LokeOK, I have for a couple of years read Pepes postings on Brazilian forums.
I found several of his claims to sound rather odd and in disagreement with my own sources, but stayed out of the discussion there (in part because my Portugese was poor).
When someone on this forum started qouting Pepe and referred to him as “well respected aviation journalist” (which I am sure he is) I felt it was my duty to the community to point out some of the discrepancies I had noticed both in his “reporting of facts” and the weak points I saw in his argumentation.
Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully; OTOH I am sure Pepe can handle a direct tone on these matters.
There are many other things he has said about Gripen that I believe are wrong but I did not bother to mention (yet). Some of it goes back to 2008. I don’t have the time to find all of his statements now.
Anyway, it will still take some years to prove Pepe and the other Naysayers wrong on the really big and important things like: Development of Gripen NGs wings, fuselage and doors by Saab and some “not serious” Brazilian companies, as well as the real performance of the Gripen NG radar. I am patient and can wait. A pity Brazil will not get this excellent but affordable a/c; Sweden however will buy the NG, and I am sure several other countries will.
Of course it’s good for France that Brazil (most likely) will get the Rafale which is also an excellent fighter; as Sign said, the only pity is that it means Gripen NGs loss.
C’est la vie.
LokeLet him explain, be it the wings or a part of the frame it doesn’t change the substance of the message. Its easy to make a mistake when you are answering directly. It can happen to anyone. What I find sad is that instead of making a constructive debate with him and correcting the points where he could be wrong there is this reflex to dismiss him. It is an opportunity to have him on this forum. This attitude toward him is more telling about those who are fearing the truth.
If you are confident there is no need to try to dismiss him but an opportunity to start a constructive exchange.Sure SAAB and its partners are good on ToT. They won the FAB evaluation on this point which was the most important criterium. But that was not sufficient.
Arthuro,
Apart from the mistakes, Pepe is also, with his choice of words, belittling the companies working with Saab and Selex, and their efforts.
ALIDE: How is this paid work in Sweden by now Akaer?
CS: A part of the service is being paid directly by Saab while the rest it is a risky investment of their own Akaer.
Would a company invest their own money in a project that was not “serious” and was just a “public relations statement to enhance SAAB position at Brazilian press”? Of course not!
Also, I am surprised that Pepe does not appreciate the positive effects the collaboration with Saab will have for the T1 companies — even if Gripen is not purchased by Brazil. The same goes for the Selex partner.
Also note that the T1 consortium won the contract to do this work on wings, fuselage and doors in competition with Indian companies.
Would Pepe have preferred that the Brazilian companies had lost and Saab had chosen Indian companies instead?
I don’t understand why Pepe is complaining about this collaboration between Saab and Brazilian companies.
LokeWhat Pepe said :
So I don’t see how you can debunk him on that basis. Check what is his occupation and you will understand who is more credible.
Some guys are so stressed by the truth that they are ready to hang on anything to keep living in denial.
Well unless Pepe (or you) can show us a press release which states that “Akaer was supposed to do the Gripen wing project” I wonder how it’s difficult to debunk him? Akaers own press release certainly does not state what Pepe claimed. So what press release is Pepe talking about?
Anyway; the most important things here would be:
1. That Gripen NG will get excellent wings, fuselage and doors, according to budget and timelines.
2. That the Brazilian engineers not only contribute to the design process but also learns from eachother and Saab. ToT.
LokeThey choose two Brazilian companies that have no previous work with high performance combat aircraft as partners. According the press releases, Akaer was supposed to do the Gripen wing project. This is not serious because the only previous Akaer experience with combat planes is the AT-29 Super Tucano, a turboprop attack-trainer aircraft. No one with some experience at military aviation affairs took this seriously. It is obviously a public relations statement to enhance SAAB position at Brazilian press. I know Akaer sent 20 engineers to SAAB to “participate” at Gripen development, but it also sent 20 engineers to Altran in France…
Wrong.
Akaer works mainly on the fuselage and main landing gear doors. Spitfire9 already provided the link.
There is a consortium (The T1 consortium) that is headed by Akaer. T1 has sent a total of 20 engineers to Sweden, not Akaer. Imbra Aerospace is involved in working on the wings for the first four prototypes(link)
The company is the Imbrafiltro specializing in defense material and which currently manufactures the wings and cover the landing gear of the first four prototypes of the Gripen NG.
Part of the point here is this “learning by doing” — the most efficient way to implement ToT; compare that to receiving a blueprint and do manufacturing…
Leaded by Akaer, the companies Friuli, Winnstal, Minoica and Imbra Aerospace sent a team of 20 Brazilian engineers and technicians to Sweden to start working on the project of the new Swedish fighter, the Gripen NG, produced by Saab Aerosystems. Besides the Swedish group, the American Boeing and the French Dassault are competing to sell 36 fighters to the Brazilian Air Force.
“The actual cooperation with Saab started on August 31, with the objective of totally engaging all companies in the project, including the mastering of important technologies in the aircraft and access to all sensitive areas in the company plant in Linköping, Sweden”, explains the Akaer CEO, César Augusto da Silva. T1, the holding joining the five Brazilian companies involved in the new Swedish fighter project, will be responsible for projecting and manufacturing the central and rear fuselages and wings of the Gripen NG.
About Imbra:
Inbra Aerospace is currently the largest factory in Brazil. It specializes in the production of compound material for airplanes and plates, outside of the Embraer complex. It produces armored cockpit doors for the Embraer 170 using proprietary technology. The plant also produces panels, consoles and special windows for observation aircraft, among other items.
LokeAnybody got ideas of fly-away prices for the different fighters?
LokeIAF did not select a shortlist it submitted just the field evaluation trials report. All six aircraft made from which the cheapest which is compliant will be chosen.
Yes, I know IAF did not make a shortlist; however my understanding was that a shortlist will be made; is this not correct?
LokeQuadbike L1 is the process which is followed by GOI for any tendering process that is the rule and MMRCA since it went through a tendering process will have to follow the norm.
So if any 3 or 4 aircraft makes to IAF shortlist then L1 will kick in and the lowest bid will be selected.
Shiv Arror just said what was widely known fact for any one who follows how tendering is done
So the main question becomes; what decides who will be on the short list?
By making the shortlist one can decide who will win, simply by making sure the a/c one wants to win is the cheapest on the short-list.
So if e.g. they want the SH to win, they could make a shortlist with Typhoon, Rafale and SH; SH is cheapest and wins.
If they are happy with F-16, they could make a shortlist with Typhoon, Rafale, and F-16; if they think Gripen NG should win, make a shortlist with Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen. Etc…
If they want the most expensive to win (Typhoon?) the would have to shortlist only one — ouch, that could be tricky. But perhaps not impossible? If ToT becomes essential for making it to the shortlist and Eurofighter offers full partnership, then it may happen…?
Still quite open, but definitely raises a questionmark around the Typhoon and Rafale.
Anybody dare to guesstimate the fly-away for an F-16 block 60? Presumably a bit higher than the block 50/52?
Lokei understand the point of reacting to apparent leaks of official information in a newspaper.
But what is the point in even considering a rumour of a rumour on another forum (or somesuch)? We may as well just start making things up…
Well, livefist has in the past had as good (or as bad) sources as some newspapers. Don’t see the big difference. I agree however it’s just a rumor (at this stage)
LokeDefinitly ! I wonder where offsets come into the equation ? Probably it will be an important factor for the MoD.
Well according to Livefist flyaway cost will be the most important one — which suddenly turns Mig-35 into the hottest favorite, if it meets the requirements of course.
Of course, we should treat this as the other rumors — let’s wait and see.
LokeMore rumors!
from http://livefist.blogspot.com/2010/08/big-fat-mmrca-update.html
Point One, The Indian Air Force won’t choose a twin-engine aircraft in the MMRCA, if a single-engine aircraft can “do the job”, i.e, is satisfactorily compliant on all 643 test points that each of the six airplanes were tested for during the field evaluation trials (FETs). The IAF is of the view that both single and twin engine platforms have their own advantages, but that it will not discriminate between the two. If all six aircraft are compliant, the cheapest will be selected whether its twin or single-engined.
Point Two, and this is a biggie — The model being used to gauge cost is not the lifecycle cost (LCC) model as was previously thought. That model has been dumped since the IAF perceives it to be indeterminable (read, ambiguous), and not measured in precisely the same way across the six aircraft being offered. In other words, the MMRCA purchase model will be based on unit flyaway cost of aircraft and financing options — i.e, not overall cost of ownership. The IAF decided that it would only work with what is “determinable”. In other words, no complex formulae on future savings on maintenance and overhaul. Do you see why I used the word bombshell in the post title? 🙂
Point Three, cost is going to be a big determinant. Out of the six aircraft that are judged compliant, the cheapest will be identified as L1, and will logically be the chosen aircraft.
Point Three-and-a-half, it emerges now that each vendor was extensively briefed on their performance once the trials were over, so they have a comprehensive sense of how they performed — their function of compliance, if you will — but they have nothing to compare it with. So unless you account for industrial espionage, none of the vendors know how the others have performed, but know exactly how well or badly their own platform performed during trials.
Point Four, the air force’s trial report has been submitted to the MoD, but the latter hasn’t approved it yet. The trial report strictly contains a tabulated representation of each contending platform’s compliance or otherwise for each of 643 test points. Significantly, the trial report does not quantify the level of compliance of each airplane, but rather leaves this for the MoD to understand. In other words, the trial report has all the data and results, but no recommendations, no merit list, no explicit downselect, no stated eliminations, nothing. Yet, by virtue of the data it presents, everything is implicit. It provides the data. It provides the benchmarks for compliance. The MoD figures out who’s in, who’s not quite in, who’s definitely out. The IAF hasn’t put that down. The IAF has submitted a “factual report” — the rest is upto the MoD. Again, there’s been no ranking at any stage.
Point Five, there have been frequent attempts by various players to suggest that some of the non-US contenders will have trouble getting export licenses for subsystems that may be of American origin (like the Gripen’s engines, weapons on some of the others etc). Let’s lay that to rest for now — the IAF extracted government-endorsed guarantees from each such contending vendor that there would be no problems in the supply of such equipment, and it was based on this guarantee certificate that the contender was allowed to participate in trials.
Finally, the option exists for the IAF to go for more than 126 aircraft, but a decision has not yet been taken on whether to club that option with the principal purchase.
L1, based on fly-away !? Seems that Gripen NG, Mig-35, F-16 and SH are the most likely choices (depending on whether they meet all requirements or not).
LokeNew Delhi, Aug 12 (IANS) The Indian Air Force (IAF) might have laid down 643 parameters while evaluating the six fighters in contention for its $10 billion order for 126 medium multi-role combat jets (MMRCAs) but the eventual decision on this will be taken at the political level, an informed source said Thursday.
“The evaluation was meticulously done with the aircraft examined on 643 parameters. We have submitted a report to the defence ministry stating to which extent the aircraft were compliant,” the source said, requesting anonymity as he was not authorised to speak to the media.“We have done an objective assessment taking into account the needs of national security. There will be political considerations (in making the final choice).
“The cost will be a factor. Politics will also be a factor,” the source said, adding: “We have not graded the aircraft but only stated the extent to which they are compliant with the parameters we laid down.”
The IAF submitted its report last month. Once this is evaluated by the ministry, all six manufacturers will be called and told which three of them have been shortlisted for the final round. The commercial bids of these three manufacturers will then be opened and negotiations conducted to decide on the eventual price.
The contract is likely to be signed early in 2011.
Signing of contract in Early 2011 — that sounds rather fast!
So, is thaindian.com normally a reliable source, or not?
LokeRemember that the last version of the report that favored the rafale is signed by Saito himself.
Yes, of course, he said the politics would decide, thereby implying that he would be fine with any of the three, including Rafale. Why should he not sign? :confused:
LokeThales and Selex both needed/need several years to field a first tier AESA radar and external source calls into question Gripen NG radar development time schedule.
About the F414 this is wrong, they call into question the cost per hours given by SAAB not its performnace. The F414 is copyrighted by the US navy so SAAB was unable to give reliable numbers.
Google translated:
“The new opinion does not favor the Rafale. For FAB, any of the three competitors suits our needs. It is for the federal government say what is best for the country,” Saito said during the passage of command in DCTA (Department of Science and Technology Aerospace) in Sao Jose dos Campos, in the afternoon yesterday.
http://www.ovale.com.br/cmlink/o-vale/regi-o/saito-nega-apoio-a-jato-frances-1.3374
So according to Saito the FAB would be happy with any of the three fighters — from his point of view it is a political decision. In other words, he seems to be not too bothered about this weak radar that you keep bringing up.
Saito probably has a better understanding of the risk assessment than Mr. Pepe….
Of course “officially” Gripen lost in Brazil because the weight of the risk assessment was increased dramatically (together with some other changes that also favored Rafale…).
This could become a problematic situation for Dassault in Brazil; What if one did a new risk assessment of Gripen NG towards the end of the year? It could be that even with the current weights the risks would be sufficiently reduced that things could change….
It could also be that somebody would ask why the risks suddenly has so much more weight than in the past?
Anyway, this is leading nowhere. I stick to Saito’s version for now; all three fighters are good enough for Brazil. That’s an official statement, and not a rumor from unnamed sources. Of course the IAF will have different requirements and perhaps also different opinions on the risks; let’s wait and see.
As for the engine: The F414 is an evolution of the F404 (but with some RM12 elements); the RM12 is an evolution of the F404; The F414G is simply the regular F414 adapted for single-engine use; this was done by the companies that have quite some experience in adapting a very similar engine (F404) and operating an even more similar engine (RM12) for many years; add to that the information that Brazil did receive from Boeing on the operating costs, I find it a bit hard to believe that there should be any big risks involved here. Saito seems to agree with me…
LokeThis is now a waste of time…
In addition to what I already mentioned (Saab+Selex have developed AESA radar technology for many years, and Selex even have delivered their first commercial Vixen radar) I also noticed that the people that are saying that the radar is weak, are (at least in Brazil) also saying that there are many potential problems with the F414G…
Given that the F414 is one of the most mature, robust, fighter engines out there, I find that a rather incredible statement. Seems to me that someone is trying to find flaws where no flaws are to be found…
Edit: http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20100505.html
May 05, 2010 — LYNN, Mass — The F414 Turbofan Program celebrated delivery of its 1,000th production engine today, capping a decade of providing power to a growing range of applications and demonstrating critical technologies that deliver significant increases in mission capability.
“We look at this milestone as a tribute to the past ten-plus years, as well as a springboard for future technical innovation,” said Tony Mathis, vice president and general manager of the Lynn Turbofan Department. “We are pleased with the track record we have compiled to date, and we look forward to continuing to produce one of the most versatile and reliable powerplants in military aviation history.”
The F414-400 engine (22,000 lb/fn) has achieved an outstanding record of performance to date. With more than 1 million engine flight-hours of experience in Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and E/A-18G Growler aircraft, the F414 continues to exceed United States Navy (USN) goals for reliability and time on wing. The USN plans to purchase more than 1,200 engines, including spares, to power 594 twin-engine F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft. Individual F414 high-time production engines have accumulated 3,800 EFH.
In addition to operation with the USN, the F414-400 engine is now operational with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). The first five F/A-18E/F Super Hornets arrived in Australia on March 26 with 19 additional aircraft planned for delivery through 2011.
The F414G, a single-engine variant of the F414-GE-400, delivers 20 percent more thrust for the Gripen Next Generation aircraft than previous powerplants. The NG Demonstrator first flew in May 2008 and has completed more than 100 flights, exhibiting excellent operability and performance in both subsonic and supersonic operation.
LokeLoke,
So explain me while we need to wait the end of 2011 for just a preproduction radar for the gripen ?
Because although the Raven radar has much technology in common with the other Vixen radars, it is not identical. It is much more advanced than the Vixen 500E.
The Customs and Border Protection contract is a first for the e-scan Vixen, which has also been marketed for use on fighter aircraft.
The official said that the first radar would be delivered in October and the second at the end of the year or start of 2009.
The switch to e-scan by the border control aircraft would increase reliability and boost detection range, he said.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4002563 (March 23, 2009)
(note there must be an error in the above article, it says “at the end of the year or start of 2009 — must be start of 2010).
Sign In
