AspisMe too! We also need an aegean ghost camo by the way.
Nic
Now, the “tropical camouflage” for Brazil, i think that if Brazlians show a minimum of good sense, is something that we ‘ll all enjoy. Maybe a nice dark green with patches of brown.
About Rafale with Aegean ghost camo, i don’t see it coming. :p
Aspisperhaps its time for you greeks to consider the J-10B. With China now helping bailing out the Greek economy, but not demanding strings as Greeks European neighbors. Also you can trust China to never sell to the TUrks.
Well, the odd thing about China, is that we never hear anything about weapons talks. I don’t know why. A greek minister was to China a few days ago, but the only thing we heard was about shipping deals…
Trusting China not “ever” selling to Turkey, would be unrealistic. The current turkish ballistic missile technology, was obtained from China, when Turkey bought a few WS-1B missiles with related ToT.
Things change all the time.
Up until 5 years ago, Turkey was Israel’s biggest ally in the region. 10 years ago, her relations with Syria were hostile because of water supply. With Russia relations were more antagonistic.
Today, with the Islamists on power, you have Turkey hostile to Israel, friendly to Iran and Syria and partners with Russia, because as soon as the pro-american Bulgarian goverment torpedoed the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline, Medvedev got tired of waiting and made a deal with Turkey. As conseguence greek relations with Russia have lost some value too.
That’s how things change. At the end, you can’t rely on “never”. You must see how things are at a certain point, then act accordingly. Right now the priority should be to get rid of the A7 (finally!) and find 40 new for substitution. As i see it, if the money won’t evaporate, it looks like “F16 again”. For the simple reason that with 2.4 bln that’s how you can get 40 new aircrafts keeping also politics in mind. The other option is Gripen NG (surprise), buy russian (almost science fiction) or … chinese (would be odd to go from nothing to aircrafts).
Personally i think nobody ever lost from examining all options. There may be political obstacle in buying chinese aircraft (NATO would disapprove) and our PM is pretty much pro-american, but it wouldn’t hurt exploring the situation. What i don’t know is whether greek politicians want to and whether China has raised the issue. I am also sure HAF has never flown or seen the aircraft. I don’t think Greece has ever signed even a memorandum for military cooperation with China. I don’t know why…
Why would China “never” sell arms to Turkey?
My guess is because the current turkish gov supported the Uygurs in some violent episodes in China (Turkey regards the Uygurs part of the “turkish world”) some years ago and relations got cold… This can change.
The problem is that most people don’t think like politicians. They think that countries keep “honorable alliances” or “help out of good heart” other countries…
On the other hand, it’s common for people to go with sentiment. Many greek airforce enthusiasts still dream of Typhoon or Rafale, even if this means to have half the aircraft number the airforce asks and having to cut other programs because of higher operational costs. Already the 2.4 bln is an optimistic scenario if all goes well.
The goverment may not survive the year and for all we know,theoretically the whole procurement program may be scrapped to get the money for closing holes in the “reform program”. This PM never was into weapons anyway. Even before taking office , he had declared that “we have too many weapons, we should use better what we have instead of buying new”. And that was before the crisis… So, Defencenet may claim having all “safe info” it likes, but, i will wait to see the official program once released and then the implementation.
AspisThe Brazilian Embraer aircraft factory is confident about the export of freighters to the french armed forces, as part of the military accord between Brazil and Paris, including the purchase of French military aircraft.
Well, this is the whole juice. It’s a factor that you won’t find in the criteria i guess, but will be determinating. I will buy your Rafales, you buy my freighters. Not exactly ToT, but it’s a quid pro quo commercial deal.
It’s good, so that enthusiasts can come down from the clouds to the reality.
So, Rafale is a bomber ?
Whatever pleases the customer! Once you ‘ve sold them, let their journalists call it transport aircraft if they like so. Who cares! 😀
It hope they get a greenish camouflage paint. It will look nice over the rain forests. “Tropical Rafale”. 😎
AspisI think there are several possible answer to this Aspis.
Firstly I think that you incorrectly assume that the “higher risk” program was the only reason of not choosing the gripen. Certainly it has played an important role but this criteria must be weighted with others (price, ToT, performance etc). It is the evaluation which must determine if the level of risk is acceptable when you take into account other parameters.
Here we learn that the Gripen scored first for the ToT part and that it was the cheapest…If the evaluation was so biased it wouldn’t be that hard to justify that they could not guaranty the ToT because of the various origin of the hardware and that would be another reason for not selecting it. So you should not overlook that when praises are justified for the gripen they are put in the report.
Of course there is a political aspect but that have an impact by how the different criterium are weighted against each other rather than in the evaluation in it self. We have learnt from Istoe that the rafale offered the best technology package with the rafale while it was the most expensive…
At the end, once the evaluation is done, you must chose what critera are the most important for your country and there is nothing shocking with that. There is no black and white solution given all of the three aircrafts are modern and capable. Here Brazil decided to pay more for more…with more long term garanty.
They have chosen a particular mix of capabilities and guarantees according to their interest.
You ‘re right, the high risk wasn’t the only reason. But it’s the main reason that a simple citizen understands as acceptable… What i find odd, is that they bring the “high risk” factor in an aircraft which is in the short list. This is a factor usually mentioned to “burn” a candidacy early. I mean, as i said, we often put clauses like “being operational already in another country’s armed forces”. To avoid exactly “high risk”.
Said that, i TOTALLY agree, that each country can put different criteria. And this is where the beauty of this system lies. Because you can arrange the criteria in any way you like and nobody can tell you that the competition wasn’t “fair”.
It’s the same way as in S. Korea. The US would have won the contract even if the Rafale had given much better price. Because it was bound to win an american…
AspisHere’s another picture i found from the ground simulator:
Of course it doesn’t simulate the aircraft, but only the consoles, hence no 6 deg inclination in the consoles or the floor. 😀
AspisCertainly SAAB and Sweden offered some guarantees…But these are not comparable with those of the SH and rafale. Both of them are ordered by their respective countries in large numbers. Even without an export. Their development is done (or almost done). Given the number in service and to be delivered the support guarantee during all the life span is much higher than an aircraft that wasn’t ordered or that would be ordered in much smaller quantities. Just to say that there is a hierarchy in terms of guarantees. when you look for the next 40 years I am more confident with the SH or the rafale in term of support than the gripen NG.
This would be in deed a plausible reason to say “no” to the Gripen. “You ‘re immature as project, so, sorry, we must say no”.
But, IMHO, this is a reason to exclude someone from the short list. It is an ELEMENTARY reason. What’s worse than something that you consider immature and “high risk”? Nothing. But, then, why do you put them in the short list? In theory, in the short list you put the ones that are the closest to your standards. Being “high risk” can’t be close to the standards…
What i mean is… How can you exclude from the short list “mature” projects and include a “high risk” project that you don’t “trust”? And only then discover that it’s a “high risk” project? It doesn’t make sense…
AspisHere’s a more recent picture of the greek Erieye, after it was declared operational (the picture from greekmilitary.net is from many years ago, a bit after the deliveries). It’s taken in 2009:
One can see that things are a bit crowded. Those standing on foot are supervising the trainning of the new controllers who are the lucky ones sitting. Maybe in Saab2000 the interior gives more room? Because it mustn’t be very pleasant to pass several hours standing in a slightly inclinated aircraft, bending over the heads of the trainnees.
Also in the more recent photo, one can see that there are some new components on the side of eacy main monitor, that aren’t present in the old greekmilitary.net photo. Whatever these may be, are parts of the additions after the delivery.
In any case, Pakistan must have had its reasons and India its own…
AspisOne of the things I find odd is that Gripen is highlighted as “high risk” — that argument was actually stronger one year ago, when there were still many test flights left to perform and a lot of integration work that remained.
However, even before Jobim delivered the report, the NG Demo had flown to India in mid May, performed all tests flawlessly, and returned back home. India seems to not share the notion that it is such a high risk project; they got six a/c to choose from, and they still decided to bring the NG Demo to India for flight testing!
Don’t fight it… It’s about politics and internal consumption. Suppose you are Brazilian citizen (without any knowledge about aircrafts), reading your newspaper about a big expenditure. Keep in mind, that it’s not likely to fight against some superpower in the visible future. And you read “The Gripen NG had the best ToT for our industry and great price, but scored less in other points, so we prefer the moreexpensive Rafale becaused scored better in technical points”. Wouldn’t you ask yourself “What? Who needs the best? Why not take the one which gives more to our economy”?
Now, add the “high risk” to the Gripen, and you bring “fear and uncertainty”. Makes it more acceptable.
At the end, if a goverment has decided to make a purchase from a certain country, there’s nothing stopping it. You can arrange the importance of the criteria as you please to make win the one you want. Happened to the Rafale too.
The “open and fair” competitions, in countries where politics do matter, are made only for price reduction and for giving a cloak of legitimacy to the choice. In the best case your goverment may be indecisive between 2 countries and then let the airforce pick the one that likes most. If the goverment since the beginning wants a specific winner, that’s the one that will win anyway.
It is also interesting to note that FAB did short-list Gripen NG and not e.g. the F-16; at the time of the short-listing the risk of the NG was not considered that high it seems — whereas now, after more than 150 successful test flights and integration of all important components, it is considered high risk…
Apparently Brasil had a political issue with the US. They didn’t want them in. So they found an excuse to throw them out.
We have also in certain contracts used a clause like “the competitor must have the product in service in at least one foreign customer and his own country’s armed forces”, but saying that the F16 is high risk, while the NG isn’t and afterwards saying that the NG is also high risk, it’s blatantly a political manouver.
Another thing I find odd is that the writer first talks about the increased focus on ToT in the second version of the report and then says “The Gripen NG has a better assessment on the transfer of technology..”. This does not makes sense to me, but perhaps this is just a Google translate issue?
From what i understood, at 2003, the criteria were arranged in a way, that ToT and operation costs had the biggest influence on the final ranking. This was changed afterwards and it was lowered. Thus, with 2003 criteria, probably the Gripen would have won. It’s what i ‘ve been saying about arranging the criteria. I have written a long post about this in the past. In our case, in the previous gov, the importance of AESA and structural lifespan was lowered in order not to penalize too much the Typhoon.
You have to make win, the one that you really want to win! 😀
Rafale is the winner in Brazil. Lula wants Rafale? Brazil gets it. That’s the bottom line and congratulations to the Rafale. It deserved a good export.
AspisThe Bureau of Arms Procurements arrived to an agreement with EADS about the deliveries of the NH90.
Deliveries will start in 9 months (March 2011) and are to be concluded in 31 December 2011, instead of the initial position of EADS for 2013.
Also, the 2 sides agreed to the amount of penalty EADS will pay and will be “in between” the 80 mln supported by EADS and the 160 mln claimed by the greek side.
http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12769&Itemid=99999999
A new magazine site reports that the option for 2 Super Puma helicopters (from a previous order) was activated and our French friends will deliver one in 2011 and the second in 2012.
Back to defencenet, while the new Procurement Plan isn’t officially out yet (should be ready by September), Defencenet claims to have “safe information”, according to which, in the 2011-2015 reviewed procurement plan, for the airforce, there is:
– At high priority (5), the purchase of SPICE 1000 and SPICE 2000 ammunition and the extension of operational life of AM39 Exocet missiles (available funding: 130 mln)
– The modernization of Mirage2000 to -5mk2 is at priority position 14, while the one of modernization is at priority position 15, with the Block30s not being included (817 mln available funding for both).
– 15 more Super Puma SAR are in position 8.
– 40 new aircrafts “for attrition replacement and substitution of 2nd gen aircrafts” is in position 12, with 2,4 bln funding.
The higher priority numbers are occupied by “minor” programs concerning ammunition and new infrastructure. Basically, amongst “major” new material programs, the SAR helicopters are 1st priority, the 40 aircrafts are 2nd, modernization of Mirage2000 is 3rd and of the F16s is 4th.
Interestingly, the funding for the 21 Mirage is predicted to be 360 mln euros, while the one of the F16s (which are multiple in number) is 458 mln.
http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12804&Itemid=49
http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12621&Itemid=49
http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12648&Itemid=99999999
** The part where the speculation starts:
*IF* this information proves to be accurate and assuming that a) the greek goverment won’t fall in the next years , b) that in 2013 Greece won’t make a debt restructuring and that c) in the meantime the goverment won’t need to curtail further the program (the previous gov’s was about 10 bln, the new one according to defencenet is supposed to be 8,5 bln), then there are some conclusions:
– 2,4 bln isn’t enough for 40 EF or Rafales, as this must include all costs and not just fly away. So, God Forbid, i am afraid we may see F16s again. Defencenet being a staunch supporter of EF proposes the theory of used EF T1 (which IMHO is worse than getting the F16s). Maybe a swedish miracle may repeat itself and see an order for Gripen NG put on say 2014?
The alternative is to cancel other programs and divert the money there (it’s been common practice in the past). But since 40 EF/Rafales would cost something like 4 bln, which is almost half the procurement program (and unfortunately the Army and Navy need their share), it’s something impossible. Unless we order something like 20 aircrafts instead (God forbid).
– Although the Mirage2000 modernization is -surprisingly- put slightly higher on the priority list than the F16s (probably the impressions from the -5 have had an impact, otherwise every defence magazine was giving it for granted that HAF was upset about the price and had abbandoned plans for upgrading), Defencenet says that the fact that the French claim that it’s not a cost/effective upgrade, may lead to cancelling it.
However, there is IMHO another way of reading this too. Apparently HAF was impressed enough by the -5mk2 to want to reconsider the upgrade. The exclusion of the F16s B30 from the uprade, leaves the field open to a cancelling of the upgrade of the F16s instead, who are B50s, 52+ and 52+ Adv, so they aren’t so much need of upgrade, but rather it would be a process of unifying the blocks to the latest configuration. Which… could wait maybe. So maybe in case of need for other program, the money will be cut from the F16s to be diverted elsewhere.
– There won’t be a major order IMHO up until the goverment passes from the parliament all the main reforms of the IMF/EU deal (most of which are up the middle of 2011). As the vice minister of defence said to Reuters “If we buy ships now, there will be a revolution”. That’s why for the time being the Mod is only trying to push low profile programs that don’t attract press attention (tank ammo, M109s from Germany, now the 2 Super Pumas).
So, my Swedish friends, i do hope that SAAB can make the big surprise once more and grab a contract in say 2014. Greece needs something cheap to operate for daily use. Buying EF/Rafale and then having them sitting in the hangars because we won’t be able to afford the operation costs, doesn’t help much.
Gripen NG för Grekland! 😀
AspisThe four EMB-145H were delivered October 2004 and May 2005. At least part of the delay was in integrating Link 16 – Brazil is not cleared for this, so it had to be done in Greece. Used acceptance training was completed September 2008 and all were operational by February 2009.
Yes, the clearance was part of the delay, but not the only one. At some point there was serious clash between Saab and the MoD about the satisfaction of requirements, works had been halted and there was talk of even scrapping the contract. Consider that the order was put on 1999 and deliveries were supposed to be completed by October 2004. The comment of the Swedish sales responsible quoted previously in this thread, had to do exactly to the “clash of views”. In 2006 Saab was even requiring 73 mln euros as compensation because in her view, she had finished her part of the contract. At the end all went well (and we didn’t pay anything), but some years earlier, things weren’t as “friendly” as they seemed by his late comment (about openness and fairness). 10 years from the date of order to put in service 4 aircrafts isn’t just a matter of clearance…
AspisDoes anyone additional info on these variants? Are there any insights as to why Greece had trouble initially with the EMB 145 AEW&C? The Pakistan Air Force doesn’t seem to be running into too many issues with their new Saab 2000s, except the initial cost forcing them to cut the number of planes they decided to get.
Greece had trouble with the meeting of contract requirements. Basically, we didn’t order “Erieye”. We ordered an Erieye, which had to fullfil certain HAF requirements which were in the contract. According to the unusually few leaked information, the main problems, had to do with the linkage to the rest of the air-defence network and navy (for example, our ground radars and SAMs are networked, capable of image exchange. The Erieye was supposed to become part of it. The presence of russian systems in there, must have complicated things). On the contrary, the radar performance was satisfactory since the start. I also *think* that i remember that HAF wanted a little better ESM, because the 180 deg “compensated” coverage depends on the ESM on the dead sectors and the performance was deemed not satisfactory at the beginning. Not sure 100% about that though.
In 2 words, we got a somewhat “custom made” version. As to what exactly, i don’t know. HAF has been unusually secretive about this program. Final trials occured over the sea W/NW of the Peloponnese, to avoid eventual turkish ESM.
“The Hellenic air force has been a very demanding customer, but always acted in a spirit of openness and fairness,” says Kenth Börjesson, Saab’s sales director for southern Europe. “We have listened and also taken the air force’s views into account in the implementation programme.”
For the history, at the time, we were proposed the SAAB Argus (?) as platform. The Embraer was prefered, primarily because of the higher speed, which was prioritized over endurance, as more critical element for our specific theatre. A magazine article of the time, had underlined that the higher speed was important to survive enemy airforce operations against the Erieye (THK doesn’t lack numbers, so they won’t have trouble finding some aircrafts to dedicate them in a mission to shoot down the Erieye). More available time to flee towards the closest AB while letting your escort aircrafts stall the enemy or in anycase keep your distances from the battle.
Low altitude performance isn’t an issue, as typical patrol altitude is 27.000 ft and above as mentioned in a greek article.
I don’t think we were offered the Saab 2000 back then though.
The Embraer as aircraft earned a good reputation for low maintenance demands. Eventually Greece bought a VIP version of it too, for the President of the Republic.
AspisThat’s quite enough, Aspis.
We do not need a Greece vs Turkey flame war.
No more, thank you.
GA
Where is the Greece vs Turkey in what i wrote???
Don’t you find it odd that:
a) Israel boarded the ships at international waters, while it could have easily waited to enter Israeli ones and act in full legitimacy.
b) That all the killings occured only in the turkish ship with IHH members and not in the other ships of the convoy?
Fine. I will leave you to your “realistic” theories, like “I switch on my computer game and today i choose Israel vs Turkey”.
I ‘ve had enough too, thank you and goodbye.
AspisThat’s quite enough, Aspis.
We do not need a Greece vs Turkey flame war.
No more, thank you.
GA
Where is the Greece vs Turkey in what i wrote???
Don’t you find it odd that:
a) Israel boarded the ships at international waters, while it could have easily waited to enter Israeli ones and act in full legitimacy.
b) That all the killings occured only in the turkish ship with IHH members and not in the other ships of the convoy?
Fine. I will leave you to your “realistic” theories, like “I switch on my computer game and today i choose Israel vs Turkey”.
I ‘ve had enough too, thank you and goodbye.
AspisExercize photos released by HAF (unfortunately none from the Israelis)
* HAF 341 Squadron in Spain TLP (Tactical Leadership Program), in April 21-26
Partecipants were:
– AdA with Rafale, Mirage2000N and M2000D
– RAF with Torando GR4, Hawk
– USAF with F16CJ
– Luftwaffe with Tornado, F4
– Spanish Airforce with Eurofighter, Mirage F1, EF-18
* HAF SAR exercize May 31 “Eagle 2010”.
AspisAh the Bulgarians again ! NG now and PAK FA once the Greek economy recovers.
PAK FA if the current 2 political parties that rule Greece for 40 years disappear. And even then, i wouldn’t count on it.
As for the greek economy, it’s doubtful that will get out of this. No country, ever, in the world, has reduced its deficit so much in so little time. It’s unprecedented and if happens, they should put Greece in the guiness book of records.
The loans, are given mainly to protect the french and german banks from the damage and give them time to get rid of the greek bonds. Also it’s a way to transform the greek debt, from debt without warrancies (bonds towards banks), to debt with state warrancies (loans between states). In the first case, in case of default, the banks are screwed. In the second case, the debt can’t be written off, the other states can even confiscate greek state property.
See here: http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/6483/greecer.png
For the same reason, all EU countries with deficit problems are trying to cut down expenses, so that, if Greece goes down, they will get less hit.
Maybe Greece will make it, but until now, there are no measures to boost growth in order to halt the contraction of the economy and the goverment tries to run things quickly, but not as quick as things require. Still, the IMF program is good because it forces reforms that otherwise the greek govs would take 20 years to implement. Unfortunately, i don’t see the IMF pushing as hard as i thought for growth measures.
In any way, the greek economy at the end of this program, if all goes well, will have bebt at 150% (because the program causes so big contraction of the economy that the debt will increase sharply in 3 years). This means, that , if the greek goverment doesn’t restructure the debt (a form of bankruptcy hopefully milder than the usual ones), Greece will still need to continue with austerity for at least 10 years (and not 3 as the greek media tend to say to give consolation). Even if Greece does complete the IMF program successfully, with the media damage that got, it is doubtful whether the investors will be ready to buy greek bonds. At that point, Greece, although healthier, will do debt restructuring, writting off part of the debt and starting over on more healthy basis , but with a lower budget.
Hence, Gripen NG! The IMF’s choice! 😎
Unfortunately, Greece has a big number of weapons, which, require maintenance. And this alone eats a good part of the defence budget. In a reduced budget, things will only get worse, if you go and buy the most expensive aircrafts out there.
Let Turkey buy whatever she likes. Greece must change way of thinking and defence dogma. The mentality that wanted Greece to arm, as if the 2 parts were in the middle of a desert, must end. Greece must adopt to the economic situation, the role (defender) and the theatre (islands archipelago, not desert, not Pacific Ocean).
Sign In
