The Swedish air force doesn’t think it needs Gripen F. It has Gripen D, but has publicly stated that the transition to Gripen E will not need a Gripen conversion trainer. It plans to go from a LIFT (probably M346, shared with several other European countries) straight to Gripen E. Brazil could lease some Gripen D, or Gripen B with updated cockpits, until it has enough Gripen F.

There. Question answered. If you’d tried thinking about the issue, & wondered why Sweden wasn’t bothering to develop a two-seat Gripen NG for itself, you could easily have answered your own question. But you are only interested in looking for reasons to dismiss Gripen NG. You’re arguing like a lawyer – and that is not a compliment. You’re looking for evidence to fit your case, not examining the evidence & drawing conclusions from it.

Firstly thanks for answering the first question.

However my biggest doubt has remained without any answer:
Among these 8 Gripen F that will be manufactured in Brazil has been included prototypes, or not?

The reason for that most simplest question:

I have seems peculiar is that so far I have not been reading anywhere about some prototype from Gripen F, since as it is a new fighter even has been a two-seat version of the Gripen E , still it will require a test program for the Gripen F.

In 2019 should be installed a production line in Brazil, and 15 aircraft would be manufactured untill 2024, then before 2019 would be none prototype from Gripen F ,even if the design process could be complete in 2019 anyway there will not be a production line to manufacture a prototype from Gripen F before 2019.

The test program from 4.5 generation fighter which had been designed since the first version of Gripen A / B with induced instability will not be tested and approved on a weekend, even the Gripen F already has been a two-seat from Gripen E that could be approved before 2019.

About all that I have read so far it will also taken the prototypes from those 8 Gripen F that will be built for the Brazil Air Force.

Indeed this assumption above has been seems strange from my humble point of view, once these 8 Gripen F has been described as production aircraft’s in the manufacturing schedule, but without any mention about some design schedule that would lead at the prototype phase of the Gripen F, after that should be manufactured/tested/approved the prototypes before then could be ready for production schedule.

However the problem in my humble point of view with this plan would be this: : if the development program from Gripen F delay the production line in Brazil will be halted until the development phase could be finished, since there are only 7 Gripen E that could be manufactured in Brazil according for the contract already planned between 2019 and 2024.

For those who has developed this plan should not be any reason for some delays or increased costs with the Gripen F , after all what could be wrong with: a new fighter as the Gripen F that will be designed by a new team, which will be manufactured in a new production line that still need to be installed in 2019, on a company that until now has never manufactured a supersonic fighter.

Can anyone see any possibility of cancellation of this production line in Brazil with only 15 Gripen NG scheduled so far?

i think Brazil will pay for redundancy and indigenous solutions, developing their industrial & research skill for self sufficiency,
plus the fact that Argentina is a close neighbor/ally

You’re right about the possibility that Brazil could making several changes to enable the sale of Gripen NG to Argentina, but those supposed changes would be easily canceled by a detail that so far I do not recall that anyone has mentioned here that is: Intellectual Property.

Saab owns the Gripen NG project, and because this detail any change in the design or subsystem (engine, avionics as i.e) would require that SAAB has approved the change of the same, once it no matter where or who has been working in the Gripen NG project as the final license belongs to SAAB.

So if Saab does not approve the change, in fact it would not be possible for anyone to change even the supplier from a screw in the Gripen NG that could be to manufactured in Brazil.

Note: I’m still waiting if some good soul will clarify my doubts about the Gripen F.

Brazil has trainer versions of both AMX & F-5EM, & will buy two-seat Gripens. It doesn’t need to use up hours on the fighters for conversion training. It may need to spend more hours on conversion training because of the lack of a LIFT.

I think Tonnyc may be right, that you’re not really complaining about Gripen, but about Brazilian politics. As he says, all your criticisms would be equally true (& some of them more so) if Brazil had ordered F-18E or Rafale.

The fact that has not been changing since the Gripen winner the competition are that 36 Gripen NG will be delivered for Brazil till 2024, and 15 of those Gripen NG will be assembled in Brazil from 2019 until 2024, resulting in an average of 3 fighters per year until this new production line could be shutdown in 2024 if new orders has not been confirmed at this time.

I have been realistic since I’m only commenting on what has already been established in the contract, and my doubt is the fact that if it is creating another production line for the Gripen NG to manufacture only 15 aircraft in five years does not increase the possibilities this fighter win others competitions, since they could be acquired directly from Sweden.

Otherwise this production line could generate a large cost in its operation with only 3 aircraft’s has been assembled per year as proposed in the contract, that could result in damages about the technology transfer process if this line in Brazil would be canceled even by the Government of Brazil in reason of this small unsuspected accounting detail of the 3 aircraft per year.

So far as I have commented in another posts are the the only viable options in my humble opinion for this production line in Brazil would be :

I think that I’m doing here is giving my opinion about some weaknesses from an extremely complex and important project as the Gripen NG has been meaning for a country like Brazil and Sweden .

Luckily for me I’m not a messenger in ancient Greece, as well as TonnyC and Swerve also got lucky not to be kings in ancient Greece, once in ancient Greece had been a tradition among the kings cut off the head of the messengers that brought bad news.

The schedule is wrong. According to the published dates, the last of the 36 Gripens will be delivered years before the AMX will be retired. The latest upgrade is supposed to give AMX another 20 years of life.

The 36 Gripens will replace the capability lost with the retirement of Mirage 2000 (though the capabilities added by the upgrade allows the F-5BR to do things that previously only the Mirages could), & partially replace the F-5BR.

There are a problem that has been little known ventilated during the competition for the 36 fighters in which it won the Gripen NG, once this problem was the definition of a new advanced training aircraft for the Brazil Air Force.

In this long competition of the 18 years the MB 326 and MB 329 had been removed from service, and now the Brazil Air Force does not has an advanced training aircraft to qualify the new pilots for the F 5EM or AMX, so those fighter could have been accumulating flying hours in reason of this too .

Thus in the next ten years the F 5EM and AMX will probably accumulate high number of flying hours in reason of the lack of an advanced training aircraft for the Gripen NG, which could result in the acceleration from end of the useful life of those F 5EM and AMX.

After all it seems a lot of procrastination about only mention that in future would be orders for the Gripen NG to replace the F 5EM and AMX as if there are a long time for this decision, indeed it had not even planned during competition, once this occurred with a defined number of 36 fighters.

When a country has commits 80% of its defense budget with the payment of its active and retired military personnel, the replacement of 110 legacy fighters for 36 new fighters could be described as: Downsizing.

For anyone who could be capable to find out the resources to purchase and operate a fleet of 100 Gripen NG in the budget from Brazil Air Force maybe would be indicated in the final list for the Noble Prize in Economics.

both gripen & EF is competitive agile as it is, to say the least, i really dont think either will receive TV,
especially gripen as you wouldnt want to add weight to it

The MiG 29 and Su 27 were very agile even in early versions from 80s as the JAS 39A Gripen, but still the new version from those Red fighters has been received the TVC engines as: Su 30MKI, Su 33UB, Su 35S and MiG 35 .

And the best part if I misunderstood your analysis about TVC engines should be that Russians has been able to convince many customers in adding this supposed ‘dead weight’ of the TVC engines, as well as the adding cost in those aircraft that has been selling around the World or will sell as the PAK FA. Besides the US had accepted this ‘dead weight’ from 3D TVC engines in the F 22 Raptor.

The only reason I have seen for the Gripen NG hasn’t been equipped with TVC engine even as option should be so far there are no available TVC engines in the West supplier chain from Gripen NG, since no one has funded the project must in reason of the cost hazard , once the F/A 18E/F has been using the same engine from the Gripen NG , however: F/A 18E/F, Rafale F3 and Typhoon has reached the Global market before that competitors as the Su 35S and MiG 35 with TVC engines .

For a country like Brazil which has been supposedly interested in the transfer of technology from Gripen NG that could be very interesting this alternative in my humble opinion , once the Brazil could be a partner in the developing process about a new version with TVC from the current engine from the Gripen NG , of course if the supplier will accept this task.

The Brazil could participate from this trial program of the Gripen NG with this new TVC engine , after all the TVC also decreasing the landing and takeoff distance, and as the Gripen has been designed from the start as a STOL fighter, the TVC would be an advantage even to improve this capability.

Maybe at the end of this supposed program could be possible to conclude at the end that Gripen NG would become so much agile with TVC engines that no human could be tolerate the high G accelerations, however in this case this whole R & D program could be used for the design of an UCAV in future.

There is no technological development without accepting risks, since innovation is put forward, however a lot of work should be necessary in all phases to accomplish this.

About to create a production line for only 15 aircraft may seem an innovation, but it is not rational since this would be viable if the production line in Sweden would be closed or unable to meet all possible orders after 2018.

In the opposite case the cost of producing in Brazil will be higher than in Sweden, since this production line will have to be paid off in ratio for the aircraft that would produced in this new facility in Brazil,and in this case I see the biggest threat in the next years about the rescission of this line by the Government of the Brazil.

Gripen and F/A-18 already have variable nozzles. I think you are thinking of thrust vectoring ?

You are completely right, and I keep making the same mistake despite all the years that has been passed, so I have fixed my wrong text and new text follows above:

Just I recall the Russians had been settled the Su 33KU in 2005 with TVC ( Thrust Vectoring Control) engines to improve the takeoffs and landings in the Admiral Kuznetsov Aircarrier, once the Su 33KU with two-seat are therefore heavier than the Su 33K .

Anyway Saab in the early 2000s had been proposed to develop a new version of the Gripen with TVC engines , and those should come from Typhoon, however those engines were canceled as the idea was abandoned for the Gripen, since this time in its supply chain anyone has not interested in developing such TVC engines for the Gripen.

As the Gripen NG and the F/A 18E/F Hornet as I recall has been using the same engine, would not this be an opportunity to develop to the Gripen NG and the F/A 18E/F Hornet themselves with TVC engines?

After all if the proposal Sea Gripen is real this would be an ideal candidate to use those TVC engines?

Using TVC was a proposal that was included in that India Navy briefing I put up: http://www.livefistdefence.com/2011/…n-navy-on.html
It has not been pursued to date, anyway TVC primarily aids take-offs on a STOBAR setup.

Meanwhile if as possibility in the future the Sea Gripen has been using TVC engines even aboard from Sao Paulo Aircarrier it allow greater freedom choice about the definition of the system ( STOBAR or CATOBAR) from supposed new Aircarrier from Brazil Navy that will eventually replace the São Paulo .

Such TVC engines from the supposed Sea Gripen and even the F/A 18 E/F could be option for other navies that may has been eventually using Aircarrier with STOBAR system, without any detriment from CATOBAR system option that has been using so far only in the US Navy and France Navy .

After all even if the F/A 18 E/F could be out from production line in the next years, still there are the possibility from upgrading the F/A 18 E/F from US as well as Australia, which would add to the supposed market from the Gripen NG, so with all the advantages from TVC engine maybe this is the occasion for it.

If Brazil has had the financial resources to create a second production line for only 15 aircraft in Embraer, so the task of financing the development of TVC engine for Gripen NG has been appeared easy for achieving so far, or would it not?

There was never an official “announcement from winners” before the oficial announcement that SAAB won it, Lula almost provided one for Dassault, but the SU-35 and the F/A-18E/F “thingy” are entirely your imagination.
And yes, my original language is Portuguese, and i have been following closely the FX and FX2 “Novela”. If you dont believe me, ask Hammer, we have in this board someone who actually was part of the Sukhoi team who tried to sell the SU-35 in Brasil.

Thank you for compliment me about my imagination, since this was the first time.

There was a thread in the past about the possible victory of the F/A 18 E/F in the competition from Brazil, if you are interested to check this you will see that it had not been coming from my imagination about the F/A 18 Hornet or even the Su 35M in 2002:

Thread: Brazil closer to Boeing on Jets deal after Biden visit:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?124622-Brazil-closer-to-Boeing-on-jets-deal-after-Biden-visit

Maybe you can tell us about the story of the supposed Sea AMX and new Aircarrier in Brasil during the 80’s, once I also did not imagine it at all, and such mere resemblance to the supposed Sea Gripen is not coincidence.

No money I assume.

No money I assume too.

Maybe the first generation from R 77 were not fully Soviets or after Russians, once during the 90s in reason of the economic crisis could have missed the high investment to manufacture all the necessary components in Russia for R 77, in particular the digital signal processing chip:

‘Russian seeker technology has advanced in strides since the early 1990s, largely as a result of the commodification of Gallium Arsenide monolithic chips and digital signal processing chips in the globalised world market. Agat, which manufactures the 9B-1101K semi-active radar seeker for the R-27EP/P, the 9B-1103K active seeker for the R-27EA/A, and the 9B-1348E seeker family for the R-77 missile family, publicly disclosed some years ago the use of the Texas Instruments TMS-320 series digital signal processing chip in a late model ‘digital’ variant of the 9B-1103K seeker. This chip is a mainstay of Western military radar design.’
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

However even though there weren’t a lack of resources in that time, still the Russians could not have purchased this first generation from R 77 once that would be the US who had been mastered the technological secrets from R 77, and with this knowledge the R 77 could become ineffective against the ECM tactics from US and its allies.