maurobaggioI appreciate that English is not your first language but you make the effort to contribute on an English language forum. When you say that the United Kingdom is the boss of the Gripen E/F program, do you mean that the UK can control which countries can buy it? That is true because the UK can stop the UK parts in Gripen being supplied to a country that the UK sees as a ‘problem’. In the same way the USA can stop the US parts in Gripen being supplied to a country that the US sees as a ‘problem’. Don’t you think the US would stop a Gripen sale to Cuba or to North Korea by refusing to supply the engine for aircraft destined for either of those countries?
I never said that the UK has no been right to veto the sale of its own components, since this is the law and in reason of that its the right of the United Kingdom.
However I think it has been a disaster that Brazil that should be the rights to export the Gripen E / F to South America, and indeed had started this with Argentina, without any others options to exchange the components from UK to deal with Argentina.
Only SAAB could authorize the exchange of UK components because the same has been owner of the intellectual rights of the Gripen E / F, however it has not manifested itself so far.
In my wild guess the SAAB has been already prepared a list from alternative suppliers for each component that the same or Sweden will import for the Gripen E / F program, once the reason of that should be a matter of the national security for Sweden at least, and in second place a matter to protect the Gripen E/F program and the customers.
I think tht only item that it does not have alternative would the engines, once a fighter has been designed around its engines and it is very rare that a fighter has been keeping another engine as an option. But in such extreme circumstances like war I think that Sweden would be able to manufacture the whole engines itself, however this option will not be available to export the Gripen for others countries.
In the Argentine case the fact is that without the UK authorization the agreement with Argentina were swept under the carpet, even now with China has been working hard to penetrate in the market of South America.
Just in case of the China will conquer the market from Argentina , so we can say almost goodbye to the remains South American market for the Gripen E / F.
If anyone here does not believe in fairy tales, just in case should be better starting to try in this, once the production rate of the 03 Gripen E / F per year for five years in Brazil would be a remarkable fairy tale in my humble opinion without any others contracts.
Maybe the 24 Gripen will not seem much, but in the case of Brazil that could represent an increase of 160% in the production rate for the Gripen E / F in Brazil.
maurobaggioI just ignore maurobaggio. I tried engaging him in dialogue at first, but quickly learned that it is futile. Haters gonna hate after all.
“Resistance is futile.”
I can not remember where I heard this phrase, but I guess that was well known and perhaps the same should be appropriate for what you ha been feeling about me right now.
I don’t need to explain myself, but I have been considered an admirer of the Sweden technology, once there are plenty of innovations in this long history , perhaps the greatest in the aviation so far would be the AJ / SK / JA 37 Viggen.
The own JAS 39 Gripen has been a direct evolution from Viggen, and by the way has been introduced several innovations itself.
However I think that you and others should contribute more with their opinions than just spent time and space in this thread to attack personally others that you and others does not agree.
The fact I think that you do not care about all posts if the same has been favorable to the contracts of the Gripen with almost fantasies and none sense opinions, and even with improper implications.In may humble opinion because you have been show extremely biased view about the contracts of the Gripen E / F, in especial about the Brazil.
I suggest for you and others that has show its superiority complex and lack of respect for minorities, after all I am in the minority here, to review their concepts, once you and others has been encouraging this behavior.
The fact remains: The United Kingdom is the boss of the Gripen E/F program.
So far anyone has been contradicted my last assessment, only had attacked me personally for telling such truth.
maurobaggio@Maurobaggio
“I guess that losing a contract of US$ 3.6 billion could be very funny, after all the Chinese must be laughing a lot about this funny side.”There where never a contract. And the price would have been around 1.3b$ since Argentina arn’t a developer country. (look at my earlier post.)
Saab jumped in their chairs when the question came….
In fact there isn’t a contract on the sale of 24 Gripen E / F to Argentina because the simple fact that UK will not allow the sale to Argentina, so it makes no sense to negotiate a contract when there aren’t possibilities to make the sale.
Otherwise such contract there is an official document from Brazil and Argentina that were signed in public by the Defense Ministers from both countries about this subject , in this document the Argentina would be interested in to buy 24 Gripen E / F from Brazil.
Unfortunately Brazil has made this embarrassing issue with Gripen E/F because the Brazil had received from Sweden the authorization to export the Gripen E/F to South America, however the head of the Gripen E/F program is the UK and not the Sweden.
After all if the UK has not been the boss about the Gripen E/F, indeed there are none reason for the SAAB would have not proposed alternatives to replace the components from UK so far.
maurobaggioThe Swedish situation seems to be very strange. The government seems to expect SAAB to design and build fighter aircraft at the cost agreed between themselves and SAAB. SAAB seems to accept this strange way of handling procurement in contrast to how many other contractors in other countries prefer to operate – they do not feel bound to design and build fighter aircraft at the cost agreed with their government. I find it amusing that the Swedes should do things in such an unusual way when many governments are quite prepared to be taken for a ride by the contractors they choose to use.
One of the funny side effects of the disciplined approach adopted in Sweden is that costs are kept low. Claims of low costs may amuse some people but low costs are hardly surprising, really.
Indeed the Gripen E has not been demanded a lot of the development process due to:
In simple terms the Gripen E/F are the third Generation of the Gripen, the path of the Gripen E could be in several aspects the same that were adopted by the F/A 18E/F in the 90’s.
In reason of that the Gripen E has been developed in several aspects with of-the-shelf components or by suppliers that has been dominated its tecnological aspects of its components as the AESA radar by example.
This strategy from SAAB its quite clever once this has been significantly decreased the costs as well as risks or delays of the project.
However this option also has show a small handicap around of US$ 3.6 Billions , since the UK blocked the sale of the 24 Gripen E / F to Argentina by Brazil .
The Government of Sweden had earned the Government of the Brazil this last one would have the rights to export the Gripen E / F for South America countries, but it has appears that Government of Sweden could have a little control about it issue , once the SAAB has not proposed any alternatives for the components from UK.
I guess that losing a contract of US$ 3.6 billion could be very funny, after all the Chinese must be laughing a lot about this funny side.
maurobaggioThe Czech will be paying 177m$ for 30 years (14 airplanes á 12 years support incl upgrades = 994m$). The current drop in SEK/USD however changes this to about 155m$ per 30 years of service. But that is including upgrades worth several million $.
Gripen E is even cheaper due to the much cheaper engine and better composites (among many other things). So your “much more than 150m$” is just garbage.
I’ve become much more positive after read this post and others.
As far I could remember the Gripen E has been equipped with modified version of the engine from F/A 18 E/F Hornet, so if this is the Gripen E its so cheap because the engine, as it should be applied to the F / The 18E / F Hornet, then the F/A 18 E/F should be almost so cheaper as the Gripen E, because twice cheaper engines would not change a lot the cost.
So the explanation could be that modifications has made by Sweden in the US engines has become these much more advanced than the original US engines, despite the US has been leading the engines world market, the US engines has not been at the high level of Sweden, as well as Sweden perhaps should not allow the F/A 18 E/F could be equipped with these remarkable engines.
Perhaps the better explanation about the Gripen E would be so cheaper that could came from its new composite materials in this airframe, despite that the Gripen E although has been using 60% of its legacy parts from Gripen C/D.
Again despite the US has been leading the advances in the materials composed technology field, certainly the US has not able to get this remarkable technology from Gripen E, maybe the Sweden not allow the US to get the same technology because that could applied to the F/A 18 E/F .
The AESA radar from Gripen E should be so advanced as cheap , indeed this AESA radar should be cheaper than others AESA radars around the World, especially when compared with the AESA radar from the F/A 18 E / F, even though the US has been leading the AESA technology field just the beginning of this. So the US could not use this such advanced and light radar in the F/A 18 E/F , despite this AESA radar from Gripen E are from the UK.
But the best should be that the Gripen E could accomplish the F / A 18 E / F Hornet in almost parameters as: payload weapons, range, weapons capabilities and others.
But the Gripen E will do all this with almost half the weight and only a single engine from F/A 18 E/F. With at least with two strongest advantage in reason of this small size of the Gripen E , once that will provide a less radar signature than the F/A 18E/F, as well much better maneuverability than F/A 18 E/F.
That is all remarkable technological advances that has been supposedly reduced the cost of the Gripen E has been only applied at the same, whereas the other competitors such as the F / A 18E / F did not have access for those wonderful technologies.
The third generation of the Gripen has been reached a high level in advances that excels at all that has been obtained by third generation of the F/A 18.
It were a pity that the two previous generations of the Gripen had not achieved the same, after all the Gripen A/B/C/D were only a small fraction of the production of F/A 18 A/B/C/D at the world market.
I hope that my comments have pleased all those who only accept positive comments about Gripen E.
maurobaggio@maurobaggio
IF you bring Swedish or Brazil prices up you will be confused with prices, thats the whole point here. Brazil changed stuff that added prize…end of story. Look at the real prices that are given to non developer countrys instead.
Whatever you say or wish for, “normal” price for gripen e is still somewhere around 50-65m$ if a country that is not developer as in Sweden or Brasil…..and don’t show me Swiss figures thank you.
The full cost of Fighter should be more than its acquisition cost, once should be important to add all ohters costs across its useful life: training, maintenance, upgrades and others.
The contract of Switzerland should have been considered as a good standard, because it would have not only covered the acquisition from Gripen E, but all additional costs that could be planned for its useful life.
To illustrate the differences between the acquisition cost and the useful life cycle cost from a fighter , I guess that would be better to use the former Soviet Union as example, once the Soviet Union had been offered its MiGs at much lower prices that all Western competitors at several countries around the World, in especial for newer independent countries.
According to this myth many of this newer MiGs buyers had discovered something strange while attempted to buy new engines from MiGs. Once the according to the myth they had discovered that the cost from new engine were almost the same price as a new MiG.
Thus many of those new users from MiG rather than put orders to purchase new engines, they had made new orders for new MiGs.
For a mysterious reason,indeed the myth were created because the Soviet Union never explained this, the Soviet Union had been refused to sell new MiG for those customers while those countries would not buy the spare parts from Soviet Union as the new engines.
For those customers would make more sense to buy new MiGs than new expensive engines from ‘older’ MiGs.
The acquisition cost could be important, but for fighter the full cost could be composed from many variables.
If you want to illustrate this we could imagine for example a contract for news Gripen E for free, without anyone payments for its acquisition . Instead to pay for the acquisition for a new Gripen E, this could be replaced by simple maintenance contract for let says 30 years.
This could appears impossible, but depending of those conditions on this imaginary maintenance contract
at the end of 30 years you could have paid much more than US$ 150 million per each Gripen E.
In the case of Sweden this country has been estimating the full cost of each Gripen E around US$ 225 million for such useful life of 30 years.
Oh! I’m so sorry about this! You asked not to mention about Switzerland contract, but unfortunately this is part of the Gripen E package.
maurobaggioExisting industrial base in Brazil and Switzerland may have had something to do with that. Another factor would be different wage levels in Brazil and Switzerland.
Until somebody spells out and compares the precise conditions of the proposed Swiss deal and the Brazilian deal, it’s all guesswork.
The industrial base of each country will not explain this, because the Switzerland would have not been demanded to assemble the Gripen E, besides there are more others demands from Brazil that were not part of the package had been offered to Switzerland:
For all these the Brazil had secured such US$ 125 million price for each Gripen E/F until 2014, while Switzerland got a price of US$ 146 million for only Gripen E with a standard contract until 2014 without those specific requirements from Brazil.
If there are some mysteries that would not being found out in the contract of the Switzerland, after all there are nothing unusual about this, otherwise in the Brazil the Contract there are so many exotic features that has not been easily found out in others contracts around the World.
maurobaggio2nd attempt….
Sweden and Brazil is getting prices that are 50m$ so-so cheaper deals.
Recently Saab told SVD(look below) as i told you that that the Prices for the “planes only” in the brasil deal is 25-30% of the cost of the deal. The deal we all know is 125m$
per plane if you count the deal(4.5b$) devided to amount of planes(36).
25-30% will end up in (31-38m$ per plane without the development cost and new system buyer cost).Sweden pays(33m$) for the Gripen E(without the development cost).(i know my
figures in the post back was a bit high …corrected)
Do not worry about how many attempts you could try before, this has none importance here. The most important should be to keep the desire to try because here the discussion has been endless.
I could suggest that you should be a little more critical about the numbers of Gripen E, after all there are a lot of fantasy on those number, in especial about the Brazil contract.
The value of US$ 4.5 billion for 36 fighters from Brazil had been only keep until the day that contract were signed with Brazil in 2014, since after the contract was signed the value has been increased to US$ 5.4 Billions so far.
The strangest part about those values from Brazil and Switzeland should be that while the referendum had been occurring in Switzerland in 2014 the Gripen E had a higher price in Switzerland than in Brazil ,once in Switzerland the unitary cost of the Gripen E were US$ 146 million for each Gripen E, while in Brazil at the same time the unit cost of the Gripen E / F were US$ 125 million.
I guess that clever people of Switzerland has found out this inconsistency in those numbers and therefore has been canceled the acquisition of Gripen E.
Below it is a post that I had put some different sources of information about Switzerland, I could suggest for you do not limit to this, after all there are many other posts in the past about the subject.
Thanks for the informations.
The source of information that I used on the contract of Switzerland after a survey were basically two:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/switzerland-replacing-its-f-5s-04624/
As I am a very poor old man, in reason of that I haven’t been used to deal with the Swiss franc (CHF).
However I guess I’m not the only one since there are several variations due to value of the Swiss franc currency, in the case of Bloomberg source it had reported the contract with a value of US$ 3.5 billion( CHF 3,126 billion) on 19 May 2014.
According to 1st source:
Aug 28/12: Contract terms. The Swiss government reveals the details of their Gripen deal. Their 22 planes will all be single-seat JAS-39Es, delivered from 2018-2021 at a firm-fixed-price cost of CHF 3.126 billion (currently $3.27 billion). That total is guaranteed by the Swedish government, and includes mission planning systems, initial spares and support, training, and certification.
April 12/12: Postponed. Swiss Defence Minister Ueli Maurer says that they will postpone their order of 22 JAS-39E/F Gripen jets, so they can co-ordinate its purchase with Sweden. The minister promises that the bill will remain below SFR 3.126 billion/ $3.43 billion.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/switzerland-replacing-its-f-5s-04624/
With the price of the Swiss Franc today, according to:
http://www.x-rates.com/calculator/?from=CHF&to=USD&amount=3126000000The value of the contract Switzerland today would be US $ 3.233 billion.
However in the case of Brazil the contract were US$ 4.5 billions, it is possible to observe in Bloomberg source, however at contract was signing the value has been corrected to $ 5.4 billion since the same would be outdated at the 2009.
In fact I do not know if the value of the contract Brazil $ 5.4 billion has been already included the cost of from funding this.
On the total value of the Switzerland contract that was voted in Switzerland: US $ 3.233 billion
1.Comparative Table Brazil / Switzerland
width: 500 class: grid align: center [tr] [td][/td] [td]Type[/td] [td]Number of Gripen NG[/td] [td]Amount of Contract (Billions)[/td] [td]Unit Cost (millions)[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Brazil[/td] [td]Gripen E/F[/td] [td]36[/td] [td]Us$ 5.4[/td] [td]US$ 150[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Switzerland[/td] [td]Gripen E[/td] [td]22[/td] [td]US$ 3.233 [/td] [td]US$ 147[/td] [/tr] By the same unit cost from Switzerland the Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:
- a new production line that will be installed in Brazil
- development of the new Gripen F in Brazil
- financial resources to keep the production line in Brazil with rate of the 3 aircraft’s per year for five years
With the second value of Switzerland contract has been provided by Eremit t would be:US$ 2,578 billions
2.Comparative Table Brazil / Switzerland
width: 500 class: grid align: center [tr] [td][/td] [td]Type[/td] [td]Number of Gripen NG[/td] [td]Amount of Contract (Billions)[/td] [td]Unit Cost (millions)[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Brazil[/td] [td]Gripen E/F[/td] [td]36[/td] [td]Us$ 5.4[/td] [td]US$ 150[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Switzerland[/td] [td]Gripen E[/td] [td]22[/td] [td]US$ 2.578[/td] [td]US$ 117[/td] [/tr] By the increased of the 28% about the Switzerland cost per unit, the Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:
- a new production line that will be installed in Brazil
- development of the new Gripen F in Brazil
- financial resources to keep the production line in Brazil with rate of the 3 aircraft’s per year for five years
In my humble opinion I think the US$ 3.233 billions value of Switzerland does not have any special requirements that also could not be applied to Brazil, since both countries has been using the F 5E / F.
Even when has been considering the value of US$ 2.578 billions for Switzerland contract, with an increase in value of 28% in each unit of the Gripen E / F to Brazil over Switzerland, in my humble opinion I think should be little likely to accomplish all that it has been planned for Brazil with contract of the US 5.4 billions.
Note: My humble opinions is not better than others, but I have been using the available information to try to understand the situation of the Gripen E / F in Brazil.
I’m not a supporter of this saying: wait and see.
After all, who expects only the best could be caught by the events.
My humble opinions may eventually proves to be all wrong, which would be better for Brazil and Sweden as the Gripen E / F.
In reason of that I think it should be better to be a disappointed pessimist than an optimist highly frustrated.
maurobaggioA load of nonsense again, I see.
If you haven’t grasped the meaning of needing export licences for such things as military radars, your opinion is worthless. If you do understand it, you’re trolling. I tend to the latter interpretation.
Sweden can sell whatever Swedish-made, Swedish-developed products it wants. But if a Swedish product includes a restricted export item made in & imported from another country, Sweden needs permission from that country to re-export it. If not having that foreign item makes the Swedish product useless, then obviously it will only be exported with that foreign item (because nobody would buy it without the foreign item), & hence when an export licence is granted by the country from which the non-Swedish item comes. Whether an export licence is granted depends on who it’s to be exported to.
This is obvious. It’s standard across the arms industry, all around the world.
There is nothing strange about Tonnyc’s post. It makes perfect sense. It has nothing to do with Gripen only being sellable to ‘UK customers . . . not SAAB customers’ or other bizarre delusions, or any dishonest statements about fake humility.
The UK has been the right to refusal the sale the components for the Gripen E / F to Argentina, this is a fact and anyone could deny this right of the UK.
However are very common to replace suppliers and this should be the right of the customers too, especially those suppliers that could change the conditions after the signing of the contract, until the signing of the contract with Brazil it were very common to mention in the press that Argentina could be the first customer of the Brazil with Gripen E / F.
By the time of signing the contract with Brazil the UK had been remained in silence about the Argentina, despite all the statements and comments that Argentina could be the first customer of the Brazil with Gripen E/F.
As far I Know the United Kingdom has been maintains diplomatic and commercial relations with Argentina, and both countries has not come into conflict in the last 32 years, beyond that the UK will not use the Gripen E / F.
There weren’t lack of time or opportunities for the UK to speak about this issue with Argentina, and then to avoid the most embarrassing scene that I’ve seen until today about a country signing a document in official event with other and then has back off on the subject.
That embarrassing scene should be more than plausible reason to cancel the own contract with the Gripen E / F,after all it was Sweden who chose the UK as a supplier and has been keeping the same without give any other alternatives to overcome with this problem.
As you know so well about this issue , then you should be definitely the Minister of Defense of Brazil or then to take an executive position from SAAB or Embraer, because all those has been shown incompatibility with the functions according for your analysis in last post.
Anyway if you have been interested on those positions I will give to you a letter of recommendation , since about it you will have my humble support, once you had been avoided this humiliating scene of the Brazil back off of this illusions rights.
As the Brazil is a democracy, I guess that President of Brazil should have been hardly criticized by the press because this embarrassing event with Argentina, and more about the change of the conditions of the contract with Gripen E/F after the same was signing in reason the UK has been in control of the right exports of the Gripen E/F.
About as far I know there were many that had been complained about the fact only after the contract was signed it has been increased in US$ 900 million. But this value should charity when get close of the value that Brazil has been losing US$ 3.6 billion in contract with Argentina because the second chain suppliers from UK has been refusal the sale of the simple components without any remarkable new reasons.
The Brazil had been received the proposal of the 36 Gripen E / F for US$ 4.5 billion, but if we could add the increased costs and the loss of contracts because the political issues so far that would be something like this:
4.5 + 0.9 + 3.6 = US $ 9.0 Billions
Because of this the Rafale F3 has become cheap, and the F / A 18 E / F it seems that has been donated by the US.
maurobaggioThe whole project is foolish because they only ask $300m from India. This kind of project run by Boeing/Airbus will not come less than $30b in R&D. with over $100m unit cost. KC-390 is joke with 20% less thrust engines and is outdated before even entering service and that assuming Brazil can solove its currency crises for imported parts.
There is a fact that has been rarely mentioned about the KC 390 that if Brazil had been made its option by the Rafale F3, the France could acquire the KC 390 to complement the A 400M.
However a detail most rarely mentioned should be that Dassault has been keeping a lot of stocks from Embraer , indeed the Dassault among others French companies could have been in fact the owners of the Embraer.
I would not be shocked if Dassault could have not been using the KC 390 Project as an incentive to close the deal with India about the Rafale F3.
In this case India could start its own Transport Aircraft Project while the Dassault would have providing consulting to decrease the time and cost of this new project. In this case the Dassault will not lose anything, since it is the Government of Brazil that has been funding the KC 390 project.
I guess that could be better from Dassault to annihilate the partnership between Russia and India and even the MTA project itself, which in fact the MTA will be a competitor with the KC 390, and then to incentive a new project from India.
Indeed from Dassault this would be a competitor with KC 390 either, but maybe it will take more time to reach the market than the MTA, as well as this supposed new project could use western components, as well as French components.
maurobaggioAbout as good as their chance with Brazil. Brazil also needs fighters before 2020.
Saab usually offers a ten years lease for countries that needs aircrafts right away. It should be possible to negotiate a shorter term lease depending on a country’s particular needs.
It is quite strange this statement, after the UK’s has been refusal to authorize the sale of the Gripen E / F to Argentina, and so far I have not seen anyone suggest that SAAB could provide Gripen A / B / C / D to Argentina either.
So I guess the UK has also been exercising its power under the Gripen A / B / C / D, as well as about the new Gripen E / F.
Even much more stranger should be the fact that Brazil will fund the development of the Gripen F, and yet the UK has been in the power to authorize the sale of the fighter.
So in any way in my humble opinion only the UK customers could receive all versions of the Gripen, and not the SAAB customers.
I’m curious about one fact: Still there AJ / JA 37 Viggen stored or all were scrapped?
maurobaggioEntering into negotiations to buy something does NOT mean you have decided to buy it.
Look at UAE and Rafale. It seems that UAE would like to buy Rafale but when they talked to the supplier they then decided not to do a deal to buy Rafale. They then talked to Eurofighter then decided not to do a deal to buy Typhoon.
The case of Brazil could be almost the same of India about the MMRCA program, once India has been made the choice of the Rafale F3 in 2012 but so far has not signed the contract, and because of this both countries has been dealing the contract until now.
The President of Brazil in 2009 had announced the victory of the Rafale F3 in an official ceremony with the President of France when he was on an official visit to Brazil.
The difference between the case of Brazil and India should be that after this announcement the Brazil did not confirm the same. The reason of the this were that: the President of Brazil in 2009 announced the decision before the Brazil Air Force had finished the report about all competitors: Rafale F3, F/A 18 E/F and Gripen E/F.
Indeed the President of Brazil has been responsible in making the choice, but the lack of this report to endorse this decision had caused a diplomatic embarrassment with the others competitors.
In reason of this alleged diplomatic embarrassment, the decision were delayed until 2010 when the report from Brazil Air Force could be analyzed by the President, and then the President would present his decision.
This supposed diplomatic embarrassment could have been a strategy only to buy time, until France had supported the signing of the nuclear deal with Iran that were proposed by Brazil and Turkey. In 2009 France had signed important contracts with Brazil to supply: 04 Submarines Scorpene, 01 Nuclear Submarine and 50 helicopters EC725 Super Cougar.
As France did not support Brazil and Turkey in the nuclear deal with Iran, the Brazil halted the deal with Rafale F3 in 2010, as well it had not been opting in 2010 for the others competitors: F/A 18 E/F and Gripen E / F .
I suggest for anyone that could be interested on this subject to search on Google or Yahoo about the Mr. Nelson Jobim( former Minister of Defense of Brazil ) and filter this with Rafale F3, after all until the collapse of the nuclear deal with Iran in 2010 the former Minister of Defense of Brazil had been confirmed several times that would be the Rafale F3 the new fighter of the Brazil.
As my proficiency in Portuguese is almost zero, I suggest that anyone who has found out any doubt in translation to ask at Sptifire9 , once I guess he has a good knowledge of the Portuguese language.
Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
One link herehttp://www.defesaaereanaval.com.br/?p=34140
more detailed here
http://www.defesanet.com.br/rafale/n…a-de-Rafales-/
Thanks. From what I read it appears that Dassault are trying to work out the details of a finalised Rafale deal. I wonder what position SAAB is in. Whatever, what prospect is there of Brazil finding the funds to buy anything in the near future?
maurobaggioI have to disagree, the US wouldn’t mind and the UK wouldn’t care about second-hand F-16 being supplied to Argentina. As long as those second-hand F-16s didn’t come equipped with state-of-the-art sensors and weaponry for BVR combat and anti-shipping.
Gripen, on the other hand, would come with a lot of electronic warfare systems, BVR weapons, and sensors not produced by the US and the UK. This would make it more difficult for those two countries to impose restrictions on the Argentine Gripens capabilities. It would also make it more easy for Argentina to get upgrades from Brazil and South Africa to circumvent any imposed restrictions while with the F-16 it would be more difficult without the source codes.
Of course that this is only a small part of the whole problem.
Best regards,
I think that was very good your comment above, indeed I have agree with all.
In reason of that I guess the biggest problem in the US allow a possible delivery of the second hand F 16 to Argentina, even this could be some stored F 16 A /B without BVR capability, should be restrain Israel to get access at the F 16.
Israel could know all source codes from all versions of the F 16 that the US could be delivered to Argentina, as far I know Israel has been working with US even to write some of those source codes , so if the US would not allow to give access for the of the F 16, I guess the Israel could accomplish this without even asking at the US.
In the past Israel had been presented such deeply modernized prototype from F 16A / B, and designated the same as F 16 ACES as far I could remember.
Actually Israel has been show an impressive number of highly advanced equipments and weapons that are fully compatible with F 16A / B / C / D / I.
If only has been depended about what Israel could provide in technology capabilities, even a deeply improved F 16A / B by Israel companies could become almost so deadly as the Gripen E / F in several aspects.
As the Argentina has been keeping good relations with Israel, in fact I think that any second hand fighter that could be acquired by Argentina ,regardless of it origin, Israel would have ready several modernization proposals even before the Argentina had been received the proposal for the fighter in first place.
maurobaggioJust as I last commented, this is not the last thing on the issue, not by a long shot:
A few hour ago
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/13/us-argentina-prosecutor-idUSKBN0LH20020150213The FAA has and will continue to reject unfavorable deals. It would rather die than compromise, just as it is now. ¿Most likely scenario? By this time next year Sergio Massa or Mauricio Macri will be president, and will work for secondhand F-16s via FMS.
In the US has a very common saying: there is no free lunch.
Maybe this second hand F 16 from FMS could be a good solution for Argentina, however the US would not allow this without a counterpart from Argentina due to the problem with the Falklands.
In fact I had thought that Argentina would not actually purchase the Gripen E / F for financial reasons, and in the end the United Kingdom would keep far away this issue.
On the contrary UK has been taken into the offensive, and despite that could easily denial the unlikely sale of Gripen E / F from Brazil to Argentina without any reaction from Brazil.
I think there are little chance that the US will allow the supply even second hand F 16 without first the Argentina would make a strong commitment to accept the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Falklands.
The change of government is always healthy for democracy, and with the change can always bring new winds, however if the wind continues to blow from the direction of the Falklands everything can remains stuck with US.
maurobaggiogreat news, Sweden wants a more aggressive Nordic Defense!
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/02/10/sweden-nordic-cooperation-russia-nordefco-cooperation-nbg–sreide-battlegroup/22865811/hopefully this will lead to more development of Saab aircraft
In fact this is good news for Gripen E/F, once I guess that UK will not denial the sale of Gripen E/F for those countries.
Sign In
