[Swedish] Secretary of Commerce Damberg to India – might come home with huge export order

[Swedish] Secretary of Commerce Mikael Damberg will travel to India soon for a meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. At the same time military equipment manufacturer Saab has high hopes after receiving a letter from the Government of Indi regarding an invitation to partner up with an Indian firm. If everything works out the result may be the largest export deal in the history of Sweden. By the end of next week traveling for Economic Development and Innovation Minister Mikael Damberg to Asia, including to open embassy in Manila which was closed by the alliance government. Some 40 Swedish companies follow the Minister on that trip. More important, however, his second destination: India. According to data Expressen, Mikael Damberg granted an audience with one of the world’s most powerful men, the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. As recently as February this year the country was visited by Stefan Löfven , and in conjunction with industry trade fair Husband in India met Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Military equipment manufacturer Saab had a business delegation and had both the CEO Buskhe and Chairman Marcus Wallenberg in place. There was talk back then about the potential for a multi-billion dollar business with India.
– There is great confidence in Sweden and not least Swedish companies and their performance here in India. They are already taking part fully in the husband of India. All options are available to widen cooperation, and we will continue. So it feels very good, said Stefan Löfven then.

Stefan Löfven visited India in February, since then much has happened.
On Monday, the Financial Times reported that Saab and the American warplanes competitor Lockheed Martin received letters in recent days by the Indian Government with a request willingness to enter into partnership with an Indian company to produce a single-engine fighter aircraft fleet. According to the newspaper, it can be about orders worth up to $ 10 billion, equivalent to more than 90 billion SEK – which would make the deal the biggest in the history of Sweden.

Saab’s CEO Håkan Buskhe spoke earlier this year for Expressen about a possible multi-billion dollar business in India:
– It would be really great course. When we grow with two people outside Sweden, so we hire a new one in Sweden. In recent years, we have grown by 2 500 employees in Sweden. We are one of the few large industrial companies that are growing, but we will of course only if we can export. Saab offered the center for Gripen in India. Buskhe also noted that he met Prime Narendra Modi repeatedly.

– I’ve actually met him a number of times even before he became prime minister. I have had the privilege and opportunity to talk about what we do.
Earlier this year Saab offered to establish a development center for the Gripen aircraft in India.

Earlier this year Saab offered to establish a development center for the Gripen aircraft in India. Saab’s new Communications Director Sebastian Carlsson confirms the Expressen that the company received the letter from the Indian government. He notes, however, that it is probably not up to date with an end in the near future.

https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressen.se%2Fnyheter%2Fdamberg-till-indien–kan-ro-hem-jatteexport%2F&edit-text=&act=url

The Pak Fa and YF 23 look similar in my books.

If the Raptor evolved into the YF 23, the Pak Fa would be the middle step.

I totally diagree that the Pak Fa looks anything like a flanker. In a flanker, the nose cants down while the engines are stright. In the Pak fa, its the other way around.

Can’t say I agree with you. The PAK-FA is just crude in its design with nothing smooth or elegant about it, as with many Russian designs. Then again, beauty doesn’t have much impact on functionality. The PAK-FA bares much recemblance to the Flanker series in regards to the frontal hull design to the tail between the engines and the arrowhead layout of the whole design.

The YF-23 has in contrast a beautiful flow throughout the shapes of its exterior. Everything seems linked to one another and the whole symmetry is fantastic. The only detail about the YF-23 that I don’t like is the view from below, where it [similarly to the PAK-FA] has a rather box-like shape. The YF-23 brings forth names such as “Innovation”, “Stealth” and “Science-Fiction” decades ahead of the PAK-FA that really induces thoughts such as “Is that really stealthy though?” and “That’s the Russian answer to US fighters”.

Comparing the YF-23 with the PAK-FA is a little bit like comparing the Black Hawk to the Mi-8. They’re both transport helicopters, but one is rather sexy whilst the other one is not.

Well no. Russia has bombed non government forces, aside from Kurds. Pretty straight forward.

According to the Kurds, Russian jets have helped Goverment jets in striking kurdish forces. And they’ve bombed known US/UK forces locations. Mostly what seems to be without any regard for Collateral damage. So all in all, they’ve probably bombed everyone apart from Assad’s forces and themselves.

For the Swiss eval, all companies were given the chance to describe the 2015 version of their a/c. Of course they used the infamous “credibility factor” to downscale capabilities according to their state of development, however it is to be expected, the Swiss are careful people.

Indeed it was, and the Gripen suffered from it the most out of the three contestants, yet it was deemed good enough and chosen as the final bid.

The Norwegian competition was “rigged” in the sense that Gripen would not have won even if it had been a fully stealthy 5. gen a/c offered at a lower price than F-35; however it was not really necessary to rig it since the requirements were put very high and Gripen did not meet all technical requirements.

The nonsense about pricing in Norway; I don’t know why they did that, perhaps just to make the F-35 more acceptable to the anti-US left-wing party that was in government at that time; they stated they wanted the cheapest solution (which was assumed to be Gripen).

The deciding factor did not come from specifications in the Norwegian competition, but rather from the deciding factor of cost and subjective reflections on what would come to be the Norwegian future needs.

The whole problem with the Norwegian competition was that a choice had been made prior to the competition even taking place. It wasted the time of Saab, the Swedish Defense and everyone involved, not to mention all the possible local norwegian producers and manufacturers that would have been involved in the process if the contract would have landed on the Gripen.

The Norwegians had all the right to choose the F-35, no doubt about it, it was just the manner of which it was done.

Regarding Finland; I agree that Saab may have small chance however as you say the Finns are very much focused on bang for the bucks, and unlike what you are claiming the F-35 costs are coming down (I suggest you visit the F-35 thread and ask Spud and the other experts about that).

I think you’ve misunderstood the term “bang for the buck”.

The current and most recent unit cost for the LRIP F-35A is $94.8 million [excluding the engine]. And that’s without any specific national requests. It has gone down from the LRIP 1 prices, as expected, but it’s not close to its target goal.

The hopeful estimate of $60MUSD per F-35A was quoted at around 3000 A/C being manufactured in total, which included full orders from all expected customers and potential customers. The production rate has been ramped down with 20 A/C aswell. And this is all without experiencing any new problems that might ramp up the price. The costs are going down, I’m not arguing you on that, but to such a level that the F-35 would be cheap to buy, maintain and operate, now that’s a bold claim. Especially since the F-35 is still significantly more expensive to operate than the F-16 and F/A-18.

Finlands “bang for the buck” is however something still rooted deep within its military structure. This is something the Gripens thrives in. The Gripen has excellent records of low maintenance per flight hour, low operational costs and is yet a fighter with relatively long range, more than capable of covering Finlands needs. Not to mention national cooperation and local industrial benefits that the Finns seem to value highly.

The Gripen stands well above “a small chance” in Finland.

What Iraq needs is, and I can’t stress this enough, equipment to deal with IS. They can’t afford to focus on anything beyond that, or else they wont have to worry about the future at all.

Reconnaissance helicopters, attack helicopters, transport helicopters, attack aircrafts, MBTs, IFVs, MRAPs and so fourth. ISIL doesn’t have, and probably never will have, any sort of air force. There’s no need for air defense weapons that can’t be used towards ground targets like Shilkas and Pantsirs.

Whatever gives them most bang for the buck, whether it would be Russian, Chinese, European or American. Just take what they can get. Atleast to such a degree that it works efficiently.

agreed
but I stand by my argument that Russia has little to gain from attacking Finland, which is a relevant question to this discussion

And yet, neither Finlands political wing, Finlands military nor the Finnish history agrees with you.

a) if the F-35 or any stealth (UCAV) aircraft is transmitting to an AMRAAM, even for a few seconds, it risks giving away its position
b) a few seconds can be enough. once you know where the missile is, even in terminal phase, it can be targetted with cyber warfare. on the stock market time is measured in nanoseconds, because to even your home pc a second is an eternity
c) a UCAV would not continuously send a strong signal. the whole point of the latest models is that they’re largely autonomous. when they do send a signal, they use directional arrays that cannot be detected or intercepted unless you’re positioned between the sender and the receiver (you can actually buy such technology, apparantly it’s used to share Wifi at long distance, and you can’t detect the signal unless you aim it exactly right)
d) even if you do locate a UCAV (or guided missile, or satellite), it’s absurdly difficult to hack them. for example you can program them to ignore any signals not coming from a specific direction/satellite. or just turn off their radio receiver and only focus on optical signals, chaining to other unmanned aircraft until you reach a manned aircraft

A. The Meteor on the Gripen for an instance is designed like this. Two Gripens fly. One, X, with radar lit up and one, Y, flying passively. When getting a target from X, A/C Y fires a meteor from the information shared from X. Y flies closer to the target than X which gives it less time until impact on target.
B. No. Simply because the missile flies at such speeds, transmits only in the first phase and trying to jam it will not guarantee any success since it would only mean the missile starts its internal tracking system earlier if success. And the fact that you loose key seconds and power output trying to disrupt the missile might very well cost you your life rather than have a chance by releasing countermeasures and maneuvering into the optimal flight path.
C. Even IF, and that’s a very large IF, the AI systems on UCAVS can give it such autonomy that it might think for itself completely in aerial combat engagements, you still have the moral dilemma where no Human is able to determine the threat and risks. What if a civilian B737 flies in the vicinity and is mistaken for another A/C? How to decide ROE? How to determine what’s a threat and what’s not? What if the UCAV is struck, and decides to limp back home over populated areas before finally crashing in the midst of a residential area? And the connection between sender and receiver is still widely disputed. With current drones for striking adversaries in Afghanistan/Pakistan from the US, the connection is not in any way protected from high-end adversaries with qualified systems and developments.
D. Because we, as of today, have no problem with hacking and security? So many security breaches in computer systems, databases and key government are being reported that it’s no longer a surprise when a Chinese/Russian hacker enters large scale military programs/defense organizations.

the F-35 isn’t designed to be an air supremacy aircraft, yet even I’ll admit that it’ll defeat any older fighter jet in long range combat. not because it has speed or TVC, but becasue it has stealth and thus likely first strike capability
even in dogfighting an F-35 can detect and engage at any angle, even if it doesn’t turn that good it’s still extremely dangerous

for the same reason a stealthy UCAV will be a killer in air combat, because it can sneak up on an enemy, shoot its missiles (all you need is a sensor asset that sends the target location and the kill order, the UCAV doesn’t even need to send any signals itself) and sneak off again, avoiding all and any retaliation (and even then, I’d happily risk a cheap UCAV or two to take out a T-50. the psychological threat alone will be worth it)
or in dogfighting a number of UCAVs can act as a swarm, using team tactics no human can hope to match. when a UCAV moves to the left you think it’s trying to dodge you, when in fact it’s drawing you into the line of fire of an another UCAV, who’s doing the same thing with another UCAV… and individual UCAVs can sacrifice themselves without second thought if it’s for the greater good, not always a viable tactic with manned aircraft. not to mention UCAVs can pull sustained G’s without blacking out

so UCAVs in a dogfight is like a human playing chess against a computer. you have some really good human players that can beat computers, but then Deep Blue comes along and suddenly goes Schwarzenegger on any human’s ass
and on top of that the UCAV can use tactics and moves a human cannot. and with time he always gets better, while humans do not (they actually get worse after a while). good luck with that

the problem with those advanced manned jets is that you’re building the best possible prop fighter, in a world that’s started developing jet fighters
or the best possible crossbow, when the enemy starts using firearms
I’m not saying they won’t be great fighters/crossbows, I’m just pointing out that technology tends to punish those that don’t adapt, especially in military conflicts

A. The F-35 was designed to have air-air tactics in use. Something a UCAV hasn’t. Air-air engagements are all about tactics, support and gaining the advantage. The F-35, whilst not being designed to have the same sort of “F-22 air supremacy” design, still has a powerful radar, high situational awareness, stealth, HMD and powerful weapons. Just like you said. But UCAVs wont come near any of the 4.5th/5th/6th gen fighters out today for many many years to come.
B. A “Stealthy UCAV” will have to rely even higher on radar output and IR/output than a legacy fighter in order to have even something close of the legacy fighters situational awareness. Not to mention it would have to be far stealthier than any of the current fighters in order to “sneak up” on other A/C with adequate support of AWACS. And then, you’d have nothing even resembling anything “cheap”.
C. What you’re referring to is tactics. Something already in use with air-forces since 1914. Swarms could never rely on its own, but would have to have rely on a “command” A/C in the form of a backseat operator from a legacy fighter.
D. The biggest problem is not blacking out. Let’s just say, you have a Drone which can somehow get up to a speed of Mach 2, have supercruise capability and that can pull 12-20Gs. How would it make sure it doesn’t bleed all its energy when doing a turn? How would it last more than a year structurally before having to be put out of service or required an MLU because the A/C has been structurally compromised due to all of the extensive stress on airframe?
E. Computers are predictable, lacks moral, lacks human intuition and might very well fall into traps set out by the enemy compared to operators in manned A/C that can adapt, think independently and can make moral decisions.

let’s just say that if I was sent to Vietnam in the 1960’s, and had the choice between
– the brand new but untested M-16 (with every General’s and the contracter’s guarantee that it works as promised)
– or an outdated M1 Garand
I’ll take the Garand thank you, I know it works, and that those generals and contracter care more about shares and careers than if I get killed or not

And yet, you advocate something, namely UCAVs, that has never been used in aerial combat, nor will be used in combat for a foreseeable future, with many big problems that needs to be worked out, as the sole aerial defense for the Finnish Air Force? That speaks against itself on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin.

In other news:

Finns To Link Fighter Buy to Investment Plan

HELSINKI — Finland’s center-right government plans to link the armed forces’ Fighter Replacement Program (FRP) to its National Investment Plan (NIP), an initiative to use the project to generate maximum value in terms of offset, spin-off contracts and job creation. Connecting the FRP to the NIP will also protect the capital funding element in the project for what is the most costly defense investment in the armed forces history. The Finnish economy was hard hit by the financial crisis in 2008, and has been in and out of recession since. Finnish GDP hasn’t grown since 2012, and is facing another year of negative growth in 2015.

The FRP is certain to draw criticism from opposition parties, which will take exception to the estimated US $5.7 billion to $11.4 billion that the new multirole fighter project will cost at a time when Finland is facing a new wave of austerity measures under centrist Prime Minister Juha Sipilä’s new three-party coalition. The significant cost of the project will require the government to persuade the national parliament that the capital investment is not only required to ensure Finland’s long-term defense credibility, but can stimulate economic recovery, said Ilkka Kanerva of the National Coalition Party, and chairman of the parliamentary Defense Committee.

“This is a huge capital investment, but the general cross-party view is that Finland needs this project to strengthen our defense capability and the credibility of our armed forces. The funding element of this program needs to be discussed in a calm and rational way when it reaches parliament. This may not be easy in the current difficult economic climate,” Kanerva said. The level of capital funding required means the project will be funded separately, outside the scope of the main annual defense budget. The government’s intent to maximize national and local value from the eventual aircraft contract is certain to benefit Finnish defense and engineering sector contractors, but in particular Patria, the state-owned group that capitalized on the final assembly program covering the Air Force’s purchase of 57 F-18 C Hornets in the 1990s. Patria has provided continuing life-cycle support to the aircraft. Consequently, the manufacturers of the five candidate aircraft short-listed by the Ministry of Defense — Boeing’s Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II, the French Dassault Rafale, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab’s JAS Gripen — will be required to beef-up their industrial cooperation and investment offerings.

Sipilä said his administration will, in coming months, examine “every possible way” to extract “maximum value” from the fighter replacement project, adding that the strength of the industrial contracts and job creation potential in the offers will play an important role in the final selection. Finland is expected to demand countertrade terms above the normal 100 percent purchase contract value, linking additional investment to partnership agreements between the manufacturer/supplier and Finnish firms operating within defense, engineering, and research and development industrial areas. Finland negotiated a 100 percent offset deal with McDonnell Douglas covering the delivery of 64 F-18C/Ds (57 C models and seven D models) in 1995-2000. Although the F-18Ds were built in St Louis, all F-18C aircraft were assembled in Finland under the countertrade agreement.

Defense Minister Jussi Niinistö made it clear that Finland’s deepening bilateral defense collaboration with Sweden would not give the JAS Gripen any advantage in the competition. “Any offer around the Gripen will not form part of our discussions about how to strengthen defense cooperation with Sweden. Neither will it feature as part of ongoing talks about Nordic defense collaboration between Finland and Sweden,” Niinistö said.

A successful FRP, said Niinistö, is of enormous significance to Finland with potentially huge implications for the country’s defense organization, military capability and national economy. The short list of NATO-compatible candidate aircraft does not contain a Russian fighter type because of the European Union’s military equipment embargo on Russia over the Kremlin’s activities in Ukraine and Crimea. “Including a Russian-made candidate aircraft is not an option we can consider because of EU trade sanctions. This situation might be re-evaluated if and when sanctions were to be removed,” Niinistö said.

The Finnish government’s new project and funding positions on the FRP comes in the wake of a report commissioned by the MoD and conducted by its steering Exploratory Working Group (EWG). The report was presented to the ministry in mid-June. The report did not provide recommendations on the type, price or number of aircraft to be purchased to replace the Air Force’s existing 62 F/A-18C Hornets. The EWG, which is chaired by the Air Force’s former chief, retired Maj. Gen. Lauri Puranen, did, however, conclude that to further extend the life of existing Hornets would not be the most cost-efficient or desirable option. The EWG’s report left open the possibility that Finland might acquire two different, but complementary, fighter types that could potentially include specialist ground-attack or multirole aircraft.

“This is just an idea, not a solution, or even a starting point right now,” Niinistö said. The EWG report recommended that the FRP’s selection process should ideally commence in 2017-2018, a time frame that envisages a final decision on the type of aircraft to be purchased by 2021. The Air Force is scheduled to retire the last of its current stock of 62 Hornets by 2030. “A formal decision to proceed with the procurement project will be taken later in 2015. It is the government’s intention to follow the report’s recommendations,” Niinisto said.

It is expected that the precise level of capital funding needed will be determined by a government decision on the number of aircraft to be bought. Neither the MoD nor the Air Force have indicated what this number will be. “We are not commenting on the number of new fighters at this point, but what I can say is the current number of aircraft that we have has responded well to the operating needs of a country of this size,” Puranen said.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/06/21/finland-fighter-purchase-national-investment-capital-funding-frp-hornet-f18-jobs-economy/28943609/

So I’d say this is more positive for the Gripen. Maybe even a mixed fleet of Gripens and something else, e.g. Super Hornets or F-35. Gripen + Super Hornet shares engines, weapons and so forth. Gripen being the lighter air-air/reconnaissance oriented fighter whilst the Super Hornet would be the air-ground complimentary fighter with high resemblance and communality with the legacy FAF Hornets and could both use the same weapons aswell as give additional capability for SEAD. For a Gripen/F-35 dual fleet (which has been proposed many times before) you’d have the Gripen for lighter use and the F-35 for the heavy stealthy bomber/SEAD use to counter high value threats in a well defended area. If a dual fleet, I can’t see any other alternative than the Gripen and something else tbh. But Gripen would certainly offer one of the best, if not THE best industrial off-sets judging on what’s seen in previous competitions.