Can be replaced, but not easily, quickly or cheaply.

If it was easy, why did SAAB turn to Selex? Gripen A & C had a perfectly good mechanically scanned radar, & Ericsson had been working on an AESA fighter radar, starting with the PS05 back end IIRC, for several years. But still, Selex was brought in. There must have been a very good reason.

Buying in a third party radar, e.g. the EL/M-2052, could be done, but again, there’d be costs, it’d take time, & according to SAAB, the radar they have now is better than the competition, so it’d be a downgrade.

And then there’s the rest of the British parts. More development needed, more money, more time.

Long question, short reply; it was cheaper.
When Sweden looked for a new generation fighter in the early 80´s they did something they had´nt done for centuries. They invited foreign customers to compete with SAAB!! It was the F-16 and F-18 Hornet and the Gripen. The Gripen won the deal, but it had to be done by cost saving measures, like COTS in the case of ejection seats and other mediocre things. When it comes to the radar… I am putting a bet that SAAB/Ericsson has already solved that long before the Argentinans put their ink to the paper.

Brasil is not on the business of giving Martin Baker competition. This entire story is a political idiocy from day one.

The ejectionseat would be the smallest of the problems. SAAB was afterall the first company to have a modern kind in a seriesproduction fighter (the SAAB 21) but they never patented it. After that fighter SAAB used its own ejectionsseats in all its fighters, except the Gripen. So the knowledge how to design and build ejection seats are as well known in SAAB as in Martin Baker…

They make a profit on the offsets. They buy into local firms, & because it’s an offset, it goes through on the nod, on favourable terms. They commission other local firms to make new things for them, including products for resale, & buy in services from local firms, some of which they sell on, & all of which they get at lower prices than bringing them in from Europe or North America. A lot of those offsets will be replacing things that SAAB already buys in, but from suppliers in the USA, Germany, or wherever.

SAAB’s good at this. It’s done it before. In the process, it moves more of its cost base to lower cost suppliers.

As for numbers – first of all, it replaces the Mirage 2000s. Then, it has to replace the F-5E & AMX (total 103 single-seat & 14 two-seat). It could make Sea Gripen a reality, replacing 14 A-4 with a larger number of new fighters, if new carriers are built. SAAB & Embraer could co-operate on a new Gripen model (JAS39F, G, or whatever), or a successor.

It’s secured the future of Gripen for quite a long time, I’d say. No doubt co-operation on AEW will also continue, & I wouldn’t be surprised if in a few years Sweden decides to meet its requirements for a C-130 replacement & tanker by buying KC-390.

One has to remember that SAAB belongs to Investor AB. It´s a huge swedish investment company. When Gripens where sold to Thailand a huge chunk were paid in chickens, and when sold to South Africa we recievied a large amount of red whine. This is part of the offsetes, and it´s not like Swedes are gonna stop eating chicken or drink wine, they just consume more from a different part of the world. It´s just as simple as that, offsetes can be as plain as frozen chicken or red wine….

Co-development, co-production, spares, & a lot of support, vs. straight buy when you’ve already paid for the spares, support, training etc. when you bought the first batch.

Apples & oranges.

BTW, that price included an Erieye-equipped (used) SAAB 340. The first batch, with the extras, cost 75% more.

Apples and oranges and Eriyeeyes and Grippens. Can I have a bunch of greasy Grippen planes at the the cost of only a dozen Gripens?

:rolleyes: another case of, ahh I see there is a real good explanation already done by Teer, which most agree and appreciate, but I am still going to rant as it is so much fun trashing India via LCA/Arjun(or anything Indian)

But is there a logical reason to trash antything Indian? Any racist reason? Or is it just the fact of companies having done business with India for that last 50 years and playing by their bookrules.Those rules are still playing by the old master and commander rules, and Indians obey to that. It is kind of sad an not very productive. Imagine if India had a Swedish kind of view and was inhabited by Swedes, then the LCA/Gripen would had been been procured in the hundreds by its airforce and exported to dozens of countries as the “new F-16”. The embargoe in -98 following the nuclear tests.. pffth.. did never the Gripen/LCA project at all with the indignous RM12 jet engine…

BTW, did I mention the high percentage of plastic beeing used in the the LCA? And that all those plastics are being produced in India so you know it is of the highest quallity!

[U]”what’s the Tejas’ fundamental problem?”[/U

Well, the project is exactly as old as the Gripen. (Both started in 1983). It had the same exact project-aims (cheap, multirole fighter). The Gripen flew in 1989 and the first division was operationell in -96/1997.
The Gripen was suppose to recplace the fighter/attack/reconnaissancev Draken and Viggens in the Swedish air force with one multirole aircraft.
The LCA was suppose to start replace the old MiG-21s from the start in the mid -90s.

What had happened after those decisions in the SAAB Well, 30 years later we can say that Gripen have been an success, the rest… nada. The LCA is still on prototype-phase after 30 years, the Novi Anion was cancelled, as was the”Kfir” or the israeli F-16 version. The new F-20 was canned as well. What do we have left in that category today?

that’s your opinion. as things stand, the fact remains that the IAF has 40 Tejas Mk1 on order and is going to induct them into sqdn service in 2 years’ time. Not the Gripen C/D, the Tejas Mk1.

Tejas Mk2 is too close to the Gripen NG for the IAF to want the NG to be the MRCA. That was most likely the reason why the NG was ejected from the competition although it didn’t meet the IAF’s requirements on 53 counts and was considered risky.

Excuse me, but can you tell me what the main differences will be from the LCA Mk1. and Mk2. (except the engine)? Cause I seem to remember a media conference where it was stated it would not have AESA radar, no IFR-probe and no reconstruction of the air frame to carry more fuel. Basically only new software and engine. Please link to some official statements…
(Cause if that´s the case I can´t see it being close to Gripen NG. Not even Gripen C/D).

Don’t BAE own the rights to half of the Gripen or something? Didn’t they design the wings?

BAe owns 0% in Gripen.