LokeFrom memory, the “leaks” from the assessment were in the heat of the moment, a desperate (disorganized) attempt to thwart the decision by Ueli Maurer. Likely by some disenfranchised Rafale supporter.
Any sources for that claim? AFAIK the investigation never identified who had leaked.
But imo the leaks about the Saab PR campaign have a very political flavour (as opposed to industrial). First the Saab donation to one political party, which pissed off its allies. And then the fact that the most damaging revelations came not from Switzerland, but from Sweden, with the intention of linking (embarrassing) the Swedish government to Saab’s campaign.
Yes, but who was behind those leaks? Somebody must have leaked. Perhaps a Swede that wanted to hurt the Swedish government, but why pick this particular case? At the same time Saab had already stated (if I recall correctly, before the leaks) that “foreign intelligence agencies” were very “active” in Sweden, in and around Saab. Who? And why? Do you think the political opposition in Sweden would hire intelligence operatives from other countries to obtain secret documents to hurt the Swedish government?
So, I have no doubt that the No camp is working hard to influence the decision process, and they may even get help from dejected Rafale fanboys! (just kidding :dev2:) However there is no way that the Gripen choice will be overturned, delayed maybe but then every day that passes benefits the maturing Gripen NG vs the mature Rafale.
The purpose of this campaign was probably not to “overturn the Gripen choice” but cancel or delay it for as long as possible.
Anyway, perhaps it will wind down now that the choice of Brazil guarantees Gripen development will move forward, independent of what happens in Switzerland.
LokeI have a couple of Swiss (German) friends, and they are the most anti-military people I know! 🙂
In contrast, some Swiss (French) people I’ve worked with welcome with open arms the industrial benefits from the Gripen program.
So, I may be naive but I don’t think that there are any dark forces at play here… Just the standard divide across political lines, which is why the No flyer uses the “money best spent elsewhere” argument rather than “please buy fighter X”.
I was not referring to French speaking Swiss, but Rafale fanboys…
Furthermore, I doubt those pacifists in Switzerland by themselves would have the resources to organize all those “leaks”, both those from the assessment, but also others, including those with secret communication with the Swedish embassy:
The CDPP, Darbellay said, also took exception to revelations contained in classified documents pertaining to the Gripen-E sale and which were uncovered in Stockholm. The documents — emanating from the Swedish Embassy in Bern and marked for the attention of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs — profiled leading members of the CDPP and offered an unflattering analysis of the party’s financial strength.
I do believe that somebody very resourceful is working hard to negatively influence the decision process and halt the sales of Gripen to Switzerland.
LokeThe “yes” flyer gives also many half-truth (look for example, in the french doc, the article “evaluation serieuse” suggesting that Armasuisse has only evaluated Gripen C/D…)
Im sorry, Switzerland is not an anti-militarist country but for 2 years there are only polemics about the Gripen, it’s not particularly the fault of Saab although there have been blunders… By cons, U. Maurer, with his contradictions and nebulous explanations has completely weighed down this purchase. So, don’t be surprised…
It is always funny to read posts about Gripen in Switzerland written by Rafale fanboys… 😉
I sincerely hope that those “mysterious agents” that seem to invest a lot of energy and resources in arranging “leaks” and other efforts of discrediting Saab and Gripen in Switzerland will fail. I also hope that we one day will see some evidence of who is behind all of this.
One is tempted to guess, but without evidence…
LokeDassault announces a world first to be announced on their web tv on saturday. Apparently Rafale is concerned. neuron piloted from rafale back seat? GaN usage? Make your bets!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]227223[/ATTACH]
seat belts? 😉
LokeNorway’s Naval Strike Missile Aims for the Pacific
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. — When navies gather this summer in the warm waters near Hawaii for the biannual Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises, among them will be at least one warship more at home in the cold waters of the Atlantic and Arctic oceans.
The Norwegian frigate Fridtjof Nansen will take part in RIMPAC, aiming to launch a Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) at a target ship provided by the US Navy.
It will be the first time Norway has fired an NSM in a RIMPAC, as the missile became operational in 2012.
The 13-foot-long missile has a launch weight of nearly 900 pounds, and carries a 240-pound warhead. It is loaded into individual canisters intended to keep a missile up to 10 years without maintenance, Schei said.
“So far we’ve kept missiles for over two years, and they run fine,” he added.
The canisters can be configured in a variety of fashions, from single and double installations to six- or eight-pack arrangements. At the Kongsberg display here, models of both versions of the US Navy’s littoral combat ship were shown with notional NSM installations.
In addition to sea-based missiles serving the Norwegian Navy, a land-based version is operated by Poland. Kongsberg is developing a slimmer missile, the Joint Strike Missile (JSM), for use from F-35 joint strike fighters ordered by Norway.
“Kongsberg sees the JSM able to fit in a Mark 41 vertical launch system,” Schei said. Such a missile is being offered to Australia and Canada for shipboard use.
Full story: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140409/DEFREG01/304090033/Norway-s-Naval-Strike-Missile-Aims-Pacific
Interesting that they consider fitting the JSM into the MK41 VLS.
Lokeimo there is a slight case for calling this the deal of the century if the Brazilian announcements hold water (40% locally developed content, “near total” TOT, 2-seater variant, local weapons integration, and all that for $4.5 billion). Of course it could all turn out to be true, but without scrutiny, how would we know?:dev2:
Whatever the details of the deal, it seems extremely likely that the deal is much better than any deal they could get with either France or the US.
Sweden must have a partner moving forward, and Saab must have a “second home” in order to stay in the fighter jet business. Sweden is too small to host future fighter jets develeopment.
Thus from day 1 Brazil is concidered not a customer but a partner. I think both Sweden/Saab and Brazil considers this very much a “win-win”. The alternative for Sweden would have been to accept to leave the fighter business in the not too distant future; now they can keep significant portions of the business in Sweden.
LokePrague, April 3 (ČTK) – The Czech Republic and Slovakia will connect their fighter squadrons in a few months before Slovakia also acquires the Jas-39 Gripen fighters which the Czech military has decided to lease for another 12 years, the daily Lidové noviny (LN) writes today.
Both countries’ working groups are now finishing up details.
“We want to maximally use the scope for the development of our cooperation under current conditions,” Daniel Koštoval, state secretary of the Czech Defense Ministry, told LN.
Both Czech and Slovak fighter squadrons should be more closely interconnected after 2016 when the service contract on MiG-29s expires. Slovakia will probably buy or lease up to eight fighters from the West, while Gripens are favorites, LN writes.
The FXM Swedish export firm has been negotiating with Bratislava about Gripens’ possible purchase or lease, it adds.
If the CzechRepublic and Slovakia had the same type of supersonic fighters, a joint squadron would be formed with one main and one minor air base, LN writes.
LokeWhere can you find F-16’s for sale that do not need a major overhaul/upgrade? Was it Romania that was offered ex-US F-16’s for free… + $50 million each (I think) to upgrade?
I would not be surprised if Bulgaria did the same thing. I am not saying it is a wise thing to do from a cost-effectiveness perspective however I just say what I think is most likely, in particular considering political factors.
LokeUnless Bulgaria start cooperating with an existing Gripen nation (which I think is unlikely) then most likely they would rather go for second-hand F-16, like Romania did.
Slovakia is more likely to go for Gripen; not now, but some years down the line when their Migs retire.
LokeIf the main advantages of GaN is higher power and bigger bandwidth then it probably makes a lot of sense for Gripen to go for it; but it seems much less critical for F-35, the current AESA is already very big and powerful, and for bandwidth, well I guess that’s useful for jamming but the US has many other systems to perfomr jamming, in case they need very big bandwidth jamming. For Gripen, getting more power in a small unit may be very important, and also the bandwidth increase should make the jamming possibilities much better; and this would be very important for Gripen countries who are unlikely to get Growlers or NGJ systems anytime soon.
LokeAs far as power constraints, From my talks with Northrop grumman (Engineers and executives) they did not see a power problem from the current systems and switching over to GaN especially when the TR modules for the GaN Apg-81 (A hypothetical version) would be required to be designed for the same power constraints that the original Apg-81 GaA radars were and would use the design-wiggle room both in power and cooling. Are the Saab GaN (not sure whether the latest radar is Gaa or Gan – Just have not seen anything definitive) Modules and radar set not designed around the F414′ and the power generation of the entire system? You customize the TR modules based on the application and not vice versa. Please do not bring the POWER argument into play when you know absolutely nothing about how much a hypothetical GaN AESA custom built for the F-35 will suck over and above what the -81 is doing and how much excess power a hypothetical radar has access too.
I wonder if additional power really is that important given the current performance levels of current AESAs?
If an F-35 (or Gripen E) wants to avoid detection they must operate the AESA in LPI mode, and thereby restrict the power. OTOH sensitivity becomes more important, in order to detect the weak LPI signal. Here, the APG-81 has a big advantage over contemporary AESAs since it is quite big — around 1600 modules I think?
Of course one F-35 can act as a “mini-AWACS” and feed info to the other F-35s in the region; in such a case having the strongest most powerful radar is helpful. But then you give up the biggest advantage, at least for that particular F-35; but in some scenarios it may be beneficial?
Does GaN increase sensitivity, or mainly the potential power output?
LokeThis discussion reminds me of what Thales person said some years ago:
The three best (AESA) radar companies in the world are:
Raytheon and NG; followed by Thales in 3rd position.
Selex promptly responded by stating that the three best (AESA) radar companies in the world are:
Raytheon and NG, followed by Selex in 3rd position.
🙂
Allthough it may be difficult to accept to some members on this board, but the European radar companies seem to agree on the superiority of US radar companies; they are merey squabbling over who occupies the 3rd position… 😉
LokeSaab is using a mixture of new technology, state-of-the-art tools and an innovative approach to development as it tries to reverse the worldwide trend in defense acquisition costs and deliver the JAS 39E fighter at lower development, procurement and operating costs than its predecessor, the JAS 39C/D.
Costs emerged as a major challenge at the program’s earliest definition stages. According to air force chief of staff Maj. Gen. Michael Byden, the service assessed an avionics-only upgrade, an all-new aircraft and a “new but known technology” version with a new engine, before selecting the third option.
Access to article requires registration:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_31_2014_p48-674587.xml
Loke24hours blog writes about the “backdoor”:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=no&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpsk.blog.24heures.ch%2F
Also, it seems they claim 25% reduction in both RCS and thermal signature compared to C/D?
its radar and thermal signature will be reduced by 25% compared to the current standard of the Gripen C / D.
LokeFive reasons why the F-35 don’t need Growlers:
Hmmm, why is Boeing supporting this guy? 🙂
Sign In
