maurobaggioer, just to precise a small, but significant detail:
in the french case, the Rafale was to be a “does it all” (intercept, air superiority, strike in all its forms (CAS, deep penetration, nuclear attack…), recce, ELINT… from land or carrier) fighter from the early 1980’s, long before the fall of the eastern bloc… that choice has been made in order to lower costs without any reduction (rather an increase) in capabilities in mind, as the cold war was pretty much a reality by that time
The end of the Cold War had drastically reduced the defense budget from most of the world’s countries, however in the case of the Rafale or Typhoon these were more complex and expensive than its predecessors.
Just to remember the JAS 39 Gripen had been designed to be the successor from the AJ / SH / JA 37 Viggen, and about several goals that were established for the JAS 39 Gripen it should have an acquisition and operation cost 50% lower than the AJ / SH / JA 37 , though the JAS 39 the performance in certain parameters were sacrificed as in max range and weapons load than the AJ/SH/JA 37 to achieve those costs.
Even before the end of the Cold War, the Sweden had been already reducing its military budget, and JAS 39A Gripen as did its first flew in 1989 would be proof of this.
In resume the Sweden had been built something like 329 AJ / SH / JA 37 Viggen, which should have been replaced by the JAS 39 Gripen. Even the JAS 39A/B/C/D Gripen has been less weight and less expensive than the Viggen, the Gripen has not replaced the Viggen even close as ratio 1: 1, since the production of JAS 39 GripenA/B/C/D to Sweden had been reached something like 214 aircraft.
Then in recent times the Sweden had begun to retire from active its JAS 39A / B Gripen, and from 2008 has been held only 100 Gripen C / D, and made those cuts in reason of the operating cost to keep the Gripen.
Now the Sweden has plans to replace all remain 100 Gripen C / D for 60 Gripen E from 2018.
[QUOTE]
| width: 600 | class: grid | align: center |
|---|---|---|
| [tr] | ||
| [td]Type[/td] | ||
| [td]Year[/td] | ||
| [td]Max Weight ( Kg)[/td] | ||
| [td]Weapons Load (Kg)[/td] | ||
| [td]Range (Km)[/td] | ||
| [td]Unit Built[/td] | ||
| [/tr] | ||
| [tr] | ||
| [td]AJ/SH/JA 37 Viggen[/td] | ||
| [td]1990[/td] | ||
| [td]20.000[/td] | ||
| [td]7.000[/td] | ||
| [td]2.000[/td] | ||
| [td]329[/td] | ||
| [/tr] | ||
| [tr] | ||
| [td]JAS 39 Gripen A/B/C/D[/td] | ||
| [td]2004[/td] | ||
| [td]14.000[/td] | ||
| [td]4.500[/td] | ||
| [td]1.600 [/td] | ||
| [td]214[/td] | ||
| [/tr] | ||
| [tr] | ||
| [td]JAS 39 Gripen E[/td] | ||
| [td]2024[/td] | ||
| [td]16.800[/td] | ||
| [td]5.000[/td] | ||
| [td]2.500 [/td] | ||
| [td]60[/td] | ||
| [/tr] |
[/QUOTE]
The numbers in strength and capabilities from Royal Swedish Air Force over the years has been decreased with ratio more intense than others Air Force, and despite several allegations that the Gripen has been one of the cheapest aircraft to operate around the world, but those dramatic cuts in numbers has been such incontestable evidence that in fact there are not such thing as cheap advanced fighters to operate in any Air Force around the world, in the final analysis, or there are budget for it, or then the fighters will inevitably disappear from inventory,and without budget even UCAV will not be an alternative.
maurobaggioWe get that you don’t like this deal….
When you had used in this sentence‘ We’ that could mean that you would be talking for more a person than yourself, so in that case would be recommended that you mentioned by who you was talking, because I guarantee that you have not been talking about my opinions.
Besides than it you had ended the sentence with three points( …) , some people could even imagine that this is some kind of intimidation; I know this was not your intention, in fact I did not find it a intimidation , but in certain cases as a tip I guess this would be nice to avoid such silly things.
If your dislike of the Gripen deal is not about money, which aircraft in your opinion is technically better for the FAB (even though it will cost more to buy and to operate, for example, the twin-engine Rafale or the twin-engine Super Hornet)?
Its a possibility that F 35 could be chosen by Brazil as almost that had happened with F/A 18 E/F Hornet , indeed the F 35 had not competed, since the most important issue in this competitions was about to transfer 100% ToT, and I guess the US were not allowed this.
So the candidate from USA were the F/A 18E/F Hornet that also had been named as winner before the NAS scandal, as well as before the Gripen NG there were all those others selected:
The Rafale F3 were eliminated in 2010 by the lack of support from France about nuclear deal with Iran, the F/A 18 E/F Hornet were eliminated in 2013 by the scandal of the NSA, and the Su 35E Flanker not reached the short list in 2009, that short list was composed of: Rafale F3, F/A 18E/F Hornet and the Gripen NG.
However due to all those political problems with Brazil, I also think that after so many years of uncertainty, the Brazil should have upgraded the short list , once at least could be a hypothesis that after the NSA scandal the US could compensate the Brazil and offer the F 35 to Brazil.
This is assuming FAB are not considering replacing the old aircraft with the F-35 with a first day offensive capability because one could argue the F-35 might be a slight overkill for Brazilian current and future requirements within South America.
However if you think had been reflecting in some way even slightly a supposed position from Government of Brazil about the F 35, I guess in this case that the Brazil would not choose the F 35 even if the same had cost and could have the same ToT from Gripen NG, after all the Brazil would not acquire a weapon of mass destruction as a nuclear warhead that I’m understand so far about yours words from F 35.
Please do not take too long to answer these my posts, since this is the second, once after I read your post I have no longer ‘sleep tight’ as you wished for me before.
maurobaggioIf you believe Brazil does need modern fast jets, do you believe any deal for replacement aircraft should include the capability to manufacture aircraft in Brazil to help build up an indigenous fast jet industry in Brazil and be able to export these aircraft as well? If there is to be Brazilian fast jet manufacturing should this include naval variants or not? Are the offshore areas and oil/gas fields adequately patrolled and defended by navy ships other than the carrier and therefore naval jet fighters (and future carriers because too expensive) also not required?
If your dislike of the Gripen deal is not about money, which aircraft in your opinion is technically better for the FAB (even though it will cost more to buy and to operate, for example, the twin-engine Rafale or the twin-engine Super Hornet)? This is assuming FAB are not considering replacing the old aircraft with the F-35 with a first day offensive capability because one could argue the F-35 might be a slight overkill for Brazilian current and future requirements within South America. Although, the first day offensive capability of the F-35 would be handy if they should ever decide to join in an expeditionary force to help the US on day one operations somewhere in the world (other than South America).
Could you please give more details about you had been meaning when you said that: “because one could argue the F-35 might be a slight overkill for Brazilian current and future requirements within South America.”
After I had read this I got the following two conclusions:
After all you have been emphasized the protection of offshore oil reserves from Brazil, however at the same post you had been mentioned that probable threats to Brazil would come from countries in South America, so I have found out it a striking contradiction.
I guess the only probable threat against the oil offshore reserves from Brazil could come from countries with strong military power and most probable with powerful navies, because of this I do not think the other countries of South America could represent this type of threat to Brazil,beyond that Brazil has optimal relationship with all of South America countries.
As I think that there are no threats to Brazil of the others countries from South America, and in this case I would think it would little probable that the Somali pirates pose a threat to Brazil too, but if this were the case I do not think it would be necessary to build Aircraft-carriers as you stand to defend against those possible threats as pirates in my opinion.
As you said the F 35 would “slight overkill for Brazilian current and future requirements within South America”, then it conclusion could be used about to build new Aircraft Carriers for Brazil Navy too?
But this is just my humble opinions.
maurobaggioThis is a misinterpretation of what constitutes a limit. Nothing stops a Gripen from carrying 7 tons of external load (assuming the structure and pylons are build to handle that load). It just means that it needs to take off with less internal fuel. There might be circumstances where a reduced range is acceptable, but if not, aerial refueling can fill the tanks once airborne.
No guys from Saab will show up at the hangar and say “stop, you are officially prohibited from doing that”. Air forces and airlines all over the world fly with less than a full tank. Sometimes they even do this in order to be able to carry more cargo/passengers.
I’m afraid that it’s not a misinterpretation about of what constitutes a limit from external loads for fighters, indeed the increasing weight in airframes( empty mass) could have a huge impact in the parameters from fighters.
In this case as increasing the airframe weight( empty mass) in all aircraft’s and fighters could also create reductions in other aspects such as:range, speed, altitude and payload( external load).
A fighter can not be compared with a commercial or transport aircraft, yet both has been required a lot effort to be designed and built, otherwise the requests for a fighters are very different for a commercial transport aircraft in several aspects, but among the other there is a key detail: maneuverability
The increase weight in airframe has been a problem on all aircraft’s types a long the history, but in the case of a fighter this can be a big problem, and in fighters that has been developed with aerodynamic instability as the JAS 39 Gripen A / B / C / D / NG as well with FCS or FBW system to enhance the maneuverability, in reason of this could even become a huge problem.
However with increasing of the weight airframe could actually change the Gravity Center of the aircraft which could result in higher or lower instability of the aircraft.
As the JAS 39 among the most of the other fighters has been carrying the payload under the wings as well under the belly too, the payload has create aerodynamic drag which changes the aerodynamic stability center from aircraft, and this external payload has changed the Gravity Center of the aircraft too, and these two factors affect the stability from fighters, so the external payload in fighter has been a complex matter.
Instead in commercial aircraft the payload has been distributed inside the fuselage(load compartment), which does not change the aerodynamics behavior from aircraft as well as the Gravity Center could be changed only in small scale if the load has been evenly distributed within the fuselage.
So it might not be enough for a fighter only decrease the amount of fuel to increase the payload in order to compensate the problem has been result for the increasing of the weight in airframe( empty mass) as proposed for commercial aircraft.
In fighters the increase of airframes weight could be located in certain parts from airframe as well the others aircraft’s, but in reason of the external payload ,this added weigh of the airframe could move the Gravity Center for the initial position had been foreseen in the project to another not intended with more severity than in commercial aircraft once the fighter can be vastly more maneuverable . This change of the Gravity Center could results in two distinct problems:
The increasing of the airframe weighs that as has been occurred with the Gripen E are not a rarity in project fighters, indeed as far I known all fighters around the world had been experienced those problems, and probably this will be the rule even in the near future.
However it is still a little concern, in especially about the fact that all Gripen as well the Gripen NG too has been designed with aerodynamic unstable feature, and should be worth to mentioning something else: it is under development.
So I guess that there is no reason to get in panic due this small weight problem, after all the Gripen NG are the third generation from JAS 39 Gripen, and since 1989 the SAAB has been accumulated an extraordinary knowledge about this issue .
But this is just my humble opinions, and despite the fact that I can not remember where I had read about it , in case to blame if I’m wrong, still I have been share it. So if someone has other opinions please share it, and do not leave it for the future, after all nobody knows what may happen even tomorrow.
maurobaggioIn 1990, the RAF (UK) had 33 fast-jet squadrons; in 2003, 17. That is a 49% reduction – in the same period the RSwAF reduced its fighter numbers by only 35%.
Yes, the RSwAF only has 60 Gripens now – and the RAF is to drop to 6 squadrons before 2020 – an 82% reduction from 1990 for both.
In 2024 the RAF is expected to have 7 such squadrons – a 59% reduction from 2003, while the RSwAF will see a 63% reduction from 2003 (80 Gripen-E, not 60).
Overall, the RAF will have reduced by 79% from 1990 to 2024, while the RSwAF will have reduced only 76% from 1990 to 2024.
So there is no truth to your claim of “Royal Swedish Air Force over the years has been decreased with ratio more intense than others Air Force”.
I’m sorry for have not been more clear from the beginning, once I had mentioned numbers not as a unit of aircraft’s, but numbers as capabilities or strength.
In the case of the RAF I think about to compare aircraft units of Tornado IDS / AD with the Typhoons would be a hard task, however to compare in aircraft units the Jaguar with F 35A and Sea Harriers / Harriers with F 35B would be almost absurd, once we would be comparing in aircraft units the 3rd Generation aircraft with 5th Generation aircraft.
Although the decrease in aircraft’s units will be also very high in the case of the RAF as well as in most Air Forces around the world, but otherwise there will be the introduction of 4th+ Generation and 5th Generation that will be replacing the legacy fleet of the 3th Generation from RAF,which at least could compensate in capabilities and strength in some aspects at the high reduction in aircraft’s units.
In the Sweden case the comparison in strength and capabilities parameters would be at least less complex than the RAF, once the AJ 37 Viggen were one of the forerunners of the 4th generation aircraft in the 70s, and even the JAS 39 E Gripen in 2018 could be described as cleaver evolution from AJ/SH/JA 37 , then I had been comparing 4th Generation aircraft with 4th + Generation aircraft.
In any case all references that I had been researched mention 60 Gripen E for Royal Sweden Air Force , and I could not found out even a single source that mentioned 80 Gripen E , so I would like to know if possible the source that you have taken this information, after all there are several sources that should be corrected even myself.
maurobaggioHow old are you? Do I really have to explain to you what happened to the Swedish defense budget from 1989 to till 2014? Do I really have to explain obvious things to you, AGAIN?
In fact you had not explained this issue, because that I would not have been doing this now, what you imagine that you did.
But the fact should be that will not necessary to explain the Sweden budget , since would be enough to describe a short history about the AJ / SH / JA 37 Viggen.
Just remember the JAS 39 Gripen had been designed to be the successor from the AJ / SH / JA 37 Viggen, and about several goals that were established for the JAS 39 Gripen it should have an acquisition and operation of the 50% lower than the AJ / SH / JA 37.
Even before the end of the Cold War, the Sweden had been already reducing its military budget, and JAS 39A Gripen as did its first flew in 1989 would be proof of this.
But among the goals of the JAS 39 Gripen were not only suit the Sweden budget , once the Sweden had not found out customers from AJ / SH / JA 37 Viggen, and this occurred only by a tragic coincidence: the Viggen were advanced for this time specially in the 70’s, however several technologies had been used in the Viggen were US property. So when customers had emerged as India, the US blocked the sale, and when the Sweden had customers that the US would approve the sale, its customers considered the Viggen very expensive for their budgets.
In fact there were several reasons for making the expensive the AJ 37 Viggen in the 70s, and between them was that no other single engine fighter could perform the same tasks than the Viggen , once the AJ 37 were a multirole aircraft like the F 4E PhantomII, however this was twin-engine that were more weights and larger than the AJ 37, but the AJ 37 were STOL aircrafts and the F 4E Phantom II didn’t this same capability.
Although the AJ 37 did not have the ability to operate missile BRV (AIM 7 Sparrow) as the F 4E Phantom II, that was introduced in the JA 37 from 1979, otherwise the AJ 37 could strike ships with radar guided missiles as the RB 4 that were very advanced for that time.
In resume the Sweden had been built something like 329 AJ / SH / JA 37 Viggen, which should have been replaced by the JAS 39 Gripen,. Even the JAS 39A/B/C/D Gripen has been less weight and less expensive than the Viggen, the Gripen has not replaced the Viggen even close as ratio 1: 1, since the production of JAS 39 GripenA/B/C/D to Sweden had been reached something like 214 aircraft.
Then the Sweden had begun to retire from active its JAS 39A / B Gripen, and from 2008 has been held only 100 Gripen C / D, and made those cuts in reason of the operating cost to keep the Gripen.
Now the Sweden has plans to replace all 100 Gripen C / D for 60 Gripen E.
[QUOTE]
| width: 600 | class: grid | align: center |
|---|---|---|
| [tr] | ||
| [td]Type[/td] | ||
| [td]Year[/td] | ||
| [td]Max Weight ( Kg)[/td] | ||
| [td]Weapons Weight(Kg)[/td] | ||
| [td]Range (Km)[/td] | ||
| [td]Unit Built[/td] | ||
| [/tr] | ||
| [tr] | ||
| [td]AJ/SH/JA 37 Viggen[/td] | ||
| [td]1990[/td] | ||
| [td]20.000[/td] | ||
| [td]7.000[/td] | ||
| [td]2.000[/td] | ||
| [td]329[/td] | ||
| [/tr] | ||
| [tr] | ||
| [td]JAS 39 Gripen A/B/C/D[/td] | ||
| [td]2004[/td] | ||
| [td]14.000[/td] | ||
| [td]4.500[/td] | ||
| [td]1.600 [/td] | ||
| [td]214[/td] | ||
| [/tr] | ||
| [tr] | ||
| [td]JAS 39 Gripen E/F[/td] | ||
| [td]2024[/td] | ||
| [td]16.800[/td] | ||
| [td]6.000[/td] | ||
| [td]2.500 [/td] | ||
| [td]60[/td] | ||
| [/tr] |
[/QUOTE]
The numbers from Royal Swedish Air Force over the years has been decreased with ratio more intense than others Air Force, and despite several allegations that the Gripen has been one of the cheapest aircraft to operate around the world, but those dramatic cuts in numbers has been such incontestable evidence that in fact there are not such thing as cheap advanced fighters to operate in any Air Force around the world, in the final analysis, or there are budget for it, or then the fighters will inevitably disappear from inventory.
maurobaggioLess expensive than any other Western fighter with the exception of the Lockhed Martin F-16V?
Next…
Who said that?
By the way the Cold War has ended in 1991, and this story of West and East on the global market for military aircraft its more like some kind of nostalgia than reality, after all if there are such division was real, the Russia had not been selling its military aircraft to China as an example.
After all this could be the best hypothesis from SAAB, and still this remains as an optimistic possibility, since there is none Gripen NG in operation in any Air Force around the World to check up this numbers.
If the Gripen has been so cheap to operate why the Royal Sweden Air Force had decreased from 200 JAS 39 Gripen A / B / C / D operation in 2004 to something like 100 JAS 39 Gripen C/D in 2008, and now has been intending to reduce in the near future for 60 Gripen E?
In fact this was a rhetorical question, once the reason should be very simple according to the Royal Sweden Air Force : the budget could not support such number of Gripen E greater than 60 in the near future.
So if the Gripen NG are indeed so cheap to operate this would be the only thing that would have been avoiding the Royal Sweden Air Force of to adopt the same concept from Royal New Zealand Air Force.
Operating cost in my humble opinion has been fundamental for civilians aircraft’s, but when it comes to military aircraft this concept it seems for me quite secondary.
In this case if someone make the choice for a fighter with this concept about less operating costs as the most important, then should be better to follow the example of the New Zealand.
In reason of that I do not believe that Royal Sweden Air Force has been chosen the Gripen NG because this were cheaper than the other alternatives.
Anyone here know about the operating state from the Gripen C/D with the South Africa Air Force?
My Source about the Gripen NG:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121119/DEFREG01/311190008/Sweden-8217-s-Possible-Gripen-Cut-Prompts-Force-Capability-Fears?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
maurobaggioFeasibility Study on Gripen for Belgium
So SAAB has bought a ticket for the Belgium F-16 replacement lottery. Hope they didn’t spend too much on it. If I were SAAB I would have sent a photocopy of the sales brochure with an attached note saying that if an F-35 deal fell through due to cost, the sales department would welcome a call.
I could guess that after the Gripen NG agreement with Brazil the SAAB has been very busy, once in the gates from SAAB could have a lot of customers has been waiting for some other Black Friday promotion from Gripen NG.
After all if Brazil will only pay US$ 150 million per Gripen E / F for the full package that could be seeing in the box above, I would not be very surprised if there are some potential customers thinking they could taken the simple package of the Gripen E / F for free, and pay only for maintaining and updating.
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$ 3.297[/td] [td]US$ 150[/td] [/tr] By the same unit cost from Switzerland the Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:
- 100% ToT
- Reexport rights from Gripen E/F
- 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
But its potential customers should must be waiting for another Black Friday promotion, since in normal selling days from SAAB the most likely that customers could find the value of the Gripen NG in the same way that Switzerland had found out.
maurobaggioIt wasn’t incompetent of HAL to raid the kits. The incompetence was (1) officials or ministers not approving the essential supplementary spares order in time, so HAL, under pressure from the IAF, raided kits to keep in-service Hawks flying, & (2) HAL (according to leaks) not keeping, or if they did keep ’em, passing ’em on to BAE, proper records of the parts it took from the kits, so BAE couldn’t tell which part was where. I think that’d drive ’em crazy.
I once worked on modifying a manufacturing & parts database for a maker of aircraft & missiles. One change was to make it capable of tracking every part for its life. If someone used a part without logging where it had been used, or fitted a part without logging its identity (or batch for very small parts), it’d be flagged by the system as a major incident. That was 30 years ago, & AFAIK they’ve tightened up since then.
I’m sorry about the sincerity, but I think your arguments about the Hawk to demonstrate some difficulty from Government of India and IAF has been totally out of focus here in this thread
After all the Rafale has been chosen by the Government of India and IAF, and at the moment when it was announced the Rafale was the winner, both Dassault and the French Government were only compliments about the Government of India and IAF.
However now you have been dismissing the Government of India or the IAF about the issue from Hawk, then its your arguments should apply about the Rafale F3 or Dassault had been chosen as winner in the competition either?!
I suggest you consider the following argument to improve your analysis: who has chosen the HAL was the Government of India, and it has an unbeatable argument for such a decision, once it is the HAL has been assembling without problems the Su 30 MKI today, which could be an complex aircraft or even more complex to assembly than the Rafale F3 itself .
Until now I have not met a company that were perfect as well as Governments, though I think both HAL and Dassault has been deserving the same good treatment as well as the Government of India and the Government of France.
maurobaggioThat is quite insignificant. Because if one accepts this logic, then he will be rewarded by more reduced unit price in the next lots which will contain less support cost, in return. In the end you pay the same, so don’t hold your breath.
Quite on the contrary. It was announced that the Brazilian Gripen deal will be up $5.4 billion for 36 jets (incl. equipment, support cost, ToT, and most importantly licensed production and reexport). I have not seen a single Gripen fan who would not humbly accept the fact that if you want to make your own NG Gripens and even have the right to export them, then get prepared for total acquisition unit price approaching $150 million. So where is the bloody murder screamin?
I guess you have been missing all the fun, since there are many screams of terror because of this thread Saab Gripen & Gripen NG:http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?116825-Saab-Gripen-amp-Gripen-NG-thread-3/page74
The problem should be that apparently US$ 150 million was also the price from Gripen E for the Switzerland Air Force in, and this would not get the full package : 100% ToT, production line and the right to re-export the Gripen E / F.
So the US $ 150 million by the Gripen E/F that Brazil has achieved in this deal by its full package could be like that Brazil had bought the Gripen E/F in some kind of Black Friday promotion so far.
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
The cost of the F 35A/B/C will be sure much higher than any others fighter from 4th Generation improved,
however this has been considered with the fact that many of the subsystems from 4th generation improved and 5th generation in production in the next years could be similar as: avionics,weapons and even engines in the future.
So the tendency in the next decade should be that the cost between 5° fighters Generation and 4th Generation improved could approach more and more as new models from 5th generation will enter into the global market as: PAK FA, J 20 and J 31.
maurobaggioDassault is dealing with a main Indian partner which is owned by the customer (the Indian government), & has immense political support, & close ties to the IAF, the ministry of defence, politicians, & others. It has every reason to fear that it’d get the short end in any disagreement with HAL over failure to fulfil by HAL, regardless of fault. And from what’s been leaked, the disagreement about terms is because as Dassault sees it, it IS being asked to assume unlimited liability. If it was just about having to meet deliveries & agreed ToT, I can’t imagine it would think it worth such a tremendously long delay to the time when it’ll start getting paid. It’s a commercial firm. It’s in it to make money.
Rigorous contract terms – of course. But not one-sided ones, especially not in the Indian military procurement environment. You have to admit that it’s a mess, & a minefield for foreign suppliers. Don’t forget the purpose of the transactions. It isn’t to punish transgressions, it’s to get weapons for the Indian armed forces. And don’t blame suppliers because your ministry can’t write sensible contracts, & HAL is a nightmare to deal with. As for the PC-7 deal, think! Who has an incentive to get it to work? And who has always been opposed to it, has tried to block it, & has been trying to get its own product adopted instead? In this case, who do you trust – Pilatus or HAL? Clue: the answer is not HAL. Yet you’re claiming Pilatus is wrong. Do you see, now, why Dassault is so careful?
Now you think the Dassault should need to be careful?!
But it was the same Dassault that had promised 100% ToT and to create an assembly line in HAL, at this time to win the competition the Dassault was very bold indeed.
Anyway I do not think HAL would be the problem, since this company had been producing fighters under license for long time, so if I remember from the 70s and 80s with the MiG 21.
However, the most important the HAL has been assembling under license the Su 30MKI, and as far I known there were no big problems in this regard.
If such company as HAL could assembly the Su 30MKI today, with this issue to compare, I do not think the production the Rafale F3 would be a major challenge from HAL about regarding its capabilities to accomplish this task.
In my view the Government of India could have been seeking a way to compensate also the blank check that already were giving for Dassault or France by the promise of 100% ToT as well the assembly line in HAL, after all those promises could be only attested by the Government of India with the course of time, and after many payments had been already realized.
I think it’s fair enough the Dassault has been seeking the best conditions for the Rafale contract, however it was the own Dassautl that had approved the HAL to receive its production line during the competition phase.
Apparently the mystery will soon be revealed.
maurobaggioAbsolutely. The demand by the Indian government for Dassault to be responsible for the performance of HAL – a firm owned by the Indian government – is insane. If I was less convinced of the incompetence of those running military procurement in India, I’d wonder if it was an attempt to sabotage the deal by making Dassault walk away.
What vendor would sign a contract which made it responsible for the behaviour of the customer?
As far as I could understand the position from Government of India has been legitimate, after all as Dassault had been proposed to make all 100% ToT as well to create a production line in HAL, thus Dassault also should assume the risks that could be involved in this dedicated matter of 100% ToT as weel the production line, once it will not occur as expected by the Government of India.
In my view those alleged details in the contract would only be a such kind of insurance if the expectations has been placed on Dassault with Rafale will not met in the future.
I still guess that the problem should be the cost, something tells me that Dassault had also forgoten to fix the price of the Rafale after all this years from competition, and when it won the competition the price of the Rafale was still in 2009.Either way this mystery will be revealed very soon.
maurobaggioi dont think its unlikely that sweden will buy 2-seaters:
drones is the future, some of these will be air launched
Indeed I guess the main reason for Brazil has opted by the two-seat Gripen F should be that aircraft will have the function as command aircraft, in conjunction-missions with the single-seat Gripen E.
The Sweden has been achieving a long history with development of datalinks systems since from the first JA 35 Draken that had initiated the use of such a system. After the JA 35 Draken it had been continuously developed with JA 37 Viggen and with JAS 39 Gripen A/B/C/D.
The Gripen E itself has been developed in order to accomplish what has been defined as data fusion mode. Once the Gripen E will be capable to collect and process a large amount of data that could come from several sources, such as AWACS, UAV , UCAV, fighters, ships, and others.
Perhaps the most important use from data fusion will be the capability to process the data from others Gripen E that could be flying together in the same mission. The data fusion could allow that even the communication systems from all Gripen E operating in the UHF / VHF / HF bands would be used as SIGINT sensors, as well as RWR systems and AESA radar in the passive mode could be used as ELINT sensors, or even the sensors as IRST and MAW.
With the GPS position from Gripen E has been transmitted by datalink to others Gripen E, as well as the datas from its systems and sensors, the data fusion could be used to triangulate the electromagnetic signals emissions from enemy, and thus would be determined its position in real time, without that the AESA radar should be in active mode for strikes against targets in: air, land and sea.
Although the single-seater Gripen E could achieve this same data fusion mode, but the two-seat version as Gripen F would be an important increasing in this data fusion capability, particularly in long range missions. In long range missions the Gripen E/F could be far way from Air Bases or the AWACS support, and in these circumstances the datalinks system would be a problem to stay connected all the time with far way facilities or AWACS, as well as to keep a low profile on these systems.
In fact this would show about some possible reasons for the development from Gripen F, and why the Gripen F has been required by Brazil Air Force to accomplish those elaborate missions, once the Gripen E/F will must operate over the Amazon region with more than 5.000.000 Km²( 2.800.000 NMI²), or in the Brazil territorial sea with almost 3.000.000 Km²(1.700.000 NMI²).
In the same manner the choice about the larger WAD has been made by Brazil Air Force for the Gripen E/F could have been associated with this function of the command aircraft from Gripen F, once the second crew will have to perform similar functions that would be carried out in AWACS or in ground control command stations. Then the WAD with this larger display has been chosen by Brazil Air Force would be a benefit to having to deal with a large volume of information without support of the AWACS and others means.
But these are just my humble opinions, and I am not absolutely sure of being right about this either.
maurobaggioApparently the US will provide 2000 APKWS II (Laser Guided Rocket Hydra) to Iraq.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/apkws-ii-hellfire-jr-hydra-rockets-enter-sdd-phase-02193/
I don’t have the information if those APKWS II will be integrated only with the F 16C/D and not with others Iraqi aircraft such as: Su 25, Mil Mi 28NE.
maurobaggioThe cockpit of the Gripen NG version to Brazil will be diferent from the one developed for Sweden. It´ll have a wide area display(WAD) that will be developed by AEL. This modifications in one of the reasons why the value of the contract went up. FAB also asked for several other modifications. FAB is willing to afford such modifications.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]233390[/ATTACH]
Concerning my view about this type of WAD ( wide area display) I would say: yes
Among several possible reasons for Brazil has been opted for this WAD, the main reason for it should be related to the experience from Brazil Air Force in missions over the Amazon .
During the Vietnam War the US pilots had found out a major problem how to identify targets over the Vietnam forest, or even could be capable to locate it.
Such WAD technology can improve the display feature of the images from IIR (Infra Red Imaging) sensors or radar about the targets. However this should become even more valuable on a region like Amazon, where the forest has made the terrain become very homogeneous, as well as serve as camouflage for the targets in the ground.
So this technology could greatly improve the efficiency of the relation man / machine, and with that can improve the lethality of the Gripen E / F itself.
Although the cost should be higher than the standard has bee adopted by Royal Sweden, this in my humble opinion has been an innovation that Brazil made, which makes the Gripen E / F even more effective and not only over the Amazon forest.
This would be a small example in my humble opinion to demonstrate the competence of those who had made the choice of the Gripen E/ F for the Brazil Air Force . However precisely that which has been touted as the most critical against the Gripen E / F wrote about this so far I could remember.
If someone has other ideas please share it, after all my humble opinions are not better than others.
Sign In
