The only reason the Gripen exists is because US granted technology on very favorable terms.

The Gripen exists because the Swedish government choosed to invest in it in the eighties, end of story. The main American components on the aircraft, the engine and the fly by wire system were chosen through competition, more specificaly the F404 faced a version of the Turbo Union RB199, and the GD fly by wire faced an offer from MBB.

The resulting plane had a large amount of US content so that transfer of technology was beneficial to US economically. Now Saab seems to have undertaken a program to deliberately reduce US content. The newest version with almost no US content does not serve US national interests as it competes with US manufactured planes and provides no real benefit to the US. If US has ability to block sales of this plane then it should do so simply out of its own self interest and an also a bit of spite for being used like it appears to have been in this case.

And just to add no I don’t think the shift in origins of part shown was based on competition. It appears to have been an entirely political act against US. To try and increase sales by courting the less pro american governments.

OH the Ebil Swedes! How dare they choose non American components for their fighter?!
No, it was not “a political act against US”, thats Sweden, not North Korea. The equipments were chosen through competition or there was a requirement from their main export customer, Brasil (see the Wide Area Display, by AKAER, or the Brasilian Data Link).
If somehow the US would block the sale of the F414 to Sweden, then GE and SAAB would be worse for it, Eurojet would be delighted.

Err.. its intended to be an F-16 replacement, first and foremost. Supporting aircraft in USAF service will consist of the F-22 (only 187 nos.), the F-15E Strike Eagle, the UCAS and the B-21. Unless the USAF expects to confine itself to a strike role, the F-35 will operate as a multi-role jet. As planned.

And two hundred F-15C/D’s who are being (very) expensively rebuilt.

Yeah, I could never understand some peoples’ obsession with resurrecting old projects. Nobody is about to dump billions of dollars into developing a new version of the F-16 just so Canada can order a few dozen of them.

Oh i can understand the interest in “what if´s”, its fun and in this particular case, the F-16XL, that thing was a beauty, and that pretty much sums it.
But in the Cannuck case, if we want to travell through “memory lane”, might has well propose a CF-105 with F-119´s and an APG-82, the chances of it happening are identical to the ones of a RCAF F-16XL.
But hell, a CF-105 with a pair of F119´s and an APG-82, that would be some sight, eh? :angel:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244809[/ATTACH]

Thanks 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.

The TOT conditions were negotiated between the Brasilian and the Swedish government and no, in the contract there’s no clause to send the blue prints of things like the engine to Sao Paulo. Just to have an idea if Boeing had won, the 36 airframes would have been entirely built in Saint Louis.
Volvo does not manufacture the F414 in Sweden, that engine is built in the States, it produced the RM12, a variant of the F404, that equips the Gripen A/B/C/D. Volvo proposed an upgraded RM12 to SAAB to equip the “E”, it lost to the F414 (costs). There are several bits and bobs in the Gripen that the Swedish government doesn’t have the IP rights, MIDS-LVT comes to mind (albeit for the Brasilian scenario that particular piece of hardware is entirely irrelevant ).

Indian MOD vs Dassault negotiations.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9V7zbWNznbs

Best quote on this entire topic, bar nil

Yebbut the F136 is a joint development with GE, & ADVENT is a RR North American project paid for by the USG, & I expect that anything developed with France will be wanted to be ITAR-free.

True, i would also expect that, but the basic concepts tested on something like ADVENT will be ITAR free.

I think someone, either the speaker or the author, is confused. These have previously been described as separate efforts and CUDA was described as having superior range to an AMRAAM. (something that would be totally unnecessary for a self defense missile)

To be honest i had the feeling that one of them had a bit too much Port, even the concept is strange, a self defense anti aam in a LO platform, what the…?!

Of course, no Rafale has CFT.

The Rafale would go a long way with CFTs, but the real value here is in freeing up hardpoints. A Rafale has 5 stations that can hold fuel or air to ground ordnance. If it flies with three tanks that leave two air to ground stations. (same as an F-16)

What adding CFT would do is enable a Rafale to go farther with 4x heavy weapons.

In general none of the numbers we are throwing out here are representative of how these aircraft would be flown in a real world scenario. Taking off, flying XXX NM at optimal cruise speed and altitude, dropping a couple bombs, and then flying straight home at optimum cruise speed and altitude only to land with minimum fuel reserves remaining… not such a hot plan for a combat mission.

That is why the F-35 mission profile is so widely misunderstood. People see that ~600NM number and think it is directly comparable to the marketing numbers we are using here but the F-35 profile isn’t at optimum altitude and includes an allowance of fuel for combat in the mission area. (which explains why pilots actually flying the F-35 credit it with substantially longer range than the F-16 despite the apparent inconsistency with their advertised capabilities)

The range KPP´s for the JSF were designed based on three flight scenarios, a US Navy one for the “C”, a US Marine Corps for the “B” and a USAF one for the “A”.
Of whats publicly available the USAF Flight Profile is composed of a 30K climb, then a 25K flight to the target, droping the weapons at 20K to 25 K and bugging out of there at the same altitude or in other words an entirely “HI-HI” flight profile (very similar to this http://i.imgur.com/Vqf2AwK.jpg, taken from LM presentation to Canada), not too far of what you describe has “at optimum cruise speed and altitude”. If anyone has better informations i would aprecciate, thanks in advance.
In 2006, LM released a ppt in wich compared severall parameters of the 4th generation fighters with the severall versions of the JSF, things like range, acceleration, etc, and guess wich aircraft had the biggest legs (by far and very wide), yes, the Rafale. The follow on LM PPT´s, the comparison was maintained but the rafale disapeared, fortunaly there are some chaps here and on F-16.net who remember.
I´ve tried to find a LM or USAF chart of the Viper getting a combat radii of something near 750 NM with the kind of ordnance that we´ve discussed above, never found anything remotely similar (the one that i´ve charted was the one with the longest legs), wich shouldnt be a surprise, quite simply the Rafale carries a bit more fuel both internaly and externaly for any given operational configuration while it weights virtualy the same has the latest Viper configurations, so its no surprise.

Cheers