Transfer of TOT: SAAB does not own a lot of the technology used in Gripen, so cannot transfer it to Brazil. Does that mean that Brazil will not be able to design and build a fighter in the future? If that is the case, how come SAAB has managed to build Gripen?

The Gripen E has been coming from a long list of fighters that has been designed and build in Sweden before this, as : JA 35 Draken, AJ/JA 37 Viggen and JAS 39 Gripen A/B/C/D.

Because of those fighter the Sweden has been accumulated a lot of knowledge to design and build essential items from any modern fighters as ie: engines and radars.

Regarding the Gripen E if the US could have been refused to provide its engine GE F414G, then Volvo Aero from Sweden would be able to produce its new version from RM12 for Gripen E , as well as if the UK could refused to supply the AESA radar Raven ES- 5, the Ericsson company from Sweden could develop an AESA radar for the Gripen E.

As far I Know the Volvo Aero has been working with GE regarding turbine GE F414 since 2000, as well as the Ericsson company has been contracted from Selex to work with AESA Raven ES-5.

In Brazil there are not any companies like Volvo Aero, as well as Ericsson.

If the transfer of technology from Gripen E will be restricted only with Saab company, the best that Brazil could be capable about such new fighter will be designing the fuselage of this.

Therefore Brazil will never be capable to develop and produce independently such future fighter , since this will only be possible if some other countries could develop and produce the engines, as well as its main items from avionics like the radar.

Just to remember: the agreement of the 100% ToT it were between the Government of Sweden and the Government of Brazil as it had been mentioned during the competition. The Saab and Embraer are just two companies that could not elaborate such agreement without the Governments.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/10/24/sweden-brazil-pursue-deeper-cooperation-47b-gripen-ng-deal/74415116/

You say: ‘If the main systems from Gripen NG are not from Sweden, then its cost can not be calculated only in SEK…’ Do you think that a washing machine designer/manufacturer using a pump from Germany, a motor from Taiwan, glass from China for the door, nuts and bolts from India quotes a price broken down into 4 different currencies? No, the manufacturer quotes a price for the washing machine in 1 currency. Additionally, the manufacturer does not change the price every second because the value of the different currencies it pays for components varies every second.

I have never been clever and capable to work or learn about washing machines, then in reason of this my limitation I can’t to compare washing machines with Gripen E.

However I do not know if anyone who bought these washing machines could have included this following requirements as: 100% of ToT, it will be able to produce these at home and as well as such license to sale these for their neighbors.

If you know any manufacturer from washing machines that will accept these conditions above, please share it here, and about any manufacturers of washing machines that it has been tacking almost 14 years to produce a prototype either.

What you seem to ignore is that Sweden needed a partner to cover the Gripen E development cost; Switzerland decided before Brazil and was therefore going to be that partner; now it’s Brazil instead. Being a “partner” has some advantages, however also one disadvantage, which is that one is expected to cover some R&D costs. Somewhat similar to what the F-35 partners are doing.

In addition: I don’t think Saab uses the concept “LRIP” however it it seems clear that, just like for F-35 the first 100 or so Gripen E will be more expensive than the next 100. Thus one should expect future customers to pay a lower price than what Switzerland would have paid for those very-early productions units (just like those countries who bought into early F-35 LRIP units paid a much higher price than those that ordered later).

This is a good explanation about the contract with Brazil had been raised to U$ 5.4 billion in the day of the signature. After all at one day before it had been quoted at $ 4.5 billion since 2009.

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.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-18/saab-loses-3-5-billion-jet-order-as-swiss-reject-gripen.html

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

By the same unit cost from Switzerland the Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:

If Brazil and Switzerland were partners in the development of the Gripen E, the big question should this: who got the injury of the departure from Switzerland with its US $ 3.233 billions, as well as the return of the contract to the value of $ 4.5 billions with Brazil after threats of investigations by the Justice of Brazil?

So if indeed Brazil has been partner of the Gripen E program this could be such proof that perfect partner exist, since this will puts the money and it does not participate in the decisions of the Gripen E, and also leaving all the hard work for Sweden.

The low overhead by opening one additional Gripen line in Brazil seems to indicate this view is much too simplistic. One of the main selling points of the Gripen are low costs; that means not just low operating costs but also low costs in assembling it. Perhaps the Gripen “ikea” cartoons are not so far off! 🙂

Again, check how much (or little) Brazil pays for:

assembly line
Tot
Full Gripen package including 36 Gripen

If you also take into consideration that Brazil has to cover significant part of the R&D costs of Gripen E/F, perhaps you start to realize that this is indeed a low-cost option!

The Gripen F does not exist even as draft, so there is no way to assume the cost of it, as well the contract with Switzerland has been show the cost of the Gripen E/F in Brazil are not fully detailed so far.

By the less of the unit cost from Switzerland the Brazil would have enclosed in its contract:

Automated assembly does not necessarily mean that moving the SH line will be “cheap”; I clearly recall Americans expressing doubt as to whether India had the necessary competence to operate such a sophisticated assembly line. Training is not cheap.

The US as well as other countries from West has shown great concern about industrial processes that could have been transferred to India, once it may be used in other aircraft such as the FGFA and specially in the PAK FA from Russia.

By the way such automated process can increase productivity and could reduced costs, as well as it could be be very efficient with purpose of the increasing of the quality parameters of the new projects.

However in my humble opinion the India had been chosen the Typhoon and the Rafale F3 in the short list of MMRCA program in reason of the both fighters has been using industrial processes highly advanced that could quite useful in the future programs from India.

Training is not cheap because it always has been implies such level of the transfer of technology, and in this case there are always obstacles in both sides , specially by who owns the knowledge of technology and they are not very happy to transfers the same, then the obstacles has been arisen to change the process.

This isn’t for FBW in particular.
Two is the idea that Brazil is getting the F414 technology. A few individuals insist that Saab swindled Brazil by promising Brazil things that Saab can’t possibly accomplish, such as giving Brazil F414 technology. This is delusional. .

The agreement of 100% ToT ( Transfer of Tecnology) of the Gripen E has been carried out between the Government of Sweden and the Government of Brazil.

Indeed Saab is only one company as well as the Embraer. Just to inform : Saab can not sell the Gripen without the Government of Sweden has given the authorization for it, much less about any minors technology transfer of the Gripen with any nation without the Government of Sweden has been approval this agreement.

The agreement comes with a strong technology commitment from Sweden to transfer “everything” that Brazil will need to develop its own next-generation military jets.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/10/24/sweden-brazil-pursue-deeper-cooperation-47b-gripen-ng-deal/74415116/

The Saab has never been participated in the production of the F414 from F/A 18E/F or Gripen E as weel the F404 from Gripen C/D , once in Sweden the Volvo company has been directly involved in the development of GE F414 engines as well as in the production of the GE F404.

The curious fact should be that Volvo had never been offered to the Government of Brazil the opportunity to equip the Gripen NG from Brazil with its development from RM12 engine. it were developing by Volvo for the Gripen NG . This development of the RM12 were canceled after the Government of Sweden has been chosen the F414 from Gripen NG. However this could have been easily explained in function those :

January 19, 2000
EVENDALE, OHIO – GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE) and Volvo Aero Corporation of Sweden have reached a long-term agreement under which Volvo will manufacture designated components for GEAE’s F414-GE-400 fighter engine.
The F414 powers the U.S. Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, mainstay of the Navy’s aircraft carrier fleet into the 21st century. GEAE is currently on contract to build 176 F414 engines, but production is anticipated to exceed 2,000 engines over the next 20 to 30 years.
http://www.geaviation.com/press/military/military_20000119.html

May 30, 2008
Volvo Aero has joined with GE to support this development program and the flight and demonstration testing that will continue beyond 2010. Cooperative relationships with both Volvo Aero and airframe manufacturer Saab have led to this milestone and will continue through the Gripen Demonstrator Program and beyond.

http://www.geaviation.com/press/military/military_20080530.html

I’m really confused about your post.

This isn’t for FBW in particular.
Two is the idea that Brazil is getting the F414 technology. A few individuals insist that Saab swindled Brazil by promising Brazil things that Saab can’t possibly accomplish, such as giving Brazil F414 technology. This is delusional.

Brazil and Saab will proceed with what’s in the contract, not with what’s on their delusional minds.
.

This part of your post about ‘delusional’ it has not been directed to the FBW, right?
In my humble opinion I think is not, since for all the posts I could remember that I have been reading from FBW his seems quite consistent as well as better informed about its issues.

I really hope that you do not think about your post it has been delusional either, since it would be quite embarrassing for me…

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

In fact there are many possibilities only about Volvo transfer technology from GE F414G to Brazil:

January 19, 2000
EVENDALE, OHIO – GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE) and Volvo Aero Corporation of Sweden have reached a long-term agreement under which Volvo will manufacture designated components for GEAE’s F414-GE-400 fighter engine.
The F414 powers the U.S. Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, mainstay of the Navy’s aircraft carrier fleet into the 21st century. GEAE is currently on contract to build 176 F414 engines, but production is anticipated to exceed 2,000 engines over the next 20 to 30 years.

http://www.geaviation.com/press/military/military_20000119.html

May 30, 2008
Volvo Aero has joined with GE to support this development program and the flight and demonstration testing that will continue beyond 2010. Cooperative relationships with both Volvo Aero and airframe manufacturer Saab have led to this milestone and will continue through the Gripen Demonstrator Program and beyond.

http://www.geaviation.com/press/military/military_20080530.html

The condition of 100% ToT of the Gripen NG it has been accept by the Government of Sweden, and it are not only responsibility of the Saab company.

Only to remember how it has been important the agreement with Brazil about the Gripen NG to the Government of Sweden:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/10/24/sweden-brazil-pursue-deeper-cooperation-47b-gripen-ng-deal/74415116/

I’ve always taken that to mean ‘full transfer of the technology we own’ – but as you say, that isn’t what a lot of people understand by it.

There are in Brazil about 36,000 pages that has been describing in detail all the process 100% ToT( transfer of technology) those three competitors: F/A 18 E/F, Rafale F3 and Gripen NG.

Maybe you can clarify that those 36,000 pages, once your analysis seems clever:’full transfer of the technology we own”.

However I have a doubt about your analysis: has it been elaborated before or after the contract were signed with Brazil?

I had always thought about that requirement of 100% ToT( transfer of technology) of the program F/X 2 from Brazil for only 36 fighters in 2005 were an unrealistic request, and it would not have been accepted by any competitor, however I was wrong, since it were accepted by three: USA (F/A 18E/F), France (Rafale F3) and Sweden (Gripen NG).

Just Russia that seemed the most aggressive competitor, since it had offered the Su 35S as well as the MiG 35 did not accept this requirement of 100% ToT for 36 fighters. In the case of Russia 100% ToT only for a batch of at least 100 fighters.

The Su 35S had been touted as the favorite for Brazil since his predecessor Su 35M were appointed in 2002 as the best evaluated by the Brazil Air Force of Brazil among the other competitors (Mirage 2000BR, Gripen C/D, F 16 C/D). However this competition was canceled in 2003 by the new President Lula of Brazil who had taken the office that same year.

The main doubt could not be about the contract with the Gripen NG, but the whole process of competition from F/X 2, since it could have been created tough requirements by Government of Brazil only to exclude competitors, and for others competitors that were political convenient to Government of Brazil those tough requirements will be gradually abandoned after the end of the competition.

Apparently the proposal from Eurojet Typhoon were not accepted by Brazil due to its high cost, however the most likely is that the European consortium has been formed for several countries did not accept the requirement of 100% ToT for only 36 Typhoons.

Why Russia did not accept 100% ToT about 36 Su 35S?
This could be the funny part, once Russia had been keeping a complication that none other competitors (USA, France, Sweden) it were thinking about : China.

If Russia accepts 100% of ToT on 36 Su 35S in 2009 with Brazil as then it could say ‘no away’ to China on the same terms?

The application of 100% ToT has not been an offer by competitors, but a requirement of the Government of Brazil. However if it is not implemented, there will always be the possibility of cancellation of the contract in any time.

So it seems things are progressing well with the Brazilian tech transfer and collaboration. A hint to India…?

Google translated from: http://www.di.se/finansiell-information/telegram/?NewsId=69720cfa-a915-4960-bb01-2b42ae19e100

With the political crisis in Brazil the agreement about 36 Gripen E / F has been seriously threatened to be revised or even canceled if the current president will be removed from office.

In fact the agreement has been already under investigation, since there are many doubts, specially about the criteria for transfer of technology, once during the competition were established the criteria of 100% of ToT among all competitor from the short list: F/A 18E/F, Rafale and Gripen NG

So far the technology transfer has been carried out only between two companies: the Saab and Embraer. However in the case of Brazil the Embraer has been a private company, either a multinational company, unlike India where the HAL has been an own state company.

The Embraer does not produce engines or AESA radar, and I guess that great doubt in Brazil should be something like these: who will receive 100% of the ToT of the F414 engines from GE, as well as the active modules of the AESA radar from Selex just to point two main examples?

Transfer of technology between companies has been quite different from transfer of technology between governments, and in the case of Brazil the Government of Brazil has been appointed without competition a private company and multinational to receive all technology that will be paid by the state.

Thousands of Brazil’s engineers has been training every year in multinational companies from automotive segment, however so far there are not such Brazilian company that should be capable of producing automotive vehicles.

The secret from this success recipe: compartmentalized technology.

MiG-29K/KUB will be on the carrier, Su-33 will be ground based fighter to protect Kola peninsula and Arctic region. It will have sense to modernize them with N001VEP radar to give them anti-ship capabilities, which MiG-31BM doesn’t have. They both will protect the gate between Murmansk and Franz Joseph islands.

As far I know about it issue, it seems to me that the Russian Navy has been acquired a batch of 20 Su 30SM to replace the Su 24M, however I guess that choice by Su 30SM has been a bit odd, once it could have three others alternatives from Su 30SM:

Perhaps the option for Su 30SM has been motivated by the higher cost from Su 33M and Su 33UB, as well as the Su 30SM has been better option in the Air-to-Air missions in Black Sea than the Su 34, once ​​the Su 34 has been dedicated for attack missions.

However I guess the cost from Su 33M and Su 33UB would not be much higher than the Su 30SM, at least it will not so high to derail this supposed acquisitions from Su 33M or Su 33UB.

In fact it has been always the intention of the Russian Navy will be equipped with Su 33 and MiG 29K. This plan were not implemented after the end of the Soviet Union due to severe lack of budget.