LokeYou did… You participate actively, using another name, at Base Militar.
Actually I don’t participate actively in any Brazilian forums — I think you confuse me with someone else. I did register (as Loke) once in one forum but never posted anything.
The Indian Air Force evaluation team accessed the RAVEN AESA at Sweden, not at India, according Brazilian Air Force officers. That’s a lot of propaganda at SAAB papers.
Bill Sweetman wrote that, are you saying he is just reproducing Saab propaganda? I simply refer to his text, I have no way of telling whether Mr Pepe the Journalist or Mr. Bill the Journalist has the best sources in this case. In any case I don’t think it’s important. They had access to the AESA both in Sweden and India, and if they did all the radar testing in Sweden well then they probably did not have a need to do further testing in India.
There are strong RNoAF critics at SAAB methods and they are available at the Net.
Excellent, so then you can provide a link or at least tell us how to find them.
Are you saying I’m a liar? First of all, I’m a 57 years old reporter with 35 years of professional experience. I visited the Brazilian, Chinese, French an Swedish Aeronautics Industries. Yes, I have a lot of friends and now, as a Congress officer, a lot of inside info. We didn’t copied the Norwegian evaluation process and I never said we must did it.
Dear Mr. Pepe, I apologize if it came across like that. I am not accusing you for being a liar.
The higher development risk is on the BRAZILIAN document. You can answer me one question: If NG is so good why Flygvapnet don’t buy 120 of them immediately?
That’s easy to answer: For their current needs they don’t need them, the Gripen C/D is good enough for the moment. However they will upgrade their C/Ds to E/F. My understanding is that the E/F will basically be the NG, at least when it comes to avionics.
All the performance and cost effectiveness analysis were relevant, that’s why I said we MUST analysed profoundly the Norwegian report. One point that makes NG costlier than F-35 was the production rate and lack of Swedish compromise with the NG. Only Gripen lovers didn’t agreed. There are some other differences to remark. We are a continental country and a twin engined aircraft is welcomed when you fly over Amazonian environment that makes 20% of our territory. This point, at COPAC’s paper, favoured F/A-18E/F and Rafale.
As stated before, the only point disputed by the Swedish FMV and the Swedish government was the cost estimates of the Norwegian analysis. Saab of course also disagreed on the other points, but the Swedish government did not. There is an important difference and I hope you see that.
No, Sweden intends to keep its C/D fleet for the next 30 years enhancing them with new avionics borrowed from the NG to get the E/F series.
Sweden will buy NG if Brazil does. According to Saab they will also buy it even if Brazil does not buy, but at a later stage. In any case, when the C/D avionics becomes the NG avionics the upgrade path from there on will be the same for both. The main differences between an upgraded C/D and an NG will then be in things like the fuel tanks, air intake, the engine (although it should perhaps be possible to upgrade also the C/D to F414?) and those are parts that seldom gets an upgrade.
In any case; the fact that the NG avionics is basically the upgrade path for the C/D will keep the risk and costs down for the NG users. Future upgrade costs of the NG avionics will then be shared by all Gripen users (that upgraded to E/F) not just the NG users.
I suggest to Mr. Bengt and Mr. Cima, SAAB representatives at Brazil, borrow 36 Gripen A/B.
Why not borrow Gripen C/D while you wait for the NG?
As I say, it was forum speculation. At that time, only ferry range was announced and some fanboys assumed it was the radius.
Seems strange, why are you refering to forum speculations that seems to be based un a misunderstanding!?
You must take count that this is related at specific power. If both engines produced the same power, F414 would be 5% more economic, but it produces 20% MORE trust than RM12. The NG, also, is heavier than C/D.
The NG is 4% heavier. If you fly at a specific speed (say, 0.8M) are you saying that due to the higher maximum thrust delivered by the F414 it will spend more fuel to maintain that speed than the RM12 would have done? Sounds strange to me, but then I am not an expert in engines, perhaps some of the experts on this forum could explain this?
Even AKAER, Brazilian NG Program associate, said it at Brazilian newspapers. I assumed you are Brazilian, just look the info at Brazilian Press. AKAER described the NG wing as a “gambiarra bem-feita”, I think the best English translation is “a well done mismatch”. By the way, you never see the Demo doing extreme aerobatics like the Gripen C/D, Su35BM, Rafale, F/A-18E/F, Typhoon and MiG35 did. Why? Cause it’s not representative of final product. It serves to test concepts as a flying mock-up. But even the Demo has only 40% of commons parts with the C/D series.
No, I am not a Brazilian, I am actually a Norwegian 🙂
Now you are saying the Demo has 40% common parts with the C/D; previously you said it had 40% commonality with the NG. Which one is it? Or is it both?
LokeI’m not only a journalist, my dear NORDIC GOD OF CONFUSION. I’m a Brazilian Legislative Government officer.
One thing I wonder about; are you authorized to speak about all these details in public? I find it rather fascinating actually, as it opens for a lot of interesting discussions and speculations on forums like this. It’s also interesting that you can work both as a journalist and Brazilian Legislative Government Officer.
In Norway there was kept a lid on all information during the process; nothing leaked out, and nobody involved were allowed to talk freely to the press.
After the process was done the government made their decision, prepared the presentations and summary papers, and only then gave they a press conference.
The Brazilian way of doing this is — intriguing, and, well, much more entertaining…
LokeFAB is buying Embraer KC-390 even if the engine has not been chosen yet:
http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416133312&o=ext page 20.
At least the FAB knows which engine the NG will get….
Saito also confirms that there is no link between the FX2 and any KC-390 deals.
LokeI disagree.
“make his mind” and “bias” are not the same thing.
If you are very neutral then you make a choice when you have all the data in hand is a natural and normal thing because you make a choice one day or another. It’s not the same thing as being biased.
To keep with your analogy it’s like if one say “the best team won today” after a team won 4-0
Pepe made up his mind on Gripen NG long before he read the the memo.
On the basis of what data?
I believe his writing is biased on the basis of what he has written. Again look at how he argues that NG should not be selected in Brazil because Norway did not select it… or the statement that the RCS of Rafale is 1% of SH — If SH has RCS of 0.1, that would give Rafale an RCS of 0.001, putting it into the VLO category.
There are also many other examples. He has a negative bias for NG, just like it seems Jackonicko has a negative bias against Rafale. Or would you also deny that? Do you find Jacko’s writings on Rafale to be neutral and unbiased?
As a journalist Jacko has access to much more info that you; you can only see the Dassault glossy brochures and Powerpoints. :rolleyes:
Let’s make an agreement: I will in the future take Pepes statements regarding the NG at face value if you promise to do the same with Jacko’s statements on the Rafale… 😀
LokeYes and?
Where is the problem? he made his mid and the result is possibly this one, yes.
That’s his opinion.
Nothing wrong with that; I just found it natural to point out since he was presented as a well known and well respected journalist; some may assume that he would report without bias. That is very hard to do when you have made up your mind about something.
A journalist reporting from a soccer match supporting team A may write “the referee made a lot of mistakes” wheras a journalist reporting the same match but supporting team B could have written “the referee had a difficult match but overall did quite well”.
Knowing the bias of the journalist is important to better interpret the writings from that journalist.
That’s all.
LokeIn my opinion, I won’t say that Rafale is his favorite……:)
PAK FA is not an option at the moment and Pepe knows it.
I never intended to say that of all the fighters (either existing or in development) on this planet he would prefer Rafale, merely to say that it seems that of the three shortlisted he seems to prefer Rafale, and of the three shortlisted he seems to be strongly against Gripen NG.
Is this really so hard to understand?
LokeTwo things that Pepe did not comment on from the leaked memo:
One was the industrial offsets; I wonder how that was evaluated? According to some news reports the preference of the industry was NG; this together with the fact that Pepe did not leak that info from the memo, makes me think those news reports were accurate.
The other thing he did not comment on was if any of the fighters (and Gripen in particular) failed to meet the technical requirements. Failing to meet the techniqal requirements will normally mean that the fighter cannot be selected, and would be immensely important information. Again, since Pepe did not say anything about that it seems reasonable to assume that all three passed. This is also in line with news reports that says Saito has stated this.
So to give my summary:
Technical requirements: all passed
ToT: Winner: Gripen NG
Costs: Winner: Gripen NG
Industrial offsets: Winner: Gripen NG
The main critisism against the NG seems to be the development risk. It would be interesting to know when they did that analysis, since the NG program has progressed without any hickups since then. The successful tests at Leh may also have lowered the risk.
I have suggested a solution to the development risk (if it is still considered an issue): Brazil could ask to borrow some Gripen C/D from Sweden if the delays become severe.
What is left then is the strategic partnership with France — if this is important then Rafale will still win, no doubt.
LokeI was talking of the whole debate …:rolleyes:
Lobbying for the Rafale ? , i don’t think , just read what he said earlier about FX-2 and 4th generation aircraft. Iirc , he said also that the Gripen is ahead the Rafale for exemple in matter of TOT (what was a surprise for me).I think Pepe is reporting what is really written in the explanatory memorandum . Why ? i have no certainties , ask him;)
I have to admit I find this incredibly funny! IMHO, Pepe is now to Gripen NG what Jackonicko is to Rafale, on this very forum. Oh, the irony…!
True Pepe said he would prefer none of them, but rather SU-35+PAK FA. However if you read his posts, how can you doubt that his favorite at the moment is Rafale? What is more obvious is that he is against the NG. Also read what Trident and Sintra says… 😉
Perhaps I misunderstand the word “lobby” or perhaps it means something different in France? I am not implying that he is lying about the leaked memo, merely that I suspect his reporting is biased (just like you probably find Jackonickos reporting of Rafale rather biased…..)
LokeHammer was often wrong 😉
Soap opera , yes ! … but this “news” is single source for now, i only take as credible news confirmed by several sources …Pending other credible news that will say otherwise 😉
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/07/farn10-brazil-af-delays-f-x2-c-1.html
😉
LokeThe Brazilian government will not make a decision on the F-X2 fighter competition before presidential elections in the country in the fall, predicts the Brazilian air force chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Saito. He indicates a decision may have been made, but will be handed off by president Lula to his replacement.
Saito will not say which aircraft he prefers.
Seems Hammer was right.
This is really a never ending soap opera!
LokeI think that if Rafale really had RCS of 1% of SH which (according to not just EADS but also some other sources) has one of the lowest RCS of all the 3-4 gen jets, well then I think you would have seen a bit more interest in the Rafale.
There could be many explanations: Perhaps Pepe is wrong (he is not perfect you know) or perhaps he did not disclose everything. Perhaps the devil is in the details; perhaps from one very particular angle in some very special circumstances the Rafale happens to have a very low RCS but if you change the angle with just a few degrees then the RCS increases dramatically.
Or perhaps this was at a particular frequency that is not that useful.
To me it seems Pepe is lobbying quite hard for Rafale at the moment, and I will therefore take his statements with a pinch of salt, just like statements from any sales person….
Edit: What has Saab got to do with the RCS of Rafale and SH? :confused:
LokeHhmmm…
That’s what the popular myth says and Saddam Hussain was saying…i’m not so sure that that was the reality.
“Iraq uses the KARI IADS, a French-supplied command, control, and communications system completed in 1986-1987. (KARI is Iraq spelled backwards in French.) KARI is a mix of technologies from different nations with uncertain integration. KARI was rapidly overwhelmed by Coalition air operations during the 1990-91 Gulf War for several reasons. First, KARI was very hierarchical, so that when the SOCs or ADOC were destroyed, the IOCs were unable to operate effectively. Also, much of the communications, data processing, and software for the integrated air defenses (IADs) were not up to the task of successfully defeating a modern, Western air campaign. “
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-defence.htm
Doesn’t sound like the top notch, modern, integrated AD system some would like to claim it was…
Sounds more like a bodge of dodgy communications between a disparate array of old, aging and a tad more modern kit.
Seems like the French pulled off a rather good wheeze and got paid for implementing a “system” that worked great when all the bits of bodge tape were in place…
I wonder — could it also be that the French shared some information on how the system worked with the Coalition forces? A bit similar to what happened during the Falklands war.
LokeBy the way, FAB papers shows that Rafale, at attack configuration, has 1% of F/A-18E/F radar signature at similar conditions…
This is what (according to Bill) EADS says about the SH:
Competitor EADS, by the way, assesses the existing aircraft as one of the stealthiest fighters out there, other than full-LO designs.
Mr. Pepe, I suggest you also write about the Rafale on Strategypage, I think that could become very interesting… :diablo:
Edit: beaten by Jackjack, how annoying… 🙂
LokeYou know what I talked about…
No I don’t.
It only participated at the Leh testing. All the other were performed by C/D…
No, the NG Demo did more than just high altitude take-off. For instance, some tests of the AESA radar were performed:
“A prototype already installed in Saab’s Gripen Demo aircraft has demonstrated a range of high performance air-to-air and air-to-ground modes including high resolution SAR mapping. The AESA in the Gripen Demo aircraft has been tested thoroughly by an Indian Air Force Evaluation team both in Sweden and India”
http://se.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416133050&o=ext page 70.
The Indian Air Force never confirmed those reports and now, talking with FAB officers, denied a lot of “info” published by the press.
This was my first info, I got it at IBAS forum in Brasilia, and I correct it now. The intention was to see essential mods necessary to fit IAF needs, not to qualify or disqualify a bidder. Super Hornet and MiG 35 had problem to start up their engines at Leh.
I wonder how often you receive wrong info and how often you correct it :rolleyes:
No, they told they will integrate R-Darter for free. It was the BVR to be integrate at Brazilian planes at F-X1 bid…
They put a price of US$ 20 million to integrate the missile and South Africa Air Force didn’t considered it a cost effective question. I read the forum and this is implicit in a lot of replies.
This does not make sense to me.
The Brazilian Air Force and, believe or not, from people that thinks Gripen NG was the best choice.
The head of the Norwegian Air Force instead praised the Swedes for behaving in a profesionnal and “tidy” manner — the opposite of what you are claiming.
That is true, but that didn’t disqualify their analysis. I read the COPAC papers and, everything described by the Norwegian was replicated there.
It disqualifies the conclusion you were drawing. Are you saying that Brazil just copied the Norwegian evaluation of the Gripen NG? Have you actually seen the Norwegian evaluation? I am surprised that you get access to so much classified information from Norway, India, and other places…
I have read the summary of the Norwegian evaluation and as far as I can recall the main reason for choosing F-35 over Gripen was:
1. F-35 is a VLO plane; Gripen NG is not;
2. F-35 will be used by the US; Gripen NG will not;
3. F-35 scored higher on sensors.
4. F-35 was found to be cheaper than Gripen NG (the only point disputed by the Swedish government)
Notice two things on the above; The high development risk of Gripen NG that you are claiming was not mentioned, and also notice that Rafale (or any other 4.5 gen fighter) would NOT have stood a chance against the F-35 in the Norwegian evaluation.
Also notice as I have said before: There are big differences between Norway and Brazil; one is a close US ally and founding NATO member, the other is not; one is an F-35 partner, the other is not; etc. etc. I still don’t understand how you can suggest this as a relevant comparison.
If Rafale had participated in the Norwegian competition instead of Gripen NG, then Rafale would have been the one that had been not selected; would you then have used that as an argument against Rafale in Brazil? Your lack of coherence and lack of logic seems stunning to me.
The Gripen NG is considered, even at COPAC, as a high risk deal. There are doubts about development and industrial schedule, amongst other items. We need something ready to fly, not a paper airplane. In my opinion, the best deal was with Russia. They have a ready do fly plane, the Su35BM, adopted by its Air Force (Sweden promises only buy the NG AFTER Brazil buy it) with a 5th generation follow up.
Sweden will buy NG sooner or later, it’s just a matter of timing. And the NG will become the upgrade path for the C/D.
If you are so worried about the high development risk, why not ask the Swedes to put in the contract that Brazil will borrow a small amount of C/D until the NG is ready. I don’t see an imminent danger of Sweden being invaded so I am sure you could borrow some C/D for a few months (if at all needed).
Yehp, they were discussing a 3,000 km radius (a 6,000 km range!) for the Gripen NG and I said it would be around 1,200 km real radius, what is similar to F-16C. I used only fuel and the higher F414 engine consumption to get this number. The figure obtained by RNoAF from SAAB in optimal conditions was 1,300km at Hi-Hi-Hi, similar to a 2,600 km flight. In operational REAL conditions you must get a 200 km range loss. The original Gripen C/D OPERATONAL range is a 800 km radius with internal fuel and drop tanks with no REVO.
The numbers I used are above us. I only evaluated the fuel 50% higher load and the F414 consumption rate, 20% higher than RM12 one. What I’m saying is that SAAB numbers divulgate at press were not realistic, even by optimistic COPAC point of view.
3000 km radius? I find that hard to believe, do you have a source?
Do you have a source for the claim that the F414 is consuming at 20% higher rate than the RM12? I am not an expert; however I believe we have some experts on this forum, perhaps they could comment? I have heard that the F414 actually was more fuel efficient than the RM12 (4-5% or so if I recall correctly).
I’m not saying it. It’s on COPAC paper. NG will have different canards, wings, intakes and centre and rear fuselage. In common, they will have only the cockpit and the rudder. Even the nose will be different. The Demo still has the C/D centre fuselage. On the NG it will be build integrally with the wings.
Why would Saab design new canards, new wings, new intakes and new fuselage? The Gripen NG Demo seems to perform quite well so far. Do you have a public source for this?
LokeThe RNoAF evaluates SAAB figures and classified them as irrealistic. They found a flying cost of USD 10 thousand for the NG. The FAB found a lower cost for the NG, around USD 8 thousand, but SAAB could not supply COPAC with F414 operational costs, cause the engine is US Navy intellectual propriety. To establish a cost, FAB officers use half the value used at Boeing bid. There’s a problem in this methodology. NG engine will be a little different. It will have a 80% commonality with F/A-18E/F Super Hornet engines.
The costs for the other bidders are, according Brazilian Air Force, USD 10 thousand for the Boeing bidder and USD 12,400 for the Rafale. Is important notice that French bid flying hour price is EUR 9,800 and Euro devaluated 25% at last month. Now, they are very similar.
Cheers
Pepe
It was not just Saab but also the FMV that did not understand how Norway calculated the operating costs, in spite of several meetings between Sweden and Norway. Basically the Norwegian committee used the operating costs for the Norwegian F-16 and tweaked them a bit. One of the funny things was the very high attrition rates they put in (due to accidents), based on the Norwegian F-16 accident rates that were very high until 2001 or so (when we did an MLU). For some reason I don’t think we have lost a single a/c since then.
Estimating operating costs is a tricky business. Sweden seems to be good at keeping their costs down, and I think they are happy to share their knowledge on how to operate Gripen in a cost-effective manner if asked.
You say that the NG engine will have only 80% commonality with the SH engine; do you have a source for that? I would think there is a reason why it is called F414. RM12 was a rebuilt F404 which had some 60% commonality with the F404. Why do you expect the F414 to have higher operating costs than the RM12? Seem illogical to me; F414 is more modern and has been produced in much larger numbers.
Sign In
