Spitfire9Switzerland may be very wealthy but it does not follow that the Swiss government or people will not be very cost conscious when choosing an F-5 replacement. Perhaps a Swiss national can comment on whether many Swiss have any great interest in procuring all singing, all dancing fighters.
I have the impression that replacing the F-5 will be seen as a necessary evil by many Swiss – and as an unnecessary evil by many others. Any of the supersonic fighters in production or coming into production soon eg KAI F-50, Tejas, Gripen E, F-16, Rafale, Typhoon, F/A-18, F-15, F-35 would be far more capable than the venerable F-5 so I don’t see the need to choose the most capable of those.
Looking to the future, though, and the need to eventually replace the F-18 fleet, it might make financial sense to consider a type that would still be available 2025+ so that Switzerland could reduce the number of fighter types operated from 2 to 1. On that basis, I think the candidate list would reduce to Gripen E, Rafale and F-35.
Spitfire9Yes,a bit like trying to sell a house when you have only just started building it when the competition is offering a house where most or nearly all of it is built or arrangements have been made to do so.
Well, this is exactly what the Gripen E managed to do in Brazil and during the previous round in Switzerland 😀
True, but to continue the analogy, SAAB had spare houses they could rent to Brazil and Switzerland to use while the new ones were being built.
Spitfire9Depends what happens between now and 2017. If the collective partners get off their a55 and finally integrate Captor-E, Meteor, Brimstone, SPEAR, CFTs and these new twin store pylons that have been seen, along with the newer ESM system then that could definitely sway things. Sadly though the previous intent seems to have been to try win exports to pay for these things, which is like trying to sell a house before it’s built.
Yes, if the Typhoon programme was to (a) retain a facility to develop advanced fast jets (b) to provide fast jets for the forces of the participating countries, the partner countries passed up much of the industrial benefit provided by investing in (a) through refusing to agree to invest in systems they were going to acquire anyway before trying to secure export sales. By trying to save money the Typhoon partner governments lost all the tax income that would have flowed from additional sales yet still have to pay to develop the missing capabilities that resulted in Typhoon being non-competitive in many selection competitions.
Yes,a bit like trying to sell a house when you have only just started building it when the competition is offering a house where most or nearly all of it is built or arrangements have been made to do so.
Spitfire9Surprised that LM has not proposed the F-16V.
I don’t think the selection process has started yet.
Spitfire9It doesn’t have to be the SH. Maurer just mentioned “an american type”. Typhoon isn’t completely out aswell. It’s “not a favourite”. I wouldn’t bet money on EF though. Listen to the orginal interview here, in french: http://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/6715979-l-achat-d-avions-de-combat-pour-la-suisse-sera-a-nouveau-evalue-en-2017.html
What Mauer said was that Gripen was still on the radar… perhaps Rafale… perhaps an American type. Don’t want to read too much into his words but one way to see things is that Gripen is the front runner.
Spitfire9I thought Super Hornet was too big to fit the Swiss shelters which F-18 does fit. Also, without more USN orders, will Super Hornet still be in production in 3 years’ time?
Spitfire9Saab Signs Contract with Brazil on Weapon Acquisition for Gripen NG
Spitfire9During oscillations, a maximum of +7.69 g and -6.13g were recorded…
Question for the engineers. Out of curiosity, is a +9G/-3G aircraft in fact capable of handling as much negative G as positive G without structural damage?
Spitfire9What can SAAB offer India when Tejas is ready to go? That would be even sillier than buying Typhoon. Or 36 Rafales.
I could understand Gripen being of interest if a large number – say 100 – could be supplied through lease of C/D and rapid set up of a local Gripen E assembly line but Gripen E would not be available until 2019, If SAAB could supply 100 Gripen C/D within 2 years that might be sufficient to mitigate MiG retirements until Gripen E was available in numbers. Question is: how many Gripen C/D aircraft are available? I doubt if it is anywhere near the number IAF would need.
The other problem is with Tejas Mk2 being developed, what would be the point of buying a similar aircraft?
Spitfire9Its just an assembly line (probably for SKD kits at that). Don’t read too much into it. The F-35’s ToT isn’t being shared with anyone but that hasn’t stopped the FACO lines from being created in Italy and Japan. IIRC even the Saudi EF deal originally included local license assembly.
The export director makes it sound like a lot more than an assembly line:
“Transferring technology is not a problem for us,” said Parker, “It is part of our day-job. What excites me is the potential I see in Indonesia for developing huge levels of indigenous capability around this opportunity…”
but then I suppose that is really just marketing speak for “We will help you set up assembly processes”.
Spitfire9The UK government is unlikely to block any request by Argentina to buy Saab Gripen NG fighters, Brazilian defence minister Jacques Wagner told reporters on 15 April.
Interesting but I don’t think Sr Wagner is right. The report continues to say Sr Wagner says Embraer might have to find substitutes for British sourced parts. Why would that be necessary if the UK government had agreed to the supply of Gripens to Argentina?
Spitfire9As I think the Gripen NG has been keeping many components from other countries, then the value of Sweden’s currency can not be used as a reference to create the contract.
Otherwise that I guess that is unlikely because I have never seen something like this hypothesis as the Sweden currency could be the reference, so in this case it would be necessary that:
The GE from US has been accepted to receive 20% less for it F414G engine from Gripen NG;
The SELEX from UK has been accepted to receive 20% less for it AESA radar from Gripen NG;
The ELBIT from Israel has been accpeted to receive 20% less for it WAS from Gripen NG;
As well as all foreign suppliers from Gripen NG and the SAAB.
Yes, Gripen contains many parts not made in Sweden, so currency movements cannot be ignored. But a customer does not want to be quoted for the cost of the Swedish content in Swedish krone, the cost of the British content in British pounds, the cost of the US content in $US dollars etc so it is normal for the manufacturer to give a price for its product in one currency. In this situation it is the manufacturer who has to contend with the increases/decreases in profit margin that result from buying components in different currencies to the one in which the assembled product is sold.
My guess is that SAAB will need to pay GE for the engines in $US dollars but to cover the risk of currency movement SAAB can buy the $US dollars it needs to pay GE either by buying them now or making a contract in the currency market to buy them on a certain date in the future at an agreed Swedish krone/$US dollar rate. For example, if SAAB contracts with GE to supply 6 engines in 2017 at $US 5 million each with delivery and payment on Jan 1, Mar 1, May 1 etc, SAAB can make contracts to buy $US 5 million on Jan 1 2017, Mar 1 2017, May 1 2017 at an agreed rate now. Once those currency contracts are made, SAAB is protected from the risk that it will need to spend a lot more Swedish krone to pay GE for the engines because the dollar has strengthened against the krone between now and 2017.
Spitfire9Looking at the SEK price & the SEK/USD exchange rate, I wonder about what goes on in the heads of some people. 39.88 bn SEK – call it 40 billion, for simplicity. Since January 2009, that’s been worth, at different times, from $4.3 bn to $6.6 bn, & today is $4.5 bn. Yet some can’t grasp the concept of exchange rate fluctuations!
Maurobaggio is a prime example. He doesn’t seem to understand that the contract is in Swedish kronor, not US dollars, & the fluctuating US dollar price is purely a result of exchange rate changes. He’s picked a USD price from one date, & stuck with it, ignoring any changes in the SEK/USD rate since then, & says that’s still the dollar price, although the SEK has fallen almost 20% against the USD.
Or does he understand, but choose to post falsely?
The value in dollars only matters if the contract is made in dollars ie the buyer agrees to pay the seller in dollars. Dollars are used to express values for the purposes of comparison. If the Gripen contract is payable in Swedish krone, it doesn’t matter if currency fluctuations mean the equivalent dollar value goes up and down. What matters is movements in the relative values of the Brazilian currency against the Swedish currency. Who cares if the dollar value of a deal doubles if you are not paying in dollars?
Spitfire9Typhoon T1s don’t make sense for India any which way one looks at them- not cost wise, not capability wise, not in terms of adding to the already large fleet mix. When we know that negotiations continue to build Rafales in India, it made much more sense to simply look at the direct supply of brand new Rafale F3 and inducting them quickly, which is being done- IAF to induct 2 Rafale squadrons in 2 years.
I’m only surprised that finally an Indian politician has taken the pragmatic view, and gone out of his way to address the IAF’s requirement…
I don’t see the IAF having 2 squadrons of Rafale in 2 years. Can someone explain to me how Dassault is going to deliver 36 Rafale to India in 2 years when it has just received an order for 24 from another client? I don’t see placing an order for delivery ASAP to IAF as pragmatic if ASAP is not soon enough to avoid squadron numbers dropping to dangerously low levels.
Spitfire9Come on he was just replying to some stupid point that EF Tranche 1 would be a better deal for india than the Rafale F3+whatever.
Nevermind that India would need to ask the US permission to order some AMRAAMs, which I doubt they’d get.
Nic
He wasn’t the only one making the stupid point: I was, too. If Typhoon had been selected in the MMRCA competition but there were no Typhoons available for quick delivery now when India has an urgent need for fighters, I would have suggested buying second hand Rafales if that was possible.
By the way, why would the USA refuse permission to India to buy AMRAAM? Just curious.
Sign In
