Spitfire9Or to put it another way, the F-35 has won every time it has been offered, including twice against the Eurofighter.
How much does South Korea depend on the USA for military support? Objective choice there? Dassault walked away and vowed never to tender again in an earlier SK selection ‘contest’ since the result was obviously predetermined. Japan: how many non-US fighters has Japan bought in the last 50 years? Free choice when it comes to sourcing fighters?
Israel: how much will F-35 cost them? How about nothing at all.
Eurofighter in Norway: pulled out because they saw the result as predetermined. Was it Snowden that leaked the recording of threats from the US ambassador if Norway did not choose F-35? SAAB persisted, only to discover that half the Gripens they would supply if they had won would have fallen out of the sky during their service life, according to the Norwegian evaluation.
F-35 may be the best choice sometimes but give us a break and don’t pretend that USA product won anything on cost/performance grounds in South Korea or Japan or Israel. I might say the same for Typhoon in Saudi Arabia. That was selected to avoid total reliance on USA weaponry, I think.
Spitfire9Because they keep winning?
Did Eurofighter win with UK, Germany, Italy, Spain? Not to me: they were all partner countries. Did F-35 win with Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, UK, USA? Not to me: they were all partner countries. Where has Typhoon won? Austria, Oman, Saudi Arabia. Where has F-35 won? Israel, Japan, South Korea. I would not say that either type has won that many, given political considerations (if any, apart from Austria – and that was a big mistake for Austria).
Spitfire9Probably
My guess is probably, too. But I wonder how the previous fiasco with F-35 (fiddling projected costs and LM ‘secretly’ trying to pressurise contract signature while knowing the Canadian parliament had not yet given approval) will have tainted F-35 and LM in the minds of members of the Canadian parliament. If the assessment of through life costs had not been doctored to deceive the ultimate decision makers (Canadian parliament) and if LM had not shown they were happy to undermine the authority of the Canadian parliament, I would rate F-35’s chances more highly.
Spitfire9Fighter Uncertainty Already Affecting Canadian Industry
If Canada does not buy the 65 aircraft originally planned, the cost impact on the F-35 near-term will be minimal, Babione says, as only a handful were scheduled to be delivered by 2020. More important for Canadian industry may be the opportunity to participate in a proposed block buy of more than 450 aircraft being discussed for fiscal years 2019-21.
If the block buy is approved, a significant amount of economic order quality (EOQ) funding would be provided in fiscal 2018 to enable the industry partners and their suppliers to buy raw materials and manufacture parts in larger quantities to reduce costs. The opportunity to participate in this may now be at risk for Canadian suppliers.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/fighter-uncertainty-already-affecting-canadian-industry
I wonder if economic order quantity funding is funding provided by government with zero interest. That would distort the true cost but I have a feeling it would be reported that the cost of the F-35 had fallen (without saying it was due to government subsidy).
Spitfire9GE can go to hell as well by the way they’re not really an american company anymore.
Why do you say that? Is it because not all the shares in the company are owned by US citizens/companies (and all the shares in those companies are owned by US-based entities)? Is it because not all GE products are entirely developed and manufactured on US soil? What conditions need to be met for a company to really be an American company?
Spitfire9The global aviation industry does not work like that. Replacing all US content except engines on a plane is not a economic action.
If I manufacture something containing parts where a government (not MY government) can stop me selling my product to a customer, it makes business sense for me to try to replace all components from that other country if practical to prevent political control over my product by that other country. To me that is an economic action on my part. Since there is no practical possibility of substituting a different engine with Gripen E, I don’t see any possibility of avoiding USA having to agree to an export sale, so the only reason I see for substituting American components with others is (a) if non-US components are cheaper/better (b) to provide offset work to export customers.
You have talked about political actions quite a lot in your posts. Surely you cannot get more political in this matter than a country in which Gripen E is not manufactured deciding who buys it. That is not a risk. It is a certainty. UK govt would refuse supply of UK components in Gripen to Argentina. Equally USA would block supply of US components in Gripen to any country USA had blacklisted. Sweden the same.
Spitfire9Fighter Jets A ‘Jackass of All Trades’
(Source: Australian Associated Press; published March 22, 2016)
Blue sky marketing is overshadowing major problems with the controversial next-generation fighter planes, a Senate inquiry has been told.
Australia’s next-generation jet fighter has been labelled the “jackass of all trades and masterful of none”.
Former RAAF chief Errol J. McCormack said the F-35 was the only viable candidate that will meet the full range of Australia’s air superiority needs in 2025 and beyond.
But he admitted that Lockheed Martin gave thousands of dollars in sponsorship to fund his organisation’s seminars.
Mmm… ‘Lockheed Martin gave thousands of dollars in sponsorship to fund his organisation’s seminars’ sounds very LM to me. You know, if you pay someone for their opinion about your product, it’s just possible it might be favourable.
“When the product fails recruit as many clients as you can, promote the product as loudly as you can, keep the cash flowing for as long as the market remains blind to its failure.”
F-35 is controversial, isn’t it? I think the speaker makes a valid point about it being possible that F-35 will fail to be what was promised. Unfortunately that will not become apparent (if it does) until it’s too late for countries which have committed to it.
Spitfire9Yes Saab should act in the best interest of Saab and US should act in the best interest of US.
So we both agree that US government should block all future Gripen exports? Because said Gripen exports no longer serve US interests as result of the intentional reduction in US content on Gripen.
I suspect you have not studied economics if you think that protectionism and suppression of trade is in the best interest of a country pursuing such policies.
Spitfire9Please also remember the sequence of events here is Saab taking actions that harm US interests and a potential US response.
The primary duty of the American government is to act in the interests of America. The primary duty of the directors of a company is to act in the interests of the company. The American government has no duty to act in the best interests of Swedish industry. SAAB does has no duty to act in the best interests of the American government. What exactly do you see as the problem with SAAB acting in the best interests of SAAB?
Spitfire9You seem to think Saab should be able to make political decisions to court sales based on political reasons but US should for some reason not defend itself.
Saab knew from day one of Gripen that they would never export a Gripen without US approval it seems someone in Saab has forgotten that.
If you sell military equipment to other countries, every sale is political by nature. It increases the military capability of the customer country.
But really do try and make a coherent argument for why US should tolerate what Saab has done.
Have you got a screw loose? If Volvo export a car to a customer in France or Chile or America that could have been supplied by an American manufacturer, is that intolerable? What do you suggest the USA does? Nuke Sweden?
Spitfire9The only reason the Gripen exists is because US granted technology on very favorable terms. The resulting plane had a large amount of US content so that transfer of technology was beneficial to US economically. Now Saab seems to have undertaken a program to deliberately reduce US content. The newest version with almost no US content does not serve US national interests as it competes with US manufactured planes and provides no real benefit to the US. If US has ability to block sales of this plane then it should do so simply out of its own self interest and an also a bit of spite for being used like it appears to have been in this case.
And just to add no I don’t think the shift in origins of part shown was based on competition. It appears to have been an entirely political act against US. To try and increase sales by courting the less pro american governments.
As others have said, what you say is not sensible. Do you think that SAAB is a company that sets out to design products that maximise the commercial benefits of US companies rather than trying to maximise the commercial benefits to itself?
Spitfire9Better hope president Trump doesn’t see the above or Saab may well lose that last american part of Gripen.
It’s a shame that the EJ200 engine was not chosen over the GE414 for the Gripen E. I’m not saying it was the wrong decision if EJ200 did not produce the thrust required but if it had been rated as suitable at a suitable price, security of supply would be much better.
Life could get very ugly for Saab if those pictures start making the rounds in Washington. Mass replacement of US parts is certainly grounds enough for US to block export of US technology those parts are based upon.
Are you talking about US parts being reverse engineered? If not it’s just undesirable for US manufacturers if alternatives are developed and those are bought rather than US products. That’s called competition, isn’t it?
Spitfire9Air Force Delays T-X Solicitation; FOC Shifts Two Years
Spitfire9“Most Illustrious Lord, Having now sufficiently considered the specimens of all those who proclaim themselves skilled contrivers of instruments of war, and that the invention and operation of the said instruments are nothing different from those in common use: I shall endeavor, without prejudice to any one else, to explain myself to your Excellency, showing your Lordship my secret, and then offering them to your best pleasure and approbation to work with effect at opportune moments on all those things which, in part, shall be briefly noted below.
I have a sort of extremely light and strong bridges, adapted to be most easily carried, and with them you may pursue, and at any time flee from the enemy; and others, secure and indestructible by fire and battle, easy and convenient to lift and place. Also methods of burning and destroying those of the enemy.
I know how, when a place is besieged, to take the water out of the trenches, and make endless variety of bridges, and covered ways and ladders, and other machines pertaining to such expeditions.
If, by reason of the height of the banks, or the strength of the place and its position, it is impossible, when besieging a place, to avail oneself of the plan of bombardment, I have methods for destroying every rock or other fortress, even if it were founded on a rock, etc.
Again, I have kinds of mortars; most convenient and easy to carry; and with these I can fling small stones almost resembling a storm; and with the smoke of these cause great terror to the enemy, to his great detriment and confusion.
And if the fight should be at sea I have kinds of many machines most efficient for offense and defense; and vessels which will resist the attack of the largest guns and powder and fumes.
I have means by secret and tortuous mines and ways, made without noise, to reach a designated spot, even if it were needed to pass under a trench or a river.
I will make covered chariots, safe and unattackable, which, entering among the enemy with their artillery, there is no body of men so great but they would break them. And behind these, infantry could follow quite unhurt and without any hindrance.
In case of need I will make big guns, mortars, and light ordnance of fine and useful forms, out of the common type.
Where the operation of bombardment might fail, I would contrive catapults, mangonels, trabocchi, and other machines of marvelous efficacy and not in common use. And in short, according to the variety of cases, I can contrive various and endless means of offense and defense.
In times of peace I believe I can give perfect satisfaction and to the equal of any other in architecture and the composition of buildings public and private; and in guiding water from one place to another.
I can carry out sculpture in marble, bronze, or clay, and also I can do in painting whatever may be done, as well as any other, be he who he may.Again, the bronze horse may be taken in hand, which is to be to the immortal glory and eternal honor of the prince your father of happy memory, and of the illustrious house of Sforza.
And if any of the above-named things seem to anyone to be impossible or not feasible, I am most ready to make the experiment in your park, or in whatever place may please your Excellency – to whom I comment myself with the utmost humility, etc. – Leonardo da Vinci, 1482″
Didn’t know that about da Vinci. OK, Leonardo IS an appropriate name for a company involved in the production of military goods.
Spitfire9Of course, those savings are substantial when compared to the investment required, but keep in mind that many of these are an outcome of the learning process involved in setting up this kind of production line.
Got that… but I don’t think I would ever want most defence contractors to make anything for me. Too many don’t seem to have the kind of interest in efficient production manifested by other companies.
More important IMO, are the projected savings from modifications/upgrades designed to reduce the operating cost of the aircraft (I’ll see if I can dig up the article describing that aspect).
That would be interesting indeed.
Sign In
