If India signs for 63 Rafale with a view to continuing with MMRCA for another 126, I think that Dassault will be in a position to dictate the unagreed outstanding terms and the price for MMRCA. Not a wise move for India to put itself at the mercy of Dassault.

I also fail to see how any Rafale order can mitigate the problem India has of tumbling fighter numbers in the next 3 years with 10 squadrons of fighters being scheduled for retirement. Even if Rafale production could be doubled from 2016 and the Armee de l’Air received no Rafales at all in 2016, 2017, 2018, the Egypt order needs to be supplied so I think only 1+ squadrons of Rafales would be delivered by 2018. With Tejas Mk1 production currently moving to 8 a year (but perhaps rising to 16 in 2017), only 1+ squadrons of Tejas Mk1 will be delivered by 2018.

It is a mystery to me why Brazil and Argentina are negotiating the purchase of Gripen NG. Is it a political move to show regional allegiance (we are all united in South America)? Is it to explore the cost of replacing embargoed UK parts in Gripen with Brazilian parts? Is it in the hope that the South Atlantic Islands territorial dispute might be settled, allowing Gripen to be supplied with UK components? Negotiations cannot have been started with a real intention of supplying Gripen NG under prevailing political circumstances.

I think the opening of negotiations to buy Gripen NG from Brazil is probably just a political gesture so that Argentina can complain that the UK is interfering with its right to procure aircraft with which to defend itself.

Argentina knows that as things stand, it cannot buy Gripen NG. That is one reason why it is looking to buy from China.

US Air Force plans to replace the F-35 fighter’s avionics, radar and engines are an implicit admission that the current aircraft is already obsolete and that, despite a unit cost of over $250 million, it cannot match the latest foreign fighters coming into service.

This is the first time a customer acknowledges that the obsolescence of the F-35’s sensors has degraded the aircraft’s still unproven nominal capabilities to the point that a radical upgrade is necessary, more than a year before it enters service.

A “unit cost of $250 million”… What is the writer talking about?

Technology moves forward independently of any particular aircraft in development. F-35 development is years behind original schedule so before intended technologies are implemented newer technologies are becoming available. Is it more a case of opting to incorporate newer technology due to the substantial delay in implementing the originally targetted technologies or is it more a case that the originally targetted technologies were not what they were cracked up to be? If this is a case of re-appraising what technology to incorporate in the aircraft, given the unplanned availability of superior technology (due to years of delay in implementing F-35 development), to me that seems a sensible thing to do.

It may be the case that the USA is prepared to fund an ever more expensive component of their miltary arsenal – a strike/fighter aircraft – but I wonder how much further delay and cost increase will further dislocate the provision of effective overall defence for most other customer countries.

The Kremlin is slamming the brakes on its “fifth generation” fighter program and cutting its initial rollout to a quarter of those originally planned.

Financial constraints are the key reason cited for cutting the military order from 52 to 12 of the planes over the next few years, according to the Moscow daily Kommersant.

“Given the new economic conditions, the original plans may have to be adjusted,” the paper quotes Deputy Defense Minister Yuriy Borisov as saying. The project to build a cutting-edge fighter plane, which is partly financed by India, will not be canceled, but held in abeyance while the Russian Air Force makes the most of its existing “fourth generation” MiG and Sukhoi combat aircraft, he added.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/162320/russia-slows-sukhoi-t_50-production.html

Bogdan also says he is worried about the integrity of the F-35B’s aluminium 496 bulkhead, which bears critical structural loads where the trailing edge of the wing attaches to the aft fuselage. In 2004, programme officials reduced the weight of the F-35B by about 1,360kg (3,000lb). Those changes included switching the bulkhead material from titanium to lighter-weight aluminium.

The lighter bulkhead has since proved susceptible to structural cracking, requiring a series of “patches” all over the 496 bulkhead. There are now so many patches that programme officials are concerned it may be necessary to redesign the bulkhead for production aircraft, Bogdan says.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marines-stick-to-f-35b-dates-despite-new-problems-410518/

I am surprised that redesign of the bulkhead was not initiated long ago if it has already required …a series of “patches” all over the 496 bulkhead to deal with the cracks found.

I wrote

The answer to that is at 52:05 in the seminar. The customer (Swedish govt) altered delivery from 2018 to 2019.

You wrote

Ah, so it isn’t late, they just aren’t going to have it ready on the original schedule. :rolleyes:

Would you like developers to fund development out of their own funds to stick to an original schedule when the principal has decided to change the schedule? If the principal pushes the timetable to the right, payments will be shifted to the right, won’t they? The contractor is supposed to produce what was agreed with the principal when the principal wants it produced. May not be the way all companies do things but SAAB is hardly worthy of blame for doing what it is asked to do.

First Italian F-35 rolls out in Italy.

(In French): http://www.air-cosmos.com/2015/03/12/30265-sortie-d-usine-pour-le-premier-jsf-italien

Did you see the guy answering the question lol, he was afraid to answer it uncorrect. Coughing “different people, give different angels” An that other guy couldn’t stand still =)
And the woman in the backround stared the questioneer.
That was the most exiting part of this years gripen seminar according to me =)

Other then that, not so much…..disappointed :S

It was pretty unexciting.

They would not answer the question about the price difference between the C and the E, only saying that they cannot give a price because it depends what is in the deal (and what configuration is required in the aircraft). They also mentioned that the cost of the aircraft represented 20%-25% of the deal cost for Brazil. If the deal cost is $5.4 billion then the cost of the 36 frames should be around $1.1-$1.35 billion. That just does not seem possible to me ($1,350 million / 36 = $37.5 million). Did I hear wrong?

As recently as last year they were claiming the first flight would be 2015 and first deliveries to the Swedes would b 2018. How is 2016 and 2019 not a delay?

Yes, I was surprised to hear rollout would be 2016 but I thought I had remembered 2015 incorrectly. That is a delay. It would be interesting to know why 2015 Q2 is now 2016.