I thought that as far as technology transfers were concerned, the Gripen was the best offer. :confused:

in SAAB comercials, yes… in real world, not so much, obviously.

SAAB can’t sell something it doesn’t posess. and all american parts in the gripen depend on US companies and government (-> US policy).

therefore, they can only propose an “appropriateToT” as the US have stated.. “appropriate” being “what US government decides to let you have at a given moment”, and even that is subject to further limitatations on eventual exports

anyway, it’s not over yet.

As there are elections, if the elected people are from today’s opposition, nothing proves they won’t decide to take another aircraft (and you can be sure that all contenders manufacturers are “being very nice” these days to every party that may win the elections 😉 )

more explanations here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/07/us-aerospace-explains-antonov.html

actually, the An-112 would be a new development of an existing aircraft, engine with PW or GE engines…

after all, why not? they say they’ve been working on it since last november, so maybe they lanage to pull an interesting offer.

read the article: it says “the tester was “all wrong”

not “one area”

but again, I can’t blame you.. you never see anywhting wrong with it, even when LM says it is

I simply pointed out a citation from the article give above:

from what’s been written:

a pentagon tester gives results of his tests

LM rep says “the tester is wrong”

now, I ask a question: if he conducted the tests and gave the results found, what can be wrong?

it’s not as if some anonymous guy took an aircraft for a spin and did more or less this or that crap so nobody can really know how this or that result was achieved. The tests on a prototype are planned and executed with a specific rules to make sure the results are relevant in a given condition.

Now, the statement by LM rep implies that either:

– the guy is incompetent in conducting his tests (so basically, they say to pentagon: you guys don’t know squat about your business)

– the tests are irrelevant as such (would be funny, so, again, it’s the pentagon that is supposed to be incompetent, since they do tests without purpose)

– LM is full of sh… when it suits them, to hide lacks in their product

you can pick your choice.. to me, the last one seems the most obvious

again, navalising an aircraft isn’t only about reinforcing its landing gear.

the structure needs to withstand continuous hard landings (high vertical speed and hook arrests every time), be treated/protected against corrosion much more than for a land version, etc..

You make use of the kinetic energy at hand, before the gravity takes over. 😉

actually, considering that you’re pretty slow when you start to pull, you have little kinetic energy to play with… notwithstanding the fast that the aircraft accelerates while the nose falls forward 😉

wasn’t there an article underligning the fact that the UAE did not want irak to get their mirages?

if that was a big no-no for them, what about the rafale?

the whole thing seems to be exactly the opposite from what’s been said by the UAE officials (on the other hand, the french defense “officials” are quite capable to go overthere and mess the whole UAE deal in the process… a little like the morocco deal)