If a large country like Canada should consider a fighter like Gripen (purely hypothetical in the case of Canada) then the solution would be to have a sufficient number of bases scattered around the country.

Brazil is a quite large country (8.615 million km2) and did choose Gripen E. Presumably they will have more than one air base in Brazil…

It is interesting to note that although Canada is of course larger than Brazil, it is not that much more larger (9.985 million km2).

It is also interesting to note that Switzerland, which concluded that Gripen E was barely able to meet their requirements in terms of range and persistence, is much much smaller than either of them.

So the conclusion could perhaps be that the requirements depends on a large number of factors, and whether a light fighter is considered to have “adequate” range is highly dependent on the various scenarios a specific air force needs to consider, and not just the size of the country.

I am sorry, but that isn’t remotely plausible.

A multi-billion dollar/euro project like a new fighter development program can’t just shift critical deadlines/milestones around in that manner. At the onset of the project everything is tied to a central schedule that dictates when raw materials must be ordered, when certain software needs to be complete, when various certifications must be obtained, when first flight must occur, etc.

If you take one of those dates and simply move it a year+ to the right it impacts everything else. Suddenly you are pushing later airframes farther to the right, which impacts when you order parts and perform work on them, etc etc.

It is precisely these complex inter-dependencies that make delivering a new fighter on schedule so difficult. One missed estimate for how long it will take to perform a necessary task and the whole project can start to fall behind pace.

Returning to the Gripen NG specifically, either they intentionally lied about when they intended to perform their first flight and deliver their first aircraft (awfully unlikely) or the project has encountered significant delays. (very likely) They would never casually slip the whole project by a year or more with a funded contract in hand. That would entail extra cost, risk, and a delay in seeing a return on all company funded investment. (effectively money lost)

I am sorry but you are wrong.

A change in external customer from Switzerland to Brazil obviously has a huge impact on the project, and in this case also the timelines of the project. What you fail to realize is that the requiments changed; Switzerland had one set of requiments, and Brazil had another set of requirements.

Obviously when such huge changes are made to a project, the plans need to change quite dramatically.

What you perhaps fail to realize is that Sweden was not pushing this project; Sweden could have waited until 2020 or even later for delivery. Thus timelines were driven by the external customer. When the external customer was shifted from Switzerland to Brazil, and the requirements were changed, the timelines obviously needed to be updated.

You cannot change a project plan without actually changing it.

And regarding Denmark (because I mentioned it as a country with an air force operating F16 in similar conditions than those seen in northern Canada:

Source:
Wiki

Greenland was actually Norwegian, but was “stolen” by those pesky Danes a long time ago.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-canadas-f-35-participation-deserves-scruti-431807/

Those (utterly useless) internet surveys…. At the time of writing F-35 ranks third not first! And Rafale is ranked last!

Oh well.

Saab clarifies that the main purpose of opening an office is the Philipines is to target the civilian not military market, .i.e. they are not considering the Philipines a market for the Gripen at the moment:

STOCKHOLM (AFX) Saab business opportunities in the Philippines is mainly on civil and not military field, and little hope of being able to sell the Gripen aircraft or submarines harbors not now.
It says Håkan Buskhe Direkt at Thursday’s Capital, speaking of the office of the defense group opened in the country as recently as a few weeks ago. The workforce totals so far only to “some employees”.
“Above all, we believe that there is a great need on the civilian side,” he says, in response to the news agency Direkt ask if he refers to air traffic that the Philippines is a major maritime country.

Google translated from: http://www.va.se/telegram-fran-direkt/?NewsId=3684464:0F0EEA3F-BF80-47C7-B4D8-C75063B768F2

They are 18 months behind schedule because that is how far they are behind the original schedule.

I am saying that in the article you linked to their assumed first customer was Switzerland, and the Swiss wanted to have delivery of the first a/c in 2018; however Switzerland then pulled out.

When Switzerland pulled out those plans were discarded, binned, thrown away.

New customers came in and they wanted the a/c not in 2018 but in 2019. New plans were made and according to these new plans the first a/c will be delivered in 2019.

Is this so hard to understand?

I have no problem believing it is the software… but modern fighters can’t fly without software and a delay is a delay.

I just don’t like them pretending that this isn’t a delay and that somehow they just decided to shift their entire flight test schedule to the right by another 6 months as a result of “optimization.”

Don’t forget, the original schedule called for first flight back in 2015, indicating that they are now roughly 18 months behind schedule.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-reveals-full-gripen-e-design-cost-savings-396977/

They can spin things however they want, but they are already 18 months behind their schedule.

The flightglobal article you linked to was written when the plan was still to go with Switzerland as the first customer; when S pulled out due to the referendum results, things were put on a halt until Brazil and Sweden agreed to move forward. New timelines were then drawn up with Brazil, stating that the first a/c will be delivered in 2019, with first flight end of 2016.

On the basis of this, how do you conclude that they are “already 18 months behind their schedule”?

We responded to Finland’s RfI, which actually was more like a request for proposals [RfP], yesterday, and we will now wait for their response,” Ahlqvist said, adding that the company is pitching the E/F model aircraft for this particular requirement. Finland formally launched its HX project to replace the air force’s 55 F/A-18C and seven F/A-18D Hornets in October 2015, with RfIs being issued to BAE Systems for the Eurofighter Typhoon; to Boeing for the F/A-18 Hornet and F-15 Eagle; to Dassault for the Rafale; to Lockheed Martin for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and F-16 Fighting Falcon; and to Saab for the Gripen. A formal RfP is due in the first quarter of 2018, with a contract award following in 2021.

In terms of further near-term opportunities, Ahlqvist said that in Europe leasing discussions with Slovakia for the C/D are entering into their final phase, while Belgium (E/F), Bulgaria (C/D), and Croatia (C/D) are all expected to issue RfPs in the next six months. Switzerland (E/F) remains a target market despite a previous agreement having been rejected in a referendum in May 2014, he added, noting that, “We didn’t lose in Switzerland, we just didn’t win.”

In Africa, Ahlqvist said that Botswana (C/D) is in early discussions with the Swedish government, and that progress has been “positive”. In Asia, Saab has responded to an Indonesian (C/D) request, and to India (E/F) also.

Read more: http://www.janes.com/article/65721/saab-responds-to-finnish-fighter-rfi-sees-wider-prospects-for-gripen

It will be interesting to see how these pan out!

Also interesting to note the phrase “responded to and Indonesian RFP” — I thought they had decided to go for Su-35 already?