Brazil goes for Gripen NG
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brazil goes for Gripen NG
Hi,
It seems Brazil choosed the Gripen NG for its FX2 contest (36 fighters).
Reuters: UPDATE 2-Saab wins Brazil jets deal after NSA spying sours Boeing bid | Reuters
FAB: https://twitter.com/portalfab/status...756032/photo/1
"the most affordable option", I get that.
"the best conditions for technology transfer", I'm more surprised as I were under the impression that french manufacturer Dassault advertised "total" technology transfer (and no US control, as is probable with the SAAB aircraft due to its engine of american origin).
Anyways, that's it. Kudos to SAAB.
It seems Brazil choosed the Gripen NG for its FX2 contest (36 fighters).
Reuters: UPDATE 2-Saab wins Brazil jets deal after NSA spying sours Boeing bid | Reuters
FAB: https://twitter.com/portalfab/status...756032/photo/1
"the most affordable option", I get that.
"the best conditions for technology transfer", I'm more surprised as I were under the impression that french manufacturer Dassault advertised "total" technology transfer (and no US control, as is probable with the SAAB aircraft due to its engine of american origin).
Anyways, that's it. Kudos to SAAB.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe they don't see a need for a much more expensive twin engined fighter (RAFALE/F18) to replace a single engined LWF.
Looking at what the GRIPEN NG is going to turn out to be, light, cheap, very modern engine, sensorfusion+HMCS, extended range, latest GEN gimball mounted wide field-AESA, modern software set-up, extensive link capabilities, many weapon choices, and excellent defensive systems, it might be hard to defend a much more expensive fighter without better capabilities, and only a limited amount of extra capacity.
Add the proven very good short field/improvised field capacities, the very advanced maintainability(1 tech+ 2non tech support) and the promise of developing a carrier version without too much extra costs, this might well be the best choice for Brazil for the next 25-30 years.
Also there is a possibility to change the GE414 with the EJ200 motor (up to 23000 or 26000lbs of thrust) if the US bar the use of the GE engine (which will be very unlikely since they offered the SH in the first place).
Looking at what the GRIPEN NG is going to turn out to be, light, cheap, very modern engine, sensorfusion+HMCS, extended range, latest GEN gimball mounted wide field-AESA, modern software set-up, extensive link capabilities, many weapon choices, and excellent defensive systems, it might be hard to defend a much more expensive fighter without better capabilities, and only a limited amount of extra capacity.
Add the proven very good short field/improvised field capacities, the very advanced maintainability(1 tech+ 2non tech support) and the promise of developing a carrier version without too much extra costs, this might well be the best choice for Brazil for the next 25-30 years.
Also there is a possibility to change the GE414 with the EJ200 motor (up to 23000 or 26000lbs of thrust) if the US bar the use of the GE engine (which will be very unlikely since they offered the SH in the first place).
Can't be discounted, but why did the process take so long them? If the differences were that stark, and that was the criteria, seems an easy choice. From what I've read, the military were leaning towards Boeing.
Political machinations aside, I've never really understood just why more customers haven't purchased SAAB's offerings. Cost, reliability, capability seem to be in the ball park.
KC-390
Given the alleged NSA spying issue, perhaps Embraer will now re-assess its co-operation with ol' Bubba Boeing on the KC-390 military tanker transport?
Sweden has a clear need to replace its ageing C-130s - and the KC-390 would fit their requirements ideally. There might also be some cost offsets, given selection of the excellent Gripen NG for FX-2.
Sweden has a clear need to replace its ageing C-130s - and the KC-390 would fit their requirements ideally. There might also be some cost offsets, given selection of the excellent Gripen NG for FX-2.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reuters: UPDATE 2-Saab wins Brazil jets deal after NSA spying sours Boeing bid | Reuters
There is a good chance the NSA were using a Swedish owned product to spy on their telco systems. It's a funny world.
There is a good chance the NSA were using a Swedish owned product to spy on their telco systems. It's a funny world.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm
I often wonder why the UK didn't buy Gripen to use for a home based interception role - releasing Typhoon for the expeditionary work we seem to get embroiled in........ Gripen seems more than adequate for the task of interception of traffic from the North, numbers of available airframes to carry AAM probably more important than super avionics and systems to engage multiple BVR targets at the moment..............
WRT to the KC-390 according to Wiki they are $50M each whereas C-130J is $60M each - if I were the Swedes I know where I would be spending my money....................
A400M is $100M each approx so probably out of the equation for Sweden.........
Arc
I often wonder why the UK didn't buy Gripen to use for a home based interception role - releasing Typhoon for the expeditionary work we seem to get embroiled in........ Gripen seems more than adequate for the task of interception of traffic from the North, numbers of available airframes to carry AAM probably more important than super avionics and systems to engage multiple BVR targets at the moment..............
WRT to the KC-390 according to Wiki they are $50M each whereas C-130J is $60M each - if I were the Swedes I know where I would be spending my money....................
A400M is $100M each approx so probably out of the equation for Sweden.........
Arc
To some extent, the elimination of the Super H due to the Snowden disclosures may have precipitated the timing, if the Rafale was already out due to the price tag.
I think that the "great little fighter" meme on the JAS 39E may have to be re-evaluated, and that from now on anyone selling Super H, Rafale or Typhoon (all of which have now lost to the Gripen) will have to explain what their much bigger and more expensive jets do for the customer. There are advantages (eg Raf and Typhoon can realistically carry six AAMs and a load of A-G weapons), but are they worth the money?
I think that the "great little fighter" meme on the JAS 39E may have to be re-evaluated, and that from now on anyone selling Super H, Rafale or Typhoon (all of which have now lost to the Gripen) will have to explain what their much bigger and more expensive jets do for the customer. There are advantages (eg Raf and Typhoon can realistically carry six AAMs and a load of A-G weapons), but are they worth the money?
All relative to the threat - what can the Chileans, the Argies and the Bolivians afford to put against them?
The more important factor in the future will be running costs, for all air forces, and the NG costs, relatively, peanuts.
The more important factor in the future will be running costs, for all air forces, and the NG costs, relatively, peanuts.
Originally Posted by SpringHeeledJack
Political machinations aside, I've never really understood just why more customers haven't purchased SAAB's offerings. Cost, reliability, capability seem to be in the ball park.
Serious expeditionary ops against whom?
Given the likely requirement for exped ops against 98% of the nations of the world require bombing terrorists riding camels or technicals, with zero air-air threat, a beefed up Strikemaster would do (though a Hunter would be nice).
The only credible countries that NATO members might need the F35 to defend against are Russia and China, maybe India. No-one else is in the air war game these days.
Given the likely requirement for exped ops against 98% of the nations of the world require bombing terrorists riding camels or technicals, with zero air-air threat, a beefed up Strikemaster would do (though a Hunter would be nice).
The only credible countries that NATO members might need the F35 to defend against are Russia and China, maybe India. No-one else is in the air war game these days.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Age: 56
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And of course approximately 36% of the Gripen is of UK manufacture, so it's good news for the UK as well.
This is, of course, one reason why the Grippen will never see service for a Brazil's southerly neighbour, as the UK government can veto sales to third parties. They'll have to make do with 2nd hand Mirage F1s for now.
This is, of course, one reason why the Grippen will never see service for a Brazil's southerly neighbour, as the UK government can veto sales to third parties. They'll have to make do with 2nd hand Mirage F1s for now.
Yep. Fox3 nailed it in one.