The Gripen was developed by Sweden during the cold war; although it is a multirole plane, no doubt one of the primary objectives was that it should be able to match the soviet planes.

That’s true and when Sweden decided to go with the Gripen program we had 3% unemployment. The conservative government who passed the program with only 5 votes majority (out of 349) had also unlike the socialist govs little interest in supporting private industry with tax money.

This was done from military recommendations after evaluating the possible options and the Americans had submitted their binding offers in 1982. The evaluated US jets was considered unsuitable and would need major modifications to include better avionics and with hindsight it was a correct calculation to go with Gripen. Had they still said no to Gripen the US jets would still have been license built in the country by Saab. Just like HAL is building SU-30MKIs or Japan the F-15J.

The F-16 and F-18 would not have been convinsingly good enough against the best Russian aircraft coming online. At the time no one thought the Soviet union would even collapse so of course they also took into account post-SU27, MIG-29, MIG-31 aircraft. The Gripen avionics suite do some things most countries can still only dream about while also offering a jet that has very good maneuverability, speed and operational reliability.

That’s probably why despite lacking the political weight the jet is actually exportable and on several shortlists today.

What ever came of the news that Brazil was showing interest in joining the PAK-FA program with Russia and India?

If they dropped the Su-35, this probably puts a dent on the idea of purchasing the PAK-FA.

—–JT—–

They might want to participate in PAK-FA development and sub component manufacturing and still not buy the aircraft. It’s no big deal.

It’s just business. Look at the NEURON UCAV… a number of countries doing R&D and assembly yet not one of them plan to buy the thing. It’s just a way to advance the skills of participating members. Next time, maybe they will get a larger work share or build a UCAV themselves.

Exactly my thoughts Spitfire… I also believe some of the conflicting numbers “out there” is because marketing people might talk excluding VAT while official numbers (national policy) should be with VAT.

Sweden’s VAT is 25%.. beat that 😮 What’s the numbers for France and the UK ?

This came up on the Dassault ticker so why not put it here…

Brazil Air Force Announces Shortlist For FX2 Fighter Project

Wednesday October 1st, 2008 / 19h20

SAO PAULO -(Dow Jones)- The Brazilian Air Force on Wednesday announced a shortlist of three candidates for the FX2 project to renew its fighter fleet, it said in a statement.
The finalists are the Boeing’s (BA) F-18 E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Aviation’s (12172.FR) Rafale-C and Saab’s (SAAB-B.SK) Gripen NG.
They are competing for an initial order of 36 planes, which will come into service in 2014.

link

Looks very good for Dassault this time.

Eurofighter still got flight control issues to sort out to begin with.

The display in Norway ’07 was horrible, the Gripen would do 3 rolls when the EF did one… everyone I talked to who saw the Typhoon display felt it was far from impressive.

I agree, I have yet to see anything really impressive. The take off is very nice though with lots of power. But overall I enjoy F-18 displays more than the Typhoon.

OK some articles in the news will be products of lobbyism. It’s much “better” for LM to have a competitior on the market when they discuss strategic defense spending with the US DoD. We’ve seen in both Norway (recently) and a few years back in Hungary and the Czech Republic how US ambassors have made rather aggressive comments about not buying American when Gripen has sailed up as a threat.

It’s sometimes interesting to watch because the Gripen contains 35% US made parts and the Gripen NG even more. So you get US ambassadors in Europe lobbying for Lockheed rather than for corps like General Electric och Rockwell Collins who are financial partners in the Gripen programme.

Anyway, “Stealth” is not a requirement today in any open tender around the world. The avionics and electronics of the new Gripen is matching or ahead of JSF in the development curve while still delivering a proven airframe. The jet will as a bottom line match or exceed all F-16s of today while still delivering major improvements.

And JSF’s stealthyness is not really what Saab is up against. First to decide is Norway, where Lockheed has a near monopoly in air force and air defense and a very ‘special’ relationship…

Some key products in their air defense:

P-3 Orion
F-16
AEGIS
C-130 Hercules
MK 41 VLS
…

Lockheed has also as the only foreign company sponsored the Norwegian Washington embassy with xmas parties for several years and according to one former ambassador they could always count on LM to sponsor various gatherings simply by calling a Lockheed number. That’s a quite special relationship.

link

If you watch this documentary you can even see a poster of the JSF (and no other poster I might add) on the wall of the Norwegian office belonging to the man in charge of the new fighter tender.

The time table to decide on a new jet is also well in line with the requests by the US DoD to get foreign clients to sign a deal for early production, a whopping 8 years before Norway even need the jets. Lockheed is also not required to fulfill offset obligations in a Norwegain deal. But Eurofighter and Saab were given these requirements. So you might see why Eurofighter quit that race… does the type of jet even matter in some of these tenders?

Both Saab and LM have of course delivered fully compliant – theoretical – offers. So finally, you need to look at the politics MUCH more than just the tech in these debates…

I dont think this is going anywhere , after spending huge money on a brand new project (even a heavily modified Gripen) i doubt the net result would be much better then the F-35 for strike mission and definately wont be cheaper to procure .

Not so easy.

The question is, do South korea want to kill off the growing advanced national aerospace industry and be dependant on the US for technology solutions.

Or.

Create a international partnership of equals and advance the national industry while at the same time own much more of the technology, plus enable long term growth potentional and export possibilities.

It’s a much larger question for a South Korea at a cross road than simply about buying a jet.

The ambition from the SK side has been said to be (if they are about this do this) to build a jet that is from a air superority view better than F-35 but less than F-22.

This is from Saab, thanks to murphy for finding them: