No.
The main contractor is SAAB who sub contracts Embraer, AKAER, etc.
The Switzerland deal has nothing to do with it, we dont know the kind of suport that the Schweizer Luftwaffe asked, and for how long. And yes, the Gripen Brasilian contract was described in detail by the Brasilian MOD at the time, and yes, i am a Portuguese speaking native.

Whatever support the Swiss asked for cannot have been more than what would go into a local production line along with a very generous financing arrangement. For that matter, we don’t know that the support terms offered by Boeing were identical or even similar to the (much more complicated) deal hashed out with the Swedes.

Also keep in mind that the DSCA’s FMS release quotes the maximum possible value of the contract. The actual figure may be significantly lower.

No, in this particular case we have hard data, we have the official numbers for Brasil Gripen acquisition and we have the FMS letter describing Boeing offer in that same competition, its not even close, the Swedish offer was vastly cheaper.

We don’t though. At best we know what the Brazilian state is paying Saab, with the (unknown) balance going to Embraer. That’s the only way to explain an off-the-shelf order from Switzerland costing as much as (or more than) a local assembly/production deal with Brazil.

Both clips above have shown the max or nearly max take off weight of Mig-29K/KUB.

Density of aviation fuel is about 0.78 kg/L IIRC. Your nos. seem a little off.

Fighter aircraft sales have everything to do with politics. They are a declaration of commitment, in a sense. You want to buy from a country you have good relations with, and from which you can expect help (one of major problems for Gripen in terms of sales is its US-made engine). It is politicians who decide on which fighter will be bought, not military.

Problem with this thesis is that every case, the military has been firmly in favour of a F-16 buy & now an F-35 buy. And both aircraft not only outsold their European rivals but also their domestic rivals – F-18/SH/F-15E, which were presumably backed by a similar level of political support.

In Switzerland, Rafale was preferred choice by the military, yet Switzerland opted for Gripen (and might have decided not to buy a fighter at all in the end, if memory serves me). Why? Gripen is cheaper, it is good enough for Switzerland, and it is made by a neutral nation.

The Gripen was selected because it was cheaper. Neutral nation didn’t come into it. The Swiss had no qualms about ordering the F-5s & F-18s.

In India, Typhoon and Rafale passed technical evaluation, and Rafale was selected in the end. Why was Rafale selected? Ease of dealing with one nation instead of four, lower price, better ToT terms, greater reliability of supply (again, one nation).

The Rafale was selected because it was cheaper. No of nations or ToT did not come into it. It was declared L1 under the bidding process and that was it (though subsequent revelations revealed the process to be extremely flawed).

You yourself noted that F-16 massively outsold Mirage despite not being a superior aircraft. Part of the reason was price, but just as if not more important was the “Made in the US” stamp that came with the F-16.

The primary reason was the price. Political leverage isn’t necessary where the product is technically comparable on one hand, and considerably cheaper on the other. That being said, political factors (being a non-US type) did assist with substantial Mirage exports (Greece, India, Taiwan).

Second reason is experience. You will notice that almost all F-35 buyers and possible buyers are – current or former – F-16 operators. Only exceptions are the UK (which operated Harrier, and F-35B is a Harrier replacement), Canada (F-18 has same relation with F-35C as Harrier with F-35B) and Japan (Mitsubishi F-2 is modified F-16).

UK, Canada, Japan, Australia. Italy too (it only leased F-16s for five years). Possible buyers include Finland & Spain. Also given the number of F-16 operators in the world, there’s nothing unusual about an overlap with the F-35, which too is being widely adopted.

Take note of the overlap:

Dassault Mirage III operators
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Dassault_Mirage_III_Variants_Operators.png

Dassault Rafale operators and contracts
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Rafale_Operators.png

What overlap? Of the Mirage III operators, none of them went on to buy Rafales. You’d have a better argument drawing a transition between the Mirage 2000 & Rafale (Qatar, Egypt, India). Of whom only India is notable, most Middle Eastern sales ought to be disregarded on issues of merit.

Again, nothing to do with either F-35’s or Rafale’s qualities – but everything to do with F-16s and Mirage’s qualities. Basically, F-35s sales are flying on F-16s wings, and Rafale’s sales are flying on Mirage’s wings. Except both F-35 and Rafale are far more expensive than F-16 or Mirage, so some countries are opting for cheaper alternatives (e.g. Brazil operated Mirage III, and opted for Gripen as a cheaper alternative to Rafale), and politics and diplomatic relations play a role as well.

There was a very obvious answer to the choice between the Mirage 2000 & F-16, putting the politics apart. There’s an equally obvious answer to a choice between the F-35 & Rafale/EF/F-15E, though a fair case may be made for the Gripen/FA-50 in smaller markets.

Yes indeed, the plan to induct 120 Tejas Mk1 and Mk1As was known, this is the actual contract signature related news. Now that the contract will be signed, HAL will get busy in scaling up the assembly line to 16 per year. And once that investment is made, IMO, there is all the more reason to have the Mk2 after the 120 are delivered. Since HAL is not participating in the other assembly line, they will be motivated to push for the Mk2 for the IAF.

Assuming a production rate of 16/yr, the deliveries of the Mk1A will continue to 2026. By that time, much of the F-16/Gripen E will already have long been in service, already indigenised and delivering Mk2+ capability. At the same time, HAL will probably have begun FGFA assembly/production. I doubt there’ll be a lot of IAF or MoD support for the Mk2 program (though the IN is on board). Add in the ADA-HAL rivalry and its prospects look rather bleak. More likely that they’ll order another 48-60 Mk1As and wrap it up.

I take it with a pinch of salt, but indeed interesting development. India would order 83 Tejas MkIa as a stop gap option awaiting for MkII

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/manhohar-parrikar-dac-army-aircraft-helicopters-drones/1/803569.html

Why pinch of salt? That plan’s been well known for a while now.

120 Tejas – 40 Mk1s + 80 Mk1As.

Unless you referring to the Mk2 ambitions, in which case yeah… that program is all but dead if an F-16 or Gripen line is set up.

While the Eurofighter had a far higher upfront cost (development & infrastructure) than the Rafale and probably even the Gripen (A/B + C/D + E), the individual contributions of the consortium members (esp. Germany & UK) was substantially lower.

The same share as was German-owned (much of it by what was effectively a proxy for the state). Why do you think that France could dominate decision making on sales with a minority stake which was balanced by a German stake?

Why would the Germans have any opposition to French state’s wishes viz. the administration of Dassault?

France, Sweden & some other countries have agencies which should be able to administer FMS-type deals. If you want FMS terms, just copy them, & present them as the terms under which you insist on doing business. They’d probably be quite keen to agree. But don’t forget that those terms allow the supplier country to whack on large charges for such things as country risk, as well as an administration fee. Those terms have caused FMS offers to be rejected by some countries as excessively expensive.

The administrative fee charged by the US DoD is fixed at 3.5%. Being able to offer an FMS-type deal does not mean you can offer an FMS-type process. The DSCA is NOT managing FMS program on an ad hoc basis which is the basic difference with the supposed ‘fixed price’ offers made by the Europeans.

The FMS program is a formal institution under the US law, regulated under the Arms Export Control Act, 1976.

U.S. Code
› Title 22 – Foreign Relations And Intercourse
› Chapter 39 – Arms Export Control
› Subchapter II – Foreign Military Sales Authorizations
› § 2762 – Procurement For Cash Sales

(d) COMPETITIVE PRICING

(1) Procurement contracts made in implementation of sales under this section for defense articles and defense services wholly paid for from funds made available on a nonrepayable basis shall be priced on the same costing basis with regard to profit, overhead, independent research and development, bid and proposal, and other costing elements, as is applicable to procurements of like items purchased by the Department of Defense for its own use.

(2) Direct costs associated with meeting additional or unique requirements of the purchaser shall be allowable under contracts described in paragraph (1). Loadings applicable to such direct costs shall be permitted at the same rates applicable to procurement of like items purchased by the Department of Defense for its own use.

^
When UK, France or Sweden pass a similar law providing a legal & regulatory framework for an FMS-type program, we can accept notional equivalence.

But until that day comes, they DO NOT have an FMS program.

That’s always an option if the price is too high, BTW. Just say no, & wait for a better offer. And insist on full disclosure. They’ll comply, because they want the business. What they’re unlikely to accept are terms that make them liable for things which are outside their control, such as the performance of HAL.

Which means the price was negotiable to start off with i.e not the fixed price/best price available.

BTW, plenty of other countries have no difficulty signing contracts (which are then performed satisfactorily) with countries which India struggles to make deals with. Ask yourself, what’s the common factor? Don’t you think that should be the focus of attention?

Plenty of Indian (non-govt) commercial deals for European, Russian, Israeli and US equipment have gone off without a hitch as well. And in plenty more cases, not just limited to India, those ‘smooth deals’ signed by the Europeans have involved a great deal of unseen palm-greasing followed by overcharging.

What should be the focus of attention? Everything. Bureaucracy, yes. Red tape, yes. But also corruption. Also kick backs. Also pricing. None of the factors are any less important.

So far as the issue is hand is concerned, the US FMS program will continue to have an advantage over any similar European effort since the price discovery takes place through a transparent (as long as the DoD is also inducting the product) and streamlined process.

Obviously doesn’t apply to licensed production/local assembly deals, although even there, there is probably a greater comfort level in working with a US company operating under the auspices of the FCPA (though perhaps the new UK Bribery Act might have similar outcomes).