’s shores.
There are benefits and risks in every major human change, to some segments the risks are greater and the benefits larger. Ask the dwindling US manufacturing work force how much the enjoy the booming trade between China and the US? Then ask yourself how convenient is a DVD player sold at under US$100… What would the average consumer think if car purchase prices were halved in a few years time (after Chinese auto manufaturing kicks into high geer replacing plants in Alabama for instance…)?
Because of the reasons above the US-Mexico political and economic relationship is certainly not a clear cut one, (imagine the thrill of you sharing a all expense payed single king size bed at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel’s imperial suite with a 600 pound gorila… (wait a minute… make that a 60000 pound gorilla! ;))
Let’s be careful here if the average american gets all his info from Fox Channel and Mexicans get theirs from some rabid anti-US source the big picture may get corrupted by simplistic political tinted sun glasses and that would no good any good in the end.
Mexico has no real reason at all NOT to have a decent Air Force and or naval aviation and where they buy it from is really their problem.
In retrospect Flankers operating next door may be just what Lockheed really needs do be able to justify new F-22 orders from the Congress and the Pentagon. Wait! That’s a great Idea! Russian fighters being so cheep and all maybe LM should actually pay the Russians to give away Flankers to some selected governments around the globe.
Comments?
Regards,
Hammer
HammerSwerve, your reasoning only makes real sense in a stable economic scenario… While Russia is a major exporter of oil and gas, China and Japan on the other hand are oil importers, if the price for oil rises further the Russian surplus grows heavily and the other two contries anual surplus shrinks… so the time need to match the Foreign reserves will vary acording to the rise in oil prices… If oil goes beyond the US$100/barrel threshold the time should shrink dramaticaly against your assumptions, don’t you agree? 🙂
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Russia/Background.html check here for some interesting figures…
Regards,
Hammer
HammerMaybe this is some sort of transitional roundel. In the future a pure Euro blue with the lion in the center may develop…
Can any one imagine the other Euro countries migrating to this new design, blue field, gold stars and some national icon in the middle? Germany may use the black cross in the middle… 😉
Interesting!
Regards,
Hammer
HammerOk folks,
Mexico is part of North America, better it is part of Central America!
Thanks, Swerve, for showing my “political uncorrectness”! 😮 🙂So now I will ask my question again:
Would those Su-27s be the first in service on the whole american continent?
Yes they would. Flankers were originally offered to Brazil some 3 years ago to fill in the FX-BR bid for a multifunction fighter that could replace ageing Mirage IIIEBR. The FX bid was cancelled last year and used Mirage 2000 bought as an interim solution.
More recently Su-35/30s have replaced the MiG-29 as the preffered future fighter aircraft for the Venezuelan Air Force, to this moment no formal acquisition anouncement form Chavez on this one…
Regards
Hammer
P.S: If you wish to bunch Mexico with all other Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries to the south of the US you may opt to say Mexico will (probably) be the first Flanker operator in Latinamerica… 😉
HammerMy point was the American Public not the Goverment may take offense to Mexico Purchasing Hundreds of Millions if not Billions of Dollars in Russian Equipment. As long as the orders are small and stay out of the public eye. I don’t see it as a problem. Yet, larger orders could very well upset the American taxpayer………..This would be “very” bad for Mexico. 😮
OK, I’m really sorry for the American Taxpayer being annoyed… 😉 In reality the US taxpayer should have no say whatsoever in how a foreign country spends their taxpayers money…
What if the massive yearly US defense expenses do tick off some of it’s southern neighbor’s taxpayers?? Who knows maybe the Mexican Taxpayer believes he has every right to demand a 1st world Airforce with cutting edge aircraft in sufficient numbers to balance the northerly reighbors firepower…. Just because you have unlimided funds desn’t meen the rest of the world must be happy that you arm yourself beyond any reasonable limit…
If Mexico was a dependable “gun buddy” of the US there would be no problems in it rearming… Any mexican troops going into Iraq (or Iran)? The US is currently trying to convince Taiwan to spend many billion US$ in a massive amament package, maybe in the future China should do the same and offer (give away?) scores of J-10s to Mexico…
International geopolitics is pendular in essence, if things go one way then there’s a point they eventually will come back at you.
Regards
Hammer
HammerScooter,
First of all the Armada de Mexico has been using Russian built aircraft and helicopters for a great many years now, and apparently they are satisfied customers. So them buying a Russina figterplane is no great jump into the uknown…
I see two options.
a) the FAM is too wrapped up in its internal (funding) conflicts to be able to even propose the purchase of modern fighters, and for some reason dont have the political clout to block the AdM from buying the top notch fighters itself…
b) Maybe the FAM is a much more US aligned force with its genaral opting to buy anything the US is willing to sell them. But at the same time the uS administration has no reason to sell them anything more advanced then the current F-5s. Maybe they’re too afraid (in terms of post sale support) to buy anything that’s not american made…
c) maybe they didn’t opose the AdM Flanker deal thinking that this decision would prompt the USAF in a knee jerk reaction to sell them a larger number of surplos F-16s at a bargain basement price… Maybe some 30-40 airframes…
d)Maybe as suggested above the Mexican Government finds it too unconfortable due to the recent treatment given to Venezuela to trust the current Bush Admin tendencies for impromptu politically driven embargos to trust buy fighters from the US….
Many possible reasons…
Best Regards
Hammer
HammerAnd hope the thing is still on its landing gear if you have to evacuate……..
This thing will need UP and DOWN escape hatches… Maybe also exits through the leading edges or through constant height tunnels towards the rear…
Why do we necessarily assume that the BWB cabin will allow all-through unimpeded view from one lateral extreme to the other? Maybe the cabin will eventually just look/feel to the pax like three or four widebody cabins sitting side by side…
When a conventional airliner lands rough on the ground usually landing gears are ripped off, maybe even the wings, what about a BWB airliner? How would this thing crash, like a wakeboard? In the end is this design safer or more dangerous?? Will the engines pods be jetisonable? would the BWB glide if it ran out of fuel?
When compared to the A-380 would it have higher or lower weight pressure over the pavement/tarmac? how many wheels and bogeys must it have, how will it turn on the ground?
Many interesting issues!
Comments?
HammerHi Cessna, thanks for the tips. The info that this was the first F-15 op in South America was given to me by a USAF Pilot that was flying the F-15 displays… :|Maybe he got it wrong. Halcones were ocupying a full hangar at Fidae, I may have been misled. About the OA-37 it depends who call ita is the F-16 a Fighting Falcon or a Tweety Bird? But no problem I can always fix these minor points. 😉 I hope you liked the rest!
Regadrs,
Hammer
Hammerwill they sell this gripens for a simbolic price ? maybe 10 millions per unit? then, i think, our government would buy few.
Cheap to buy is a simple idea to digest, but who can guarantee cheap post sales support? Especially with a smaller and smaller fleet in operation…
The US aircraft manufacturers (Boeing & Lockheed) political lobbying units in Congress would never let the USAF or US Navy buy foreign fighters once again… What can the Gripen do that the current F-16s in inventory can’t? Nothing.
A localized Gripen C/D might do wonders for HAL in the place of the flagging LCA. Can anyone imagine the results of crossbreeding the Su-30MKI with an Indian developed Gripen?
Does anyone here really think that if France wasn’t able to resist Red Chinese pressure against further sales of M2000 to Taiwan that Sweden might? Hardly!
Forget this possibility! It isn’t going to happen! 😉
Comments?
HammerThe buying country has to be very “brave” (or nuts) to take in these older Gripens.
The Swedes are totally *******ed-up this time. Each older airframe given away by the Flyvapnet means at least in theory one less sale of a new Gripen by SAAB… In the end this a unavoydable downward spiral for the Gripen Industrial Program.
Follow me here:
Hardly any foreign sales >
Very low production rates to try to keep the line open>
Contracting numbers of Flygvapnet operational airframes>
Frozen production lines>
No long lead items procured from suppliers >
No consistent near-future versions in development >
Upward spiraling support costs in the future>
Dead industrial program…
To me, there seems to be no way out of this dire predicament unless some country like India (or even Iran or China) rides in on a great white stalion and shiny armour to buy the whole program wholesale ordering hundreds o new Gripens for manufacture at their local airframe manufacturer…
A real bail out, even this radical solution would certainly be a buyers market.. hardly any good pargaining power left for the Swedes..
Sign In
