This discussion is becoming political so this will be my last post in this thread. However this Greece/Turkey issue reminds me of the border dispute between Norway and Russia. It seems to me that Norway nowadays gets little support from the US/NATO against Russia? Could it be that Russia is an more important ally in the war against terrorism?

NATO plays a very great role, though a frequently misunderstood one – it gives something Greece and Turkey something in common, that they cannot dispute. During the Cold war, both Greece and Turkey had major roles to play, and they still do. It also means that if either party loses their mind and starts shooting, they will be condemned. The sad thing was when Turkey invaded Cyprus – the Brit RAF sent up fighters, but were not allowed to fire on the Turkish aircraft, despite the fact that the Turks were taking hostile action. Nuts!

In case of a real military conflict between Greece and Turkey I think that most countries and organizations (EU, NATO, UN etc ) would condemn the aggression. Still I cannot understand why NATO, lets this dispute between two NATO allies continue? An obvious sign of political weakness in my opinion.

Hyperion, now I understand that this conflict is much more complex than most people in Europe can grasp.

One thing is sure though, as long Turkey proves me wrong, my sympathies are with Greece and as long as this confict continues I really hope that Turkey won´t be accepted as a member of EU (are they Europeans anyway?).

It also makes me think what role NATO plays today? What is it good for? Who needs it? A lot of political questions that maybe isn´t relevant on this forum? As for the politics of the US, EU and NATO, world politics is getting me more and more cynical I´m afraid…

What is the US attitude on other customers requests to fit their own choice of avionics and weapons?

a) The Gripen in my opinion is the right plane in the hands of the wrong country and I mean no disrespect by this! SAAB fighter export success in the last 50-odd years has been negligible, not because of a poor product lining but because of a government option to “stay neutral” and the lesson that the major sellers US, USSR and France is that if you want to win in the arms bazaar YOU HAVE TOP TAKE SIDES! The whole concept of a forward leaning peeple like the Swedes selling billions of US$ worth of fighter jets to a third-world country with high poverty rates is very hard to digest for the average swedish taxpayer.

I agree. But Swedish aircraft have always been tailor made for Swedish needs and not with export success in mind -very much unlike SAAB´s cars! Still SAAB aerospace turns 70 next year! I think you´re contradicting yourself a little bit here! BTW; I think it´s a good thing that the Swedish government doesn´t allow sales to non-democratic countries, don´t you?

b)If you look at these last half century there are two ways fighters are sold:

1) To rich countries like Saudi, Japan, China or pre-revolutionary Iran. The client has deep pocketbooks and orders the best available hardware in large numbers. You can boicott these purchases as the uS does with China and you can put political pressure to direct them towards this or that aircraft as the French learned painfully in the recent Saudi Rafale x Eurofighter dispute…

or

2) Give them away (or forgiving MAP debt for instance…) to a poor country such as the Kenian and Salvadorian F-5Es or all the MiGs “sold” to sub-saharan Africa since the 60s…

The problem is Sweden hasn’t got the funds or the global political leverage (“Punch” if you wish) to be the big cat in any of the two options above.

I don´t think that Sweden ever had the ambition to be a “big cat” in aircraft sales and I don´t understand why that would be a problem? BTW, why would they give away aircraft to poor countries?

c) if you look at a purely industrial aspect of it the Gripen program is a major sales failure. 232 aircraft bought by the designing country 20 odd for the three other clients, two of wich in a Leasing deal that can be easily disengaged from in the future… Now the Swedish governmente anounces the decision to sell at any cost or scrap up to 120 older airframes… What does this signal to prospective buyers? that there is no future for this aircraft… unfortunately

Well, to be honest can you really call any 4th generation fighter available today a sales success? I think most people would agree that 232 fighters are way too many for a country like Sweden with no threat of invasion. The Rafale has no export customer and the future sales prospects look bleak. Dassault seems a little bit desperate even though they don´t admit it. In case of the Eurofighter the countries involved are stuck with too many airframes too. For instance the British MOD has been trying cut down the number of RAF Typhoons from 240 to 140 (not sure of the exact number here), experts believe that many Typhoons will have a very short career with the RAF. The British defense minister even called the Eurofighter a “dead duck” -Not very good PR for prospective buyers either, is it? Would this mean that the Rafale and Typhoon don´t have a future? I don´t think so!

d) The Gripen-N modiufications are very far from simple the testing and certification program alone may cost up to hundreds of millions of US dollars, ad a new engine the cost would balloon tremendously! The engine may even fit the engine bay but the weights and stresses are certain to be all diferent. Take a look how many years it took from thje first prototypes flight to the in service introduction of the Gripen, its absolutely no stroll in the park. And further if OI was a Swedish taxpayer I’d be very concerned with my hard earned tax money bein squandered in the development od a Gripen derivative with no prospective client signed on yet. No, I may be a great may things but “naive” is definetly not one of them.

The major problem with the development of the Gripen was as far as I know the software of the fly-by-wire system -correct me if I´m wrong? The -N redesign doesn´t seem to be that complex. Yes, this modification will probably be expensive but, programs like this have been planned and budgeted for, otherwise it would be a dead-end product. In my opinion this signals to the market that the Gripen project is very much alive and kicking! BTW, in an earlier thread you even complained that the Gripen didn´t have a future modification program, pretty ironic. 🙂

e) As I said above the guys at SAAB are certainly very competent but they are not free from screwups or they would never have wasted their lead un the regional aircraft arena by sticking to turboprops when the market moved on to Regional Jets in the nineties. Do they know what they are ding, some times, but this is the way the capitalist enterprise exists.

True

f)Finaly, can you serously see Bulgaria or Romania leasing more then 20 units each? I don’t… These two most certainly come under the “poor states” category the ones that need their fighters given to them. On the other hand Greece and Denmark have the money and the means to pick what they will fly but can you see any of them resiting US or UK-Germany-Italy and Spanish political pressure in a open bid? I don’t. Pakistan wanted Gripens, why didn’t Sweden sell them the plane?

In case of Denmark, yes I think they have the guts to choose whatever aircraft they like. They did choose the F-35 Draken remember. In case of Greece? I have no clue to be honest, but they might be more dependent on US than Denmark. Very few countries rich or poor seem to be buying large number of aircraft today. Even “rich” Austria only bought 18 Typhoons but it was still a big deal for EADS.

These are not my rules I didn’t make them but they seem to exist, I may be wrong or you may be wrong it doesn’t really matter, but eventually we’ll know who got it right..

What rules? Right or wrong? The problem is that I really don´t understand what you´re getting at? The Gripen as well as the Typhoon or Rafale won´t disappear in a cloud of dust because of lack of export success 🙂

Please don’t get mad at me it’s nothing more then a friendly discussion

I agree! Let´s be friends!

a) What will these extra stores will do for the little planes drag, flight performance and radar cross section?

b) The landing gear changes seem to me as a very demanding and expensive engineering feat, the whole wing and lower fuselage will have to be redesigned, retested and recertified… who’s paying for it? I dare say: not Norway…

No offense but your analysis seems very naive to me. I dare to say that the engineers know what this redesign means in terms of technical changes and expenses. The mere fact that the company has been designing aircraft for almost 70 years suggests that they know what they´re doing…

c) This new model seems only to make sense if other countries besides Norway decide to join into a major single purchase. Where and who are these other countries?

They would probably not do such a redesign unless there is a general demand for it. As for possible countries? Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Denmark and Switzerland are possible customers. I´m pretty sure there are more that are not official yet.

d) Hasn’t Norway just declared that they’d be sticking to their JSF commitments?

As far as I know they haven´t decided yet. The JSF is probably still the favourite though (speaking of risky projects!).

Lots of questions, but few good answers for SAAB…

Well, did you ask them?

Just wondering, does this N-model include a new engine (EJ200) ?

I would like to know that too. If there is demand for it I think they will seriously consider including a new engine.

Now you see the logic of buying F-35B, for both countries. Italy also plans to buy JSF (F-35A, I think) for land-based operations – but that’s another matter.

Ok, thanks the explanation. Still, what the heck does Italy need a carrier for? Do the Italians operate outside the Mediteranian?