Err, it’s how defense companies are expected to work. While the F-35 has a different history, the date between the partner nations deciding to join up and the date they’re expected to receive their first delivery can be wider than a decade. And even if we discount partner nations, look at Singapore’s interest in the F-35. What’s a reasonable estimate on F-35 delivery to Singapore? Did that stop LM from putting a booth at the Singapore Air Show and displaying a mock-up of the F-35? And how about the J-31? When did China start marketing the J-31 and when is the expected first delivery?

Yes, customers selected F-35 for delivery 10+ years ahead which was when they intended retiring their existing fighter force. In the case of Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, I don’t think any of those countries are looking for delivery in 10 years’ time. That’s why I see marketing Gripen E to any country wanting fighters delivered pre-2020 as a bit of a waste of money. Yes, perhaps a country would try to eke out extra hours on its aging airframes so they would last until Gripen E could be delivered. Perhaps they would choose some other aircraft that was available in the time frame desired.

Defense companies do not stop their marketing efforts even when they have several years backlog or when they aren’t sure when the product will be ready for delivery. There is no benefit in doing so. The onus is on the buyer to decide whether they’re willing to accept the deal. Sometimes the defense company will offer a stopgap measure, but it is still up to the buyer, not the defense companies.

Fair observation. I guess the rewards from getting an order are so large that it is worth pursuing anything that’s not seen as a hopeless prospect (eg Eurofighter withdrawing from the Norwegian selection process, Boeing withdrawing from the Swiss selection process, Dassault not bothering to offer Rafale in the South Korean selection process).

That was some years ago.

If the NG is really cheaper than the c/d, saab wouldn’t still market new c/d builds as a cheaper option to the NG.

http://www.janes.com/article/52239/paris-air-show-2015-saab-sees-continued-future-for-gripen-c-d-combat-aircraft

Thanks. So C is less to buy than E now.

It’s interesting to read the following:

“The first opportunity to accommodate orders on the E line beyond Sweden and Brazil will be in 2022. There are many near-term fighter requirements that won’t wait until then, and so the C/D is a very viable proposal for those nations.”

I don’t quite understand why SAAB is marketing the E to anyone if none can be delivered for 6+ years. What happens if Switzerland revives its F-5 replacement this year or next – does SAAB respond, offering to build some new Gripen C to lend/lease to Switzerland until they can be replaced by Gripen E in 2022+? Same thing for Belgium/Denmark?

$50million is about right for a new single engined lightweight fighter. Higher, probably better to go for brand new f-16 while the line is still open.

I recall some years ago that SAAB said Gripen E was expected to be cheaper to build than Gripen C, due to the lower cost of the F414 engine to be used in the Gripen E. If that is still the case, Gripen E may cost closer to $50 million than $100 million. Of course whether the flyaway cost of the aircraft is $60 million or $70 million or $80 million has only a minor bearing on the overall cost of procuring and operating the type.

Forgive me for my huge ignorance, but the Portuguese language has been beyond my capabilities. In reason of that I used the Google Translate for it.

The first translation that I got was something like this: you’re an old man very naive.

In fact I have agreed with this first answer , although it was not exactly those words that it wrote for me, but how it has been children in this thread , then I have soothed those adjectives about me.

However I had made others attempts until the Google could provided with this translation from your text:

As you can see it is not the same words that you put in the first sentence in English that you wrote in your post: “The REDUCTION of the value in USD AFTER the signature was due to the exchange rate because the contract was signed in SEK and not in USD.”

Them in my humble opinion the sense of both sentence its not equal.

Please tell me if this translation has been correct, because if you really said it , then I will answer this or both.

Maurobaggio:

In my opinion this in English –

‘The REDUCTION of the value in USD AFTER the signature [of the contract] was due to the exchange rate because the contract was signed in SEK and not in USD.’

has the same meaning as this in Portuguese –

‘A REDUÇÃO do valor (em dólares dos Estados Unidos) DEPOIS da assinatura do contrato foi devido a flutuação da taxa de câmbio, já que o contrato foi assinado em coroas suecas e não em dólares.’

I’m a little surprised you can’t see that. When I once worked in Italy I was surprised to find that if I spoke Portuguese to people and they talked Italian to me, we could understand a great deal of what we were saying to each other.

Mmmm… sorry if I’ve got it wrong – I assume you are Italian!