LokeReport: Elta Or EADS To Help Build Tejas AESA, Project Codenamed “Uttam”
One important and interesting piece of information in the original news story was that Thales and Phazotron were dropped “due to technical reasons”. In particular I find it interesting and surprising that Thales was dropped for technical reasons….I wonder what those were?
LokeBetter to answer you with sources to start on good basis.
From Pedro Paulo Rezende, a well-know Brazilian Journalist (Correio Braziliense / Valor econômico / Jane’s defence weekly) :
ISTOE :
Finaly what is clear is that in both edition of the evaluation the gripen was never in a position to win. “We have met the gripen NG…He is powerpoint” to mimic MacCristal about the taliban when attending a 1000th powerpoimt presentation about the situation in Astan (original : we have met the ennemy : he is powerpoint). SAAB was able to produce attractive slideshows but the real substance behind can be called into question as showed in the evaluation. Thales latest press release (see rafale thread) about the RBE2 AESA was like an echo to tackle selex. It took ten years and 1 billion of investement to make a mature and working AESA with the RBE2 ESA ans spectra AESA to gain experience. It is doubtfull that SAAB/Selex could come as easily and so quickly with a credible radar. Then there are some inherent constraint with the gripen size and single engine design. There is noway it can produce the same amount of electricity energy as the rafale or the SH. That as of course an impact on sensor performance and future upgrade.
Then there is the performance penalty when carriying a similar external load etc…So great communication from SAAB but I feel it was in some aeras at least some kind of a ”bluff”. It takes more than a few slide show and ”sound impressive” bullet points.
I am actually rather sceptical about Mr. Pepe — I have seen several statements from him that I find rather strange. Some examples: He claimed (indirectly) that Gripen failed in the Indian Leh test (by saying that only two fighter succeeded and both were twin engined);
he has said that in one exercise (can’t remember which, red flag?) Gripen had 40% availability, whereas Sweden air force claimed close to 100%.
He also claimed that Saab promised SA to integrate R-Darter for free but later on failed to do so; I asked about this on a South African forum, you are free to read the responses and draw your own conclusions:
http://saairforce.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2527
In particular “knightone” seem very well informed on that forum.
I would not give 1 cent for Mr. Pepes analytical skills either; He used the fact that Norway did not select Gripen NG as an argument that Brazil should not select Gripen NG!! As most of you will realize, there is very little commonality between Norway and Brazil to defend such an argument. The funny thing is also that if we accept to play his little game I would argue that the Norwegian conclusion actually could be interpreted as being in favor of the Gripen NG and not Rafale or SH — after all they did not even make it to the evaluation stage, whereas Gripen NG as the only 4.5 gen fighter did.
He made several other claims that seemed rather dubioius to me, if someone is interested they can go to e.g. the forum on alide.com.br (where our own Hammer is one of the moderators) and read some of his claims. There is a long thread on Gripen in the FX2 competition, in part I and II. If I recall correctly I think he said back in 2008 that he expected NG to have a shorter range than the C/D since it will be heavier and with a higher-thrust engine… What a true expert!
As for NG being a “powerpoint”; the NG Demo flew to India and successfully completed all the tests. THe development program is on schedule with 175 flights completed.
Seems to me that someone is getting nervous, and I think I can see why…
LokeThe funny thing is that by 2020 Norway’s air force will be more powerful than the one Brazil got :diablo:
(in some respects)
Loke@Tmor,
thanks for the reminder about those other competitions, that’s a good point.
Rafale is a fantastic fighter no doubt, and I’m sure it will score at least one (if not three) sales this year.
OTOH I still think NG will be a nice product, hopefully it will also win one competition… although it seems not in Brazil.
LokeOne of the things I find odd is that Gripen is highlighted as “high risk” — that argument was actually stronger one year ago, when there were still many test flights left to perform and a lot of integration work that remained.
However, even before Jobim delivered the report, the NG Demo had flown to India in mid May, performed all tests flawlessly, and returned back home. India seems to not share the notion that it is such a high risk project; they got six a/c to choose from, and they still decided to bring the NG Demo to India for flight testing!
Saab says they can deliver NG to India in 2013; when does Brazil require the first plane to be delivered? And is the original FX-2 schedule now realistic? Unlike the NG development program, the FX-2 is delayed… reducing the risk of Gripen further.
It is also interesting to note that FAB did short-list Gripen NG and not e.g. the F-16; at the time of the short-listing the risk of the NG was not considered that high it seems — whereas now, after more than 150 successful test flights and integration of all important components, it is considered high risk…
It seems a weak argument, which makes me wonder why they bring it up? Are they not confident of the strength of the pro-Rafale arguments…?
Another thing I find odd is that the writer first talks about the increased focus on ToT in the second version of the report and then says “The Gripen NG has a better assessment on the transfer of technology..”. This does not makes sense to me, but perhaps this is just a Google translate issue?
LokeThere have been so many different and inconsistent news reports from Brazil that it’s difficult to determine which version is closest to the truth.
The only thing that most seem to agree on, is that Rafale is the favorite of Jobim and Lula, and that’s what is most important for the outome — unless of course this is now so delayed that the next president will decide.
Let’s wait and see.
LokeI didn’t find anything official about this.
I have seen it somewhere, I will try to find it.
For now, there is at least this:
Gripen is supersonic at all altitudes and can cruise supersonically with an external load including fuel tank, four AMRAAM and two sidewinder missiles without the need to engage the afterburner.
http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE463B06-8C9B-4A49-A382-999C6AF1E53B/0/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf
This was the old Gripen, so it could probably not SC at 1.2M; however if you consider that the RM12 is significantly weaker than the F414, this is already an indication of the low drag in this particular config.
Also, it seems not unreasonable to me that since Gripen C/D can SC (perhaps at 1.1M or so) then one may expect NG to be able to reach 1.2M with a stronger engine and bigger air intakes, using the same config (one drop tank, 4 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders).
I’ll try to find the source anyways.
LokeWhat type of tank? the new 450 gal or the old one?
It’s hard to believe that it can do 1.2M with one EFT.
No one said that –the F 16 blk. 50-52 can do this but clean.
1. 450 gallon
2. It’s hard to believe but that’s what it can do — 1.2M with one EFT and 6 a2a missiles.
3. And that was my point. The drag of Gripen is surprisingly low in this config.
LokeSweden decided to order Meteor missiles for Gripen
The Government today decided on consent to the acquisition and integration of new missile radar for the JAS METEOR 39C / D.
Combat aviation of the Swedish defense forces stands for most of the overall air defense capability. Radar missile is a fundamental and indispensable element of this defense. When the existing radar missile RB99/AIM-120B reaches its service life between 2015 and 2018, there would be a need for a operational replacement.
Thanks to Caprice at mp.net 🙂
LokeYeah, sure :p maybe go in with 3 EFTs, drops 2EFTs, stays on station with 1 EFT… more plausible.
Gripen has very low drag also in some non-clean configs; this is demonstrated by the information from Saab that one drop tank adds 1000 km to the range.
I would think that in particular the one tank + 6 a2a missiles config has very low drag. This is consistent with the fact that NG can SC>1.2M in that config as well, even in spite of being powered by the relatively weak F414.
F-16 is said to also be able to SC, however I have (so far) not seen any claims that the F-16 would be able to SC>1.2M in such a config, in spite of having a stronger engine. Perhaps the explanation is that Gripen has less drag in that config than the F-16.
The explanation I have seen for the low drag of Gripen in a “non-clean” config is that the canards can somehow be used to “trim” (don’t know if it’s the right expression) the aircraft, reducing the drag compared to e.g. F-16 and F-18, leading to a surprisingly long range, at least for this particular config.
LokeFrom Sign’s pdf I only deduce that:
Gripen NG range is supposed to be 1300km + 30 min on station (?) (700NM) with 6 AAMs + External tank(s). Note that it isn’t specified how many tanks.
It’s with one tank:
In the new version, Saab says that the combat radius was expanded to 1300 km, the aircraft can stay for up to 30 minutes in the area of patrol, armed with four missiles BVR, WVR two and a central fuel tank.
LokeGripen Czech Republic Offset Programme Update
22 Jun, 2010 16:22 CET
Gripen Czech Republic Offset Programme successfully completes second contractual milestone
Gripen International has announced succesfull fulfillment of the second contractual milestone of the Programme of Industrial Cooperation accompanying the lease of 14 Gripen fighters provided by the Swedish government. According to the Annual Report on Offset performance for the calendar year 2009, approved by the Czech Ministry of Defence, the Gripen offset programme has by the December 31st 2009 generated 19.92 billion CZK of cummulative offset value for the Czech Republic.
For the calendar year 2009 transactions value of 3,68 billion CZK have been approved. The cummulative value has now reached 19.92 billion CZK since the start of the programme on June 14th 2004. This represents 78% of the total commitment. As of 31st December 2009 46 offset transactions have been registered.“We are very pleased the Gripen offset programme continues to benefit Czech industry even in these difficult economic times,” said Bengt Littke, Gripen Programme Director – Czech Republic. “It is our ambition to bring a positive contribution to the Czech economy.”
Background:
Gripen International is committed to generate Offset and Industrial Co-operation to the value of 130 % from the Gripen fighter lease contract value, which represents 25,5 billion CZK. The Offset agreement requires a minimum direct Offset equalling 20 % of the Offset agreement value.
The second milestone states that the achieved cumulative value of the Programme shall correspond to at least 48 % of the commitment and the achieved cumulative value of Direct Transactions shall correspond to at least 9.6 %.
Gripen is a new generation fighter aircraft which employs the latest technology and the latest weapons, which delivers the capability for an extensive variety of air-to-air and air-to-surface operational missions, including recognisance missions. Gripen is in service with the Swedish, Czech, Hungarian, South African air force and in Thailand. The UK Test Pilots’ School (ETPS) is operating Gripen as its advanced fast jet platform for test pilots worldwide. Gripen is fully NATO compatible and can be deployed globally. Gripen meets the highest demands of operational deployment.
Gripen International also has successful Offset Programmes (Industrial Co-operation) in Hungary and South Africa.
LokeSurely Gripen NG and F35 are not really much of a High-low mix? very similar performance figures….
And the cost of operating two small fleets would be huge, two lots of engineering facilities and training, two spares and supply chains and a fleet of 16-24 is not very sustainable long term.
In terms of stealth the performance is very dissimilar. Maintainance of F-35 will presumably be much more expensive due to stealth requirements; tear and wear on the F-35s could be minimized by using Gripens for “lighter” missions that do not require stealth.
The idea was to rely on already established Swedish facilities and supply chains for Gripen and establish facilities only for F-35 in Norway. QRA for southern Norway would be conducted from air base in Sweden, but also in Northern Norway, from Bodø (forward base for F-35 and Gripen)
LokeSo if Norway wanted to contribute Gripens to a NATO mission, Sweden could actually effectively veto such a contribution if it is carrying out all maintenence!?
There would have to be agreements to regulate such things. Sweden has moved closer to NATO in recent years, with quite a lot of collaboration, so it may not become a problem.
Norway could in addition train a few Norwegian techs capable of doing the necessary maintainance during the mission.
Could also be used as an excuse by the Norwegian government “sorry we cannot send Gripens to bomb Iran this year because the Swedes won’t let us” 🙂
Or one could send the F-35s for those missions that would be so long-term that Sweden cold “veto” (which is what will happen in any case because I don’t see us buying any Gripen NG in addition to the F-35).
LokeAlso in the ABC Paulista, the mayor of Sao Bernardo do Campo, Luiz Marinho (PT), will receive today (22) to visit the mayor of Linköping, Sweden, Ann-Catherine Hjerdt in his office at City Hall.
The passage of the entourage of Ann-Catherine occurs in response to the departure of Marino to the city in March to settle trade agreements and partnerships with entrepreneurs in Sweden.Linköping is the headquarters of SAAB, maker of the Gripen fighter, and a company representative will be present to sign a letter of intent for a partnership with a company in the region.
The mayor of Sao Bernardo do Campo has favored the purchase of the airplane by the Brazilian government, which seeks alternatives to renew the fleet of fighters. The American Boeing, maker of the F-18 Super Hornet, Dassault and the French, the Rafale, are also options.
So the Swedes did not give up yet it seems!?
Sign In
