LokeInterview with the Brazilian MoD, Nelson Jobim (Folha de São Paulo newspaper, 26/12/2009):
Original version (in portuguese):
I was going to link this, but… too slow 🙂
So if I understand this correctly the politicians asked FAB to change the evaluation, hence the delay. And the new evaluation will probably favor the Rafale….
Seems that the French will get a delayed Christmas present from Lula and Jobim in January.
LokeMore rumors… 🙂
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil has postponed a decision on buying 36 jet fighters from any of the three rival bidders until early spring 2010 at the very earliest in a move analysts interpret as part of a strategy to extract maximum advantage over Brazil’s long-term plan for extensive technology transfer.
Despite the fact that Lula publicly said the Rafale made by France’s Dassault Aviation would win the contract, the Brazilian air force has not finished evaluating the three planes, which include Boeing’s F18 Super Hornet and Saab’s Gripen, the latter apparently being favored by the air force.
But there will be a presidential election in Brazil in October and as defense specialist Jean Guisnel writes it the French weekly “Le Point” there is expected to be a six-month respite from major political decisions, particularly a contract of this importance before the election. He cites a source familiar with the negotiations as saying that “frankly, it is highly unlikely that a decision is taken before April which means that we are unlikely to see a decision before the end of the post-electoral grace period, towards April 2011.”
Sources say the contract negotiations are “extremely tough” and that knowing their president has opted for the Rafale, the Brazilians are pushing for conditions, notably over the price, that Dassault “is absolutely not prepared to accept.”
If this is really shifted to 2011 then I guess anything can happen…
Bad news for Rafale if this is the case, and equally good news for Gripen and SH that may get a second chance.
LokeSaab offers Sea Gripen
Saab Touts Sea Gripen for India and Brazil
Saab is responding to an Indian Navy (IN) request for information (RfI) regarding future carrier-capable fighters with a new development of the Gripen NG, dubbed the Sea Gripen.
India’s RfI, selectively released to bidders over recent weeks, seeks detailed information on a common aircraft design for conventional aircraft carrier operations and short take-off but arrested recovery (STOBAR) operations.
Beyond the (much delayed) entry into service of the INS Vikramaditya (the rebuilt former Russian Navy vessel Admiral Gorshkov ), India has ambitious plans to build three indigenous aircraft carriers (IACs). Near-term procurement of the MiG-29K should equip Vikramaditya and IAC 1. The IN’s RfI is looking for a follow-on type to operate from IAC 2 and 3.
Jane’s understands the RfI has been issued to Boeing, Dassault, Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin, Sukhoi and Saab. While India is notionally developing a naval version of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Tejas Light Combat Aircraft, the RfI is a recognition that this troubled programme might not be able to deliver an operational combat aircraft in the necessary timescale. India hopes to commission IAC 2 and 3 in the second half of the next decade.
Prior to receiving the RfI Saab had completed detailed design pre-studies for the Sea Gripen in response to earlier interest from Brazil and others. In fact, designs for a navalised Gripen date back to the 1980s in Sweden. For Saab the Indian requirement is particularly important because of its potential links with Brazil’s F-X2 fighter competition. The Sea Gripen would be part of the long-term industrial development package for India and Brazil, should either country select the Gripen NG. The Indian RfI also makes a specific request that India’s chosen aircraft should be exportable.
Saab’s Sea Gripen project leader is former Swedish Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Peter Nilsson, now vice-president of operational capabilities for the Gripen. “You have the Rafale, Super Hornet, even – some day – the JSF [Joint Strike Fighter], but no affordable option for nations that want independent seapower. Gripen has a built-in carrier capability that was part of the original design consideration. It is made for precision landings on a short strip. The aerodynamics, handling and landing qualities are all there. You don’t have to mess with it,” he told Jane’s .
The Sea Gripen is made possible by the inherent performance characteristics of the Gripen and the structural changes introduced with the Gripen NG. It has been designed to operate from ‘full-spec’ carriers at a maximum take-off weight of 16,500 kg and a landing weight (with weapons and fuel) of 3,500 kg. The same basic design parameters make it well suited to STOBAR operations. Any Gripen can already operate from a standard Swedish ‘roadbase’ strip of 800 m x 17 m, without arrestor hooks or brake chutes. Existing flight control qualities and low approach speed make the Gripen further suited to the carrier environment.
Some of the changes demanded for the Sea Gripen include a stronger, longer nose gear, with larger tyres and a new shock absorber; a new main undercarriage capable of absorbing a 6.3 m/sec sink rate; a strengthened arrestor hook, repositioned from the current design; removal of corrosion risks from the airframe using new manufacturing techniques/materials; and integration with an approach/landing system.
The result will be an aircraft with an empty weight of under 8,000 kg with a total fuel and weapon load of around 8,500 kg. Combat radius is estimated at around 1,250 km in a maritime strike profile or 1,400 km in an offensive counter-air profile. For carrier operations the aircraft will have a service life of 8,000 flight hours with an even distribution between shipborne and land-based operations. Nilsson says the design work done so far has been a serious adjunct to the Gripen NG and has a very real footing. Asked about the inherent difficulties in taking any land-based fighter and putting it on a carrier, Nilsson replied: “If you were starting with an ordinary fighter you would have a much bigger problem.”
“We have an engine [General Electric’s F414] cleared for naval ops by the US Navy. We have thoroughly studied the load paths through the airframe. The Gripen is already built for high sink-rate landings in road base operations. So we need a new nose gear and undercarriage and we’ll have to change some of the internal structure, but it’s been analysed and it’s possible. We built an arrestor hook into the Gripen NG proposal for Norway. That will have to be strengthened for carrier ops, with a new attachment point, but the work is there. Today’s Gripen NG has a better wing attachment design with a more distributed load path than the current Gripen.
“The Gripen already has a salt water protection requirement. It does need more study but we already have an aircraft designed to operate in -50°C and +50°C, from the Arctic to hot-and-high with severe humidity. We don’t build fighters for nice sunny days.” Saab expects to make initial presentations to the IN in January 2010 and submit an RfI response the following month.
http://defense-studies.blogspot.com/2009/12/saab-offers-sea-gripen.html
Sounds interesting, can anybody confirm or deny this?
LokeSeveral books & other published works (I would not doubt it is not on the internet somewhere as well). The Encyclopedia Of World Military Aircraft (2000 edition published by Barnes & Noble, Inc by arrangement with Amber Books, Ltd) is the one & took off my book shelf to double check.
Now as to this ‘1000 nm strike mission’, that is ‘radius of action’ which INCLUDES the range of the Scalp/Storm Shadow.
Surprisingly nobody has brought it up here but a Rafale with two 1150 L CFTs + three 2000 L drop tanks…THAT might have a COMBAT RADIUS of 1000nm. But then you are talking about 8300 L (14,634 lbs @ 6.7 lbs/gal) of external fuel in FIVE additional tanks! Thats more external fuel than internal fuel & hardly fair/intellectually honest vs the combat radius of the F-35 with internal fuel alone.
Thanks. 🙂
LokeBy far the most reliable to date compared to the very tenous infos/rumors we had before !
I had expected some Swede to call BS on this one but I guess they are all on vacation.
Let’s look a bit closer on the information in this “highly relibably” source:
1. First image shows Gripen not Rafale
2. Second image shows Hornet not Super Hornet
3. It is claimed that Saab has worked on CAESAR, this is plain wrong.
4. It is claimed that development of the Raven radar has just started, this is plain wrong.
5. It is claimed that Super Hornet development was 100% over budget, this is wrong: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1
The F/A-18 E/F acquisition program was an unparalleled success. The aircraft emerged from Engineering and Manufacturing Development meeting all of its performance requirements on cost, on schedule and 400 pounds under weight. All of this was verified in Operational Verification testing, the final exam, passing with flying colors receiving the highest possible endorsement.
This is very important, since the previous program that has the most in common with the Gripen NG program, is the Hornet => Super Hornet program — although the airframe changes to Gripen seems less than the changes made to Hornet to arrive at the Super Hornet….
Another relevant observation is that Saab delivered the Gripen C/D at 10% below budget, and ahead of schedule.
6. They are referring to the Norwegian and Dutch calculation of costs. The Norwegian cost calculations have been debunked a number of times, and the Dutch never did their own calculations, they just used the Norwegian calculations.
How anybody can claim that with all the above mistakes and biased statements this source can be considered “the most credible” and “most reliable” is beyond me….
They do have point though: Gripen NG is not complete yet, and if Saab would need to integrate a lot of Brazilian tech — well then the question to me becomes: How reliable and timely can the Brazilian suppliers deliver the goodies.
In any case, Rafale will win this, it seems — it’s just a pity that some people see the need to try to “smear” the competitors in this manner. It just goes to show how tough the competition is I guess.
LokeBTW how reliable is that blog at all? I mean claiming Saab is working on the CAESAR is fundamentally wrong.
Indeed… Saab has been developing AESA radar tech for many years already, also in collaboration with Selex. But as most of us know it’s not the CAESAR, it’s a radar based on Vixen 1000SE and Saabs AESA program.
Selex and Saab have actually had a development program going for quite some time; this is from 2006:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/saab-and-selex-to-work-on-maesa-radar-02819/
I don’t know when they did the first phase of that program, however presumably the first phase was finalized before the second phase started in 2006.
Some older info on the Gripen update plans and info about NORA:
http://www.janes.com/info/idr/articles/grippen-secures.html
The NORA program was mentioned already in 2002:
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH0212/FR0212d.htm
Thus it’s something that has been running for quite some time now… 🙂
LokeThank you for bringing it forward, because if I say this it’s spin and twist;)
I luv the twist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30w3zsfakQE&feature=related
🙂
LokeAir-to-Air mission with FOUR EXTERNAL TANKS.
Could you provide a source to the above?
AFAIK the >1000nm mission is a strike mission.
LokeBut the prospect of signing the contract within a short time away. President Lula da Silva may well have taken up the cause of the French fighter aircraft, the Air Force Brazilian has not completed its assessment, but leaning more in favor of the Swedish Gripen. Yet another presidential election looming in October, and a form of truce period without any major policy decision, especially on a contract of this size is expected six months before the elections, so from next April. Conclusion of a close file: “Frankly, it is very unlikely that a decision be taken until April, which pushes us towards the end of the period of truce election around April 2011.” So, in all likelihood, Edouard Guillaud assume his new duties in late February, although the Brazilian contract is signed. In Paris, a source close to the negotiations said that it is “extremely hard”. With their presidential policy decision, the Brazilians want to extract conditions, including price, Dassault is absolutely not ready to make.
interesting…
LokeLol Germany forced Austria to buy the Typhoon? The aircraft was selected 4:1 over the Gripen and that was confirmed a couple of times when the opposition requested a reassessment.
Typhoon and Gripen were offered at roughly the same prices in Austria.
Typhoon has several technical advantages, and normally Gripen has a cost advantage. Without that cost advantage it became difficult for Austria to select Gripen.
Of course, looking at the Typhoons they are flying and the lack of equipment they got, they should have chosen Gripen in any case :diablo:
LokeHow do you explain that the Rafale has scored no export success right now and lost out against the F-15 and F-16 f.e. Does it mean that these aircraft are all superior to the Rafale? According your logic yes. The Typhoon was ever plaged by delays, its high cost and lack of matury. Even now it lacks adequate AG capabilities and at the given price tag it’s unacceptable for most customers. Add to that uncertainies about the aircraft’s future it all adds up. The Rafale was in a better position by stronger political back up, at least to a certain extend a funded roadmap and a certain matury in some areas where the Typhoon is not.
As we all know for the actual sale to take place, a large number of issues are more important than mere performance, in particular politics, price, tech transfer, and industrial offsets are important, and politics often being the most important factor.
Therefore, for enthusiasts who want to discuss the technical merits of the planes, it is more interesting to learn about the technical evaluations and who “won” those than the actual sales. Unfortunately the technical evaluation is often not known to outside people… whereas the sales are always known.
Of course, it is also fun to count the number of sales each fighter get, but that correlates only weakly with the technical capabilities.
LokeWell, if Rafale does so well in a2a against Typhoon and also have superb a2g capabilities, why does it seem that the FAB does not prefer it over SH and Gripen NG?
Are the SH and Gripen NG much more capable than some people claim? Or is the Typhoon really not as strong as some people claim?
Or perhaps the ROE of the this training means that we cannot really draw any conclusions?
LokeCombat radius
USAF (F-35A)
THRESHOLD: 590nm
OBJECTIVE: 690nm
actual: 625nm (from 2007 Program Update) 5.9% greater than THRESHOLDUSMC (F-35B)
THRESHOLD: 450nm
OBJECTIVE: 550nm
actual: 498nm (from 2007 Program Update) 10.6% greater than THRESHOLDUSN (F-35C)
THRESHOLD: 600nm
OBJECTIVE: 730nm
actual: 642nm (from 2007 Program Update) 7.0% greater than THRESHOLD
I believe the Rafale has a combat radius of more than 1000nm (but I don’t know how much more?)
LokeSwiss evaluation committe prefers Rafale:
http://info.rsr.ch/fr/rsr.html?siteSect=5001&broadcastId=715546&bcItemId=11603422
Or maybe not…?
From the “Neue Luzerner Zeitung these days,” widespread reports of a supposedly fallen preliminary decision in favor of the Rafale, the defense chief described as “ridiculous” and “silly rumors” that was devoid of any foundation.
Bailey said, except himself and the Partial Tiger Replacement Project Juerg Weber had no knowledge of the overall records of the three aircraft.
Knew nothing of a preliminary decision in favor of the French agent to request the National Council Thomas Hurter (svp., Schaffhausen), the President of the Sub-Commission Partial Tiger Replacement Security Policy Commission.
Original link:
http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/schweiz/mehr_transparenz_bei_offsetgeschaeften_1.4208302.html
LokeFlight testing remains the biggest challenge, however, and with only 130 flights to date—3% of planned flying—Crowley acknowledges the program does not have the data needed to substantiate its projections for flight-test productivity. “We need more flights completed before we can finalize the schedule,” he says.
In other words: JET is guessing, LM is guessing and that’s all there is to it at this point in time.
Let’s wait until they have done at least 10-15% of the test flights, then we can probably start to get an idea how things are going.
In the meantime we can just guess, and speculate 🙂
Sign In
