This competition is a farce.

Show me one that isn´t….

so I was right about the paper plane term thing. On this forum at least, the usage of that term is almost derogatory and meant to demean.

Sign, the Gripen NG was talked about for a long time before Saab actually went ahead and started works on it. And from the time that work begins, I don’t think any aircraft is any more a paper plane, if it has a committed customer. It will obviously be made into a prototype at some stage, so its an in-development plane.

The fact that Saab did get the Gripen D modified into the Gripen Demo in a very short period is a credit to them, no doubt, but in scale, its similar to what MiG did to the MiG-29M2 to make it into the MiG-35 demonstrator. I mean other companies have done it as well.

how big is the MAWS ? and how much larger is the wing to accommodate the MAWS ? such a small increase in wing area won’t make any major difference to the wing-loading.

I did hear that they found those fairings were found to give lower than expected drag, but I don’t buy the argument that carrying 40% more fuel in the internal tanks and more weapons load as well, with the same wing area size will not lead to some reduction in performance. Thrust has to be added for the extra weight its supposed to lug around now.

Actually the Gripen Demo NG did not have a long time being a paperplane. The Swedish Government decided to clear the project in the fall of 2007. A half year later it was roll out and a month after that in May 27 2008 it took for the skies for the first time.

From declaring the funds to the 1st flight in less then 8 months.

If you want the links just search this forum. or I could just quote quidbike
“I do not have the patience or time to do it. You can choose not to believe me if you do not want to.”

In fact, the Gripen NG keeps the same wing as the C/D, which means that when carrying more fuel/weapons, its wing loading will be higher and consequently, its performance will not be as good as that of the C/D. I know they’re concentrating on the avionics and range more than anything else, but this is a fact.

Could I have any source of that pleeeeeease. If not, you must work on SAAB I´ll suppose.

because the term “paper plane” is used generally in a derisive way to indicate that the airplane’s future is questionable. there is a big difference when you look at the credibility of HAL/ADA when they say that they’re working on a fighter. its not like someone has just dreamt of this; its in work, funding is approved, and the customer has expressed more than just an interest in purchasing 5-7 squadrons of these.

we’ve already seen the Tejas Mk1 flying, and the Mk2 is simply a derivative of it. to compare it to some Iranian invisible aircraft project is nonsense, to be polite.

what if I show you a youtube video of an Indian Air Force test pilot saying that the Tejas Mk1 is a wonderful aircraft to fly ? would that prove anything to someone who doesn’t want to believe ? in their testimony to Parliament, ADA has stated that all 11 test pilots who flew the Tejas Mk1 rated its handling qualities as “Very Good”.

Ok, sorry. I thought a paperplane was just a project that was early in the development and had not yet reached the goal of being built into a functional prototype. I thought of paperplane like, “blue-prints”. I think several of your comrades on this site like quadbike and me thought it meant something else.
But what do we now about the Mk2.? New engine, AESA radar, improved avionics, EWS and stuff like that. These are pretty basic upgrading stuff, but we have no idea what engine or radar it will be. Besides that nothing. One report said “larger wings”. What does that means? Larger wings usually means major redesign of the aircraft, how will that affect aerodynamics and such. No one knows….because the information from HAL/ADA/DRDO or whatever is nothing. Absolutely nothing. They say something (not even trough official channels) like “larger wings” then it is up for us to speculate. Just like the crazy regime in Iran says on a News report on TV (not a official channel), “We´re developing a 5th generation fighter that is impossible for the enemy to spot on radar”. And then it´s up for speculations. No facts, no data, no animated pics of how it would look like and no time schedule for the 1st flight or when it when it would be ready for service. It´s just speculations that remains. (No I don´t think Iran have the remotely possibility to even make a 3rd generation fighter. I was just comparing about the information-flow we outsiders get from different fighter projects. In this case India is as bad as Iran – cause no one knows anything. And that makes me think….Hmmm… Do THEY really know how they are gonna make the Mk2. happen. For me (as a Swede) direct, correct and honest information is everything. Perhaps it is different attitude in India, I don´t know.

As for showing me Indian pilots flying LCA it would be like me Swedish pilots flying Gripen. Have you ever heard a pilot dissing the fighter plane they are flying for their countries defense? It´s pointless. Just like those:”- Uhhm, here´s an report from exercise X vs Y. Our french Rafale pilots killed 153 F-22s, 12 Aircraftcarriers, 5 nuclearsubmarines and the Death Star!!!. Man the Rafale ROCKS!!!!” . Totally pointless… BTW, isn´t there a Indian reporter who has flown all the planes in the MRCA race and his favorite is the Gripen? For me it does´nt make any difference, I´m just bit jealous of the *******. 🙂

See, I think that I may not have phrased my post properly.

The Gripen’s exports to Hungary, Thailand etc. would have had an export-duty overhead. This would’ve easily have added many millions of dollars to it’s unit cost (along with life support, spares etc.). However, sales to Swedish Air Force would’ve been much cheaper simply because it is not an export.

Again, as mentioned earlier, the Swedish government has a say in the affairs of SAAB, like when the Sedish government had to intervene when GM found no buyers for SAAB auto. It is an important arm of Sweden, and not merely a “profiteering” company for whom Sweden and Thailand are equidistant.

I don´t really understood this post. You clearly thought that the Gripen-project was a Swedish government-owned/managed project and therefor the government were giving SAAB tax-breaks etc so that the Gripens sold to the Swedish Airforce would be cheaper then those exported to other countries.

Sorry I´m not that fluid in english but I simply don´t understand your point in this post.
What is this “export-duty overhead” and has the Swedish government added a some sort of extra fee to every Gripen sold abroad to bring in extra cash to the Swedish government? In the case of Czech and the Hungarians (not sure about Thailand but probably) I thought it was more or less a state to state deal since they were buying jets that was originally intended for the SwAF (of course in coorporation with SAAB (IG-JAS), I don´t really know the details. I guess nobody outside the most inner circle does). But they are really happy so far and does´nt seem to think that Sweden have cheated them in anyway, the opposite in fact. Swedish companies and SAAB (IG-JAS) have exceeded the contract in terms of offset and delivers. As I wrote before, for the whole Gripen-program (204 fighters to SwAF) Sweden payed $68 mil. /unit, I don´t know what Czechs or Hungarians payed for their fighters or exactly what package deal they got with them but any Swedish government has for sure not added any extra costs just because they were exported. As for South Africa they bought directly from SAAB (IG-JAS), well, the Swedish Government has no right to intervene and demand extra money from that deal except the normal export-taxes and stuff like that that exists in every country and is regulated via international trade deals.

When it comes to export sales of SAAB products that are considered arms-related the government has nothing to say. So you are wrong again. Once again you write something you don’t have a clue about. In Sweden when a company wants to export some military-products it goes trough a committee that exists of people consisting of people from all parties in the
Swedish parliament and it has no tie to the government.
And now when GM wants to close SAAB Automobile the Swedish government has done nothing, so once again your wrong. (BTW, for this they have received a tsunami of criticism from the Swedish people but the government is clear. No governments bail-outs!)

Edit: Oh, I now realized what you meant in your last part. You clearly have not understood anything. SAAB sold SAAB Automobiles to GM years and years ago to GM and GM/SAAB Automobiles has absolutely nothing to do with SAAB AB. So you are double wrong, SAAB Automobile belongs to GM and the Swedish Government has nothing to say about and has done nothing.

Man how hard can it be to just look up stuff on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Automobile

It would be kind of ironic (not sure that is the right choice of word) if Embraer and SAAB would become partners in the Gripen NG. Considering the AMX and its early history and all…

See, the Swedish government must definitely have given incentives, tax-breaks etc. to induct the locally made Gripen into their own Air Force. This company alone is a major component of the Swedish economy as a whole, and the Swedish government is itself a major stakeholder in the affairs of SAAB.

It is extremely unlikely that Swedish Air Force paid the export price along with export duties and other charges to buy a locally made fighter jet. It is unlikely that the Thai Air-Force paid the same as the Swedish Air Force (including spares, simulators, and life-time support).

As usual you have no idea of what you´re speaking about. Why do you even bother to post when you clearly don´t have a clue?
I really should´nt bother to answer this in detail because you will still choose to live in your little bubble and don´t have
the capability to comprehend true facts.
You obviously no nothing about Sweden, the Gripen-project or anything else I have seen you written. I will try to make this answer short.
No, the Swedish government has not given any tax-breaks etc. towards the organization behind the Gripen-project, namely IG-JAS. IG-JAS consists of companies that are privately owned, of which the largest one is Investor AB (well Investor is behind a few of the companies in IG-JAS). Even if there should be such a thing as a “government”-controlled company behind Gripen it would be against Swedish law to give tax-breaks. (FYI, Sweden is and has never been a communist state, government-controlled companies in the public sector is non-existent. Before 1990´s there where however a few exceptions in certain areas that seemed to be important to the Swedish people, such as the railroads, the telecommunication. But these areas has been privatized now for decades.) And since Sweden, unlike most other countries, is and has always been one of the most non-corrupt countries in the world such a thing as tax-break would be as likely as snowballs chance in hell. So no, “this company” (you probably have no idea which companies that are behind Gripen and thinks it is only SAAB) is not a major component in the Swedish economy and the Swedish government is not a shareholder in Gripen. Now, I have no idea how things works in India with the LCA, ADA, HAL and such. And since I don´t know I would´nt guess and write anything about. But reading a little about on Wiki it seems to be an government controlled project. Perhaps that is the best way and a perfectly normal way to do it in India, but it would certainly not work in countries like Sweden, UK, USA or France.

Now, if I remember correctly the entire Gripen-project from the start in 1982 til the last fighter was delivered a couple of years ago has cost the Swedish tax-payer some $14 bil. (or $68 mil. per aircraft). For like the 11th time, that cost I mentioned ($31 mil. per unit) was the for last 3rd batch of 64 aircrafts delivered, and it must be fly-away cost for an aircraft that comes just off the assembly line, totally clean with nothing else. And just like the $25 mil. fly-away cost for LCA these numbers are really pretty un-interesting since a export-customer would need more then just a clean fighter and perhaps an instruction-manual in the glove-department. So there is no “export-price” you talk about, it´s the price of inducting and entire new system in your country’s defense.

agreed. but I have put up a link in the Brazilian air force thread, where Saab’s Gripen NG proposal to Netherlands was given. It didn’t include anything like 20-30 years of life-cycle costs or weapons. It was simply the cost of equipment directly related to the Gripen (radars, airframe, pylons, aircrew equipment, EW equipment, etc.) and the cost of simulators, support, training, manuals, etc. and it worked out to nearly $60 million per fighter. The Gripen C/D will be cheaper, but looking at the recent Thai purchase of 6 Gripen C/Ds, it wasn’t quite as cheap as $35 million.

No that was poorly written from my side. I meant that SAAB and Sweden commits itself to a very high degree to lower even now lifecycle costs in a foreseeable future when it comes to technical exchange, trainingfacilities in Sweden, maintenance cooperation etc. It´s simply about coorporation to lower costs and increase performance.