Look at what goes into LSP3 and you’ll have your answer. Besides which, since it’s so easy, why dont you join ADA and get it done ASAP?

With respect, if you say you are going to get LSP3 into the air in 2008 and you don’t do so by 2010, you have failed.

I guess there is something in your comment about joining ADA – kicking the plodders out and replacing them with more dynamic people conscious of deadlines might get things done a little more ASAP. Kicking out the people in other organisations who hold things up for ADA would help, too. Kicking people out of government who hold things up for those organisations would help, too.

…you’re advised to do basic research before posting any of the above. The Gripen-NG is reportedly NOT yet certified in it’s home country Sweden, and is presently still undergoing performance tests to get basic certifications. It is Not allowed to fly outside the country for this purpose.

Now, please don’t get into a protracted debate over the usage of the term “experimental prototype”. If it has reportedly not yet gotten operational status / certification, is still in the works, and not allowed to fly out of the country, it is an experimental prototype.

You wrote:
“Sweden sent the Gripen-D, as the shocking reality is that the Gripen-NG is still an experimental prototype …”

I wrote:
“My apologies but I think you can do much better than to write such worthless drivel.”

Perhaps you can’t see the problem with what you wrote. It’s not the use of the description “experimental prototype”. It is the use of the words “shocking reality”. SAAB has always described the NG as a development and test platform for a later production aircraft. Your sensationalist words are completely unwarranted. There is nothing shocking at all about an aircraft described as a development aircraft being a development aircraft, so why do you say there is?

NOBODY (ESPECIALLY not in LM – they are dealing with it every day) is pretending there is nothing wrong but the REALITY is that it is not as bad as it is being made out to be.

I think there is a history of LM being less than realistic about this program. There has been a pretence that the program has been essentially healthy when such a view was in conflict with the evidence. Out of rhetorical curiosity, has the LM PR machine ever issued a statement to the effect that a lot of the F-35’s problems stem from bad project management by LM?

If the F-35 were in the same position as the F-22 vis a vis availability (ie only the US forces can buy it), things would not be quite so bad – perhaps you or LM would phrase that differently and say “things would be even better”. I say that because there is a risk that the defence budgets and defence capabilities of a number of countries will end up in disarray due to their choice of F-35 as an F-16 replacement. Some will see a very high risk of that happening. LM might assess that risk as being extremely low. That would be in keeping with their previous over-optimistic and subsequently discredited assessments, wouldn’t it?

As I understand things in US procurement, “any programme that reaches a unit cost overrun of 25% of original budget is required by law to be terminated, unless the Secretary of Defense can convince Congress that it is critical to national security.”*

I thought the F-35 was well past a cost overrun of 25% of original budget. If it isn’t, there seems to be a very high risk that it will be soon. I don’t think there is much of a debate about the F-35 being critical to US national security but once the politicians become involved in deciding the future of the program, all sorts of things could happen. Further delay would be likely; cuts in numbers would be possible.

To go back to what you said:

but the REALITY is that it is not as bad as it is being made out to be.

There’s a bizarre truth to that. Indeed, it is not as bad as it is being made out to be. It seems that in reality it’s much worse than that (very late, way over budget, high risk manufacturing approach of building before testing is complete, program at risk of change by Congress etc).

* Source: http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=1373&thisSection=military

These terms are as empty as UN conventions. When it suits western powers use all kinf of weapons. There was no Geneva convention stopping Fallujah or Irac invations. Neither did it stop Israel using Posphor grenades or violence against civil population. I think the western ideology is purely defending its own purposes. If shot down pilots during Irac war were displayed it was criminal. The same west passed everything by opening Guantanomo and even put arrested people on planes so they “not” abused laws. How much of hypocracy do we have there? I think it is Indian right to buy and use it. Wartime is not restricting any rules for the western nations, I think it should be equal to all. I think we have seen how climate conference was manipulated by the rich nations to gert advantages, we should try to see the facts rather the usual windowdressing in western media.

I’m not defending the west in my observation about cluster bombs. All devices designed to kill other human beings are or are almost by definition vile and disgusting.

Torturing people is also vile and disgusting. I could not agree more wholeheartedly with you about the hypocricy of the USA shipping people to other countries to be tortured because the USA finds torturing them on its own soil incompatible with its high ideals. I don’t suggest the USA is the only country to behave extremely hypocritically. It seems that the political leadership of most countries will sanction many forms of evil behaviour if it sees them as being in the state’s interest.

How many do you think will be sold? The US still hasn’t cut their orders yet, and I haven’t heard of any partner nations cutting theirs yet either.

No partner nations have placed any orders yet apart from a handful for evaluation.

One problem is that the price for early production F-35’s is extremely high so the game is to avoid ordering these – and as mentioned earlier, I think – to “let “some other fool” take them. I suppose that against this you have to consider what additional maintenance costs you will incur in maintaining your existing fleet of F-16’s or whatever for longer than expected. You also have to consider that if there are further delays in the progam (development / testing / production), you could end up with a proportion of your ageing current fighter force grounded. I think I read a year or so ago of Norway starting to run into problems of this nature. Anyone from Norway able to shine some light on that, please?

“The Department has received notification from EADS North America indicating possible interest in competing for the Air Force’s KC-X Tanker and we would welcome that.”

I, too, would welcome some generous bunch of characters offering to help me knock a billion or two off my supplier’s bill. 🙂

The Russians seem to have come over all generous as well:

“Russia’s government-owned aerospace company United Aircraft will announce Monday it is competing against Boeing for the $40 billion refueling-tanker contract, a Los Angeles attorney for the company said Friday.”

TangoIII, thanks for posting that here:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=98081&page=8

No, since the beginning Jobim is one of the main support of the Rafale (and the strategic partnership with France ) in Brazil.
But the deal is nevertheless bagged for the French …

Is there time to go through the details and sign a contract before the elections? I imagine this has been going on in the background since Lula declared in favour of Rafale 6 months ago. I might be imagining the wrong things, of course.

Reading through the article at

http://www.estadao.com.br/estadaodehoje/20100318/not_imp525840,0.php

it sounds like the air force generals are worried about a further long term postponement and are now more concerned with getting a new fighter, whatever it is.

“Os brigadeiros temem que a decisão acabe sendo atropelada pela campanha eleitoral e o desfecho seja adiado mais uma vez”

which I translate as

“The generals fear that the decision will end up being hit by the electoral campaign and the outcome will be postponed yet again”

Rafale has won the selection, hasn’t it?