LokeThe report however has not revealed the number of aircraft that are to be purchased but Finland is expected to buy 62 to replace the existing 62 aircraft.
Major General Lauri Puranen provided journalists with details on the planes to be considered. “These five fighters are Eurofighter, French Dassault Rafale, American Boeing Super Hornet or Lockheed Martin JSF F-35, and Swedish JAS Gripen,” the major general said. “All of these are possible and we don’t have a favorite.”
We are not commenting on the number of new fighters at this point but I can say the current number of planes has responded well to the needs of a country this size,” Puranen said.
Kind of a mismatch there… If they want to go for a “large number” of fighters, their only hope would be the Gripen E, all the others will be too expensive. Even the Gripen E could be too expensive, if the sales efforts of Saab does not pay off and they don’t get more than the current two customers (Brazil and Sweden). However there are number of countries interested so I would say it’s a pretty safe bet that Gripen E will become quite affordable.
However I think the F-35 will beat Gripen E in Finland, and they will go for a lower number. (30-40 a/c would be my guess).
Gripen E will probably become a fantastic 4.5 fighter, and highly cost-effective compared to the other 4.5 fighters, however it is half a generation behind the F-35, just like the Rafale, Typhoon and the SH.
And I don’t understand why Dassault and Eurofighter bother with this competition; F-35 will be in the same price range, probably even lower than the Rafale/Typhoon, but more capable, by the time Finland wants to buy new fighters. Why would anybody buy a less capable jet that costs more? Political reasons? What would be the political benefit of buying either Rafale or Typhoon over the F-35? I don’t see it happening.
Lokes estimates:
1. F-35 > 95% probability of winning
2. Gripen E <5% probability of winning
3. SH 0%-2% probability of winning (may be out of production by the time Finland want their first jet!)
4. Rafale/Typhoon 0% probability of winning.
Finland also should forget about assembling their own jets — not feasible, probably not even for Gripen.
LokeIndia in “positive” talks about Gripen purchase
Sweden conduct discussions on location in India on a sale of the Gripen fighter. Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist (S) says he is optimistic ahead of the continuing negotiations.
Google translated (with minor corrections) from:
http://www.svd.se/ministern-positiva-samtal-med-indien-om-gripen/om/gripenaffarerna
Does this mean that somebody in India is not feeling confident about the Tejas?
Or something else?
LokeWhen issues arose and the need for increased test points, more test flights, and more software development... the government had two choices, either increase annual development budget in an attempt to stick to the original schedule where possible or they could keep the annual budget the same and stretch out the development cycle.
They chose the later.
yes, sure — but the article (and I) were more questioning the highlighted text. It seems you take it for granted that “it simply had to happen”.
I am not so sure about that.
LokeIn late May, the Bulgarian Ministry of Defense announced that a tender would be launched by the end of June for the acquisition of new combat aircraft. Bulgaria, through this future acquisition, aims to replace its MiG-21 initially and then its Mig-29.
Potential replacements for the MiG-21 is currently the F-16 C / D “Fighting Falcon” of Lockheed Martin and the JAS-39 C / D “Gripen” of Saab. For the former, the country has initiated discussions with user countries (USA, Netherlands, Belgium and Norway) in order to acquire opportunities models. For the latter, Bulgaria is negotiating with Sweden and Saab. Industrial offers fully Gripen new or used aircraft from the surplus of the Swedish army when Flygvapnet receive Gripen E.
Google translated from: http://www.air-cosmos.com/2015/06/05/36557-bulgarie-remplacement-des-mig-21
LokeA fly past of 10 Czech, Hungarian and Swedish Gripen over the Czech Air Force’s 21st Tactical Air Base at Čáslav marked the celebration of 10 years of the fighter in service in the Czech Republic, reports Afbcaslav.cz.
Amongst those present at the ceremony were Czech Defence Minister Martin Stropnický, Air Force Commander Brigadier General Libor Štefánik and representatives from the air forces of Sweden, Hungary and Croatia.
The Czech Defence Minister, in his speech, said that Gripen is a reliable aircraft and the Czech Air Force pilots are very satisfied with it, adding that they have logged in 20,000 flight hours during the last 10 years. The Minister also announced that NATO has requested for the deployment of the Czech Gripen in Iceland this summer.
Read more: http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1186
LokeTURKU, Finland—U.S. and European warplane makers have descended on the airport of this Finnish city this weekend to market their aircraft as the Nordic nation is looking to renew aging fighter jets and revisit its geopolitical stance amid growing tension with its Russian neighbor.
Boasting the largest pavilions at the air show on Turku’s tarmac are Lockheed Martin Corp. of the U.S. and Sweden’s Saab AB, which are seen as the lead contenders with their F-35 and Gripen aircraft.
Full story: http://www.wsj.com/articles/warplane-makers-peddle-their-aircraft-in-finland-1433534277
LokeI am surprised nobody has quoted this one yet:
More than $100 billion has already been spent on developing, testing, fixing and producing about 130 Lockheed Martin F-35s for the US government. In a few weeks or months, the US taxpayer also will have the first 10 combat-ready F-35Bs for that investment.
The nearly 14-year-old Joint Strike Fighter *programme involves numbers that skew perspective. Is $100 billion too expensive for such a return? Consider that the US Air Force invested about $62 billion to *develop and field about 180 Lockheed F-22s. But the F-35 comes in three different variants, including the world’s first operational (almost) supersonic, stealthy and short take-off and vertical landing fighter.
Perhaps the combined capability offered by the F-35 family of fifth-generation fighters is worth American taxpayers’ largesse. But when certain key capabilities are deferred the programme invites close scrutiny because of the mountain of cash it has absorbed.
That’s where the story starts to get interesting. In 2007, Flight International reported that Lockheed had agreed to deliver a “Big SAR” capability with the Block 3 version of the F-35, then scheduled to be available in 2013. Subsequent delays, however, postponed an initial version of that standard – dubbed Block 3I – to 2016, with the full capability of Block 3F to arrive by the end of 2017. At the same time, the programme *office allowed Lockheed to defer key capabilities, such as the Big SAR mode, to the Block 4 configuration.
For $100 billion, Carlisle should get what he needs.
Full story: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-after-a-100bn-spend-it39s-time-for-f-35-to-413138/
but then again; who am I to complain? the US taxpayers after all pick up most of the bill…
LokeSINGAPORE (Reuters) – Vietnam is in talks with European and U.S. contractors to buy fighter jets, maritime patrol planes and unarmed drones, sources said, as it looks to beef up its aerial defenses in the face of China’s growing assertiveness in disputed waters.
The previously unreported aircraft discussions have involved Swedish defense contractor Saab SAABb.ST, European consortium Eurofighter, the defense wing of Airbus Group AIR.PA and U.S. firms Lockheed Martin Corp LMT.N and Boeing BA.N, said industry sources with direct knowledge of the talks.
Despite increasingly warm ties with Washington, some experts said the legacy of the Vietnam War might make Hanoi wary about buying too much U.S. weaponry, possibly giving Sweden an edge.
“There is no ideological bias (in Vietnam) with Sweden,” said Tim Huxley, executive director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies in Asia.
“The Gripen E will be a cost-effective option. Saab can offer a package that includes maritime patrol and airborne early warning aircraft.”
Read more: http://ca.reuters.com/article/idCAKBN0OL04U20150605?rpc=401&sp=true
LokePoland to buy second NSM coastal battery
09 April 2014
Poland will accelerate its plans to purchase a second coastal defence missile battalion (Nadbrzezny Dywizjon Rakietowy – NDR) as a result of the current crisis in Ukraine, it has been announced.
Speaking to the parliamentary group for the Polish Armed Forces in April, Czeslaw Mroczek, deputy minister of defence, stated that the tender for a second Kongsberg naval strike missile (NSM)-equipped NDR will begin in 2014.
Full story: http://www.janes.com/article/36608/poland-to-buy-second-nsm-coastal-battery
LokeIn Korea, the budget for 60 Typhoons or F-15SEs paid for 40 F-35s, delivered in years where the JSF is expected to have a higher production rate than either and when some 300 aircraft will have been delivered to the DoD alone. So to undercut the Typhoon the F-35 price would have to come down by a further >1/3rd, which is most unlikely.
f-16.net is unavailable half the time these days, proving that there are levels of derp that even the intertubez cannot handle.
I heard about the 60 F-15SE costing the same as 40 F-35; but 60 Typhoon!? Are there any sources ?
I thought the Typhoon was more expensive? and that the reason why they could get as many as 60 F-15 was because they already had the infrastructure for the F-15?
LokeFT on Gripen:
LokeSintra, Tu22m you should visit F-16.net, there they all agree that F-35 is as cheap as Gripen E 😉
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=25426&sid=d62593586dbb54479ba85d3b11b254a9
LokeYes the F35 makes my point : it is a bigger and much more expensive jet that the gripen. Not sure it will be cheaper than the Typhoon or rafale though.
I also disagree with Brazil and Switzerland to go for F35 : I fail to see where stealth would be of any use in Switzerland Scenario, probably kinematic would be a more valuable aspect to perform sky policing…Anyway we are speculating here. As for Brazil, ToT and Offsets would be an issue.
The F35 is great, but you have to be politically aligned with US foreign policy and you can say goodbye to any license manufacturing or meaningful offset/industry participation. If you want some independence with the US, the F35 is not for you, however great it is.
For the above reasons, aircrafts like the rafale or the typhoon still have a say. However I agree the remaining opportunities remain uncertain. (The best situation remains India and middle east in n°2).
Please note that I do not call into question Gripen Choice in Switerland and Brazil. It is a great choice and I am sure it will perform well in their context.
Currently the F-35 is more expensive but the cost is coming down so I’m guessing that for a/c ordered now and with delivery in 5-6 years the costs should be comparable to Rafale/Typhoon or F-35 even a bit cheaper.
Also note that I said “if the air forces could choose freely”; implying that there would be neither economical nor political constraints… 😉
LokeThe choice of a light weight combat aircraft for Brazil and Switzerland can make sense : even though they are both rich countries which could afford bigger more expensive jets, they don’t face any immediate threats…Just like all Gripen customers.
If you look at countries that feel under threats, they tend to choose bigger jets that bring more punch (eg: intrinsically more payload, better range, better persistence and reserve of power). Note that this is something you can’t retrofit and will be a limit for the time of the service life of the aircraft. Electronic can be upgraded, it is top notch for a few years and then becomes obsolete…like all systems.
Besides with important local aeronautic industry, it is interesting for Switzerland and Brazil to chose a platform with more room for development.
So the military might have preferably wanted a bigger jet, but the political situation and economic interest were fully compatible with the gripen (cheaper, politically more acceptable and with more room left for industry participation).
*****
This brings to the recent Bill Sweetman editorial which I found inaccurate : Yes affordability is a factor to highly value and assess accurately but interestingly there is still more customers for heavier jets than for light weight fighters and countries willing to face future challenge are not all necessarily willing to sacrifice capability for light jets. The Gripen NG cleverly fills a niche left empty after the lighter mirages and mig 21 but major world powers who intend to face a potent threat do not choose the Gripen for now.
Well if you look at countries choosing “high-performance” a/c these days then most of them tend to go for neither Rafale, Typhoon nor SH; but rather the F-35…
Most likely the F-35 will be cheaper than Rafale and Typhoon, but much more capable. I think if the Swiss and Brazilian air force could choose freely they would probably skip also the Rafale and go for the F-35 — however given the realities they both ended up with Gripen. Which to me makes a lot of sense, both from a threat and a cost perspective.
LokeSee above. In practice, air forces are not so concerned about this. When do you see an aircraft take off with anything liike its maximum theoretical load? Sometimes, aircraft can, in reality, take off at higher weights than their official MTOW, but in practice, almost always take off at much less than the MTOW.
What air forces care about is whether the aircraft can destroy what they want it to destroy. With PGMs, the total weight of bombs is less important than it used to be. A few Brimstone, AASM 250kg or even 125 kg, PWIV – not many targets need more.
Indeed; and Gripen E is after all a small, light fighter, should not really be compared to the larger twin-engine fighters (that are also more expensive). If the Gripen meets the requirements then that’s it.
What are the payloads that the FAB a/c tend to carry these days, I assume roclistete can answer this? 😉
Also; as already meantioned this is military equipment which tends to have a lot of their performance parameters in the “classified” category. Thus published numbers may (or may not) be off; we simply don’t know.
Roclistete can you please give some examples on payloads that FAB wants to carry per a/c but will not be able to do when they start using the E?
Sign In
