News: Czech Republic select European Fighterjets over F-16

[Karl]

The Czech cabinet decided Wednesday to select new SAAB/BAe JAS 39C
Gripen 4th Generation Multirole jetfighters as replacement over
their MIG-21 fleet.
The Swedish offer outbid 4 other contenders, with the US offer of
used F-16's ending in last place, the Belgian F-16 offer came 2nd.

http://www.gripen.com
http://www.saab.se

Gripen have now been selected by the four nations;
Sweden, South Africa, Hungary and the Czech Republic.


In related news, Saab Bofors Dynamics received Tuesday a further
order from MBDA UK on the development of the METEOR missile.
JAS 39 Gripen will become the aircraft to test the system.

"Meteor is a beyond visual range missile approximately 3.5 meters in
length, for use against air targets. In the future it will replace the
American AMRAAM system. The development of the Meteor air-to-air
missile is being carried out as an international industrial project
involving the UK, Germany, Sweden, France, Italy and Spain."

[Per Nordenberg]

"Karl" > skrev i meddelandet
om...
> The Czech cabinet decided Wednesday to select new SAAB/BAe JAS 39C
> Gripen 4th Generation Multirole jetfighters as replacement over
> their MIG-21 fleet.
> The Swedish offer outbid 4 other contenders, with the US offer of
> used F-16's ending in last place, the Belgian F-16 offer came 2nd.
>
> http://www.gripen.com
> http://www.saab.se


There's nothing yet about such a decision at these sites. What source do you have?


Regards,

Per Nordenberg

[Air Force Jayhawk]

On 17 Dec 2003 15:01:41 -0800, (Karl) wrote:

>The Czech cabinet decided Wednesday to select new SAAB/BAe JAS 39C
>Gripen 4th Generation Multirole jetfighters as replacement over
>their MIG-21 fleet.
>The Swedish offer outbid 4 other contenders, with the US offer of
>used F-16's ending in last place, the Belgian F-16 offer came 2nd.
>
>http://www.gripen.com
>http://www.saab.se
>
>Gripen have now been selected by the four nations;
>Sweden, South Africa, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
>
>
>In related news, Saab Bofors Dynamics received Tuesday a further
>order from MBDA UK on the development of the METEOR missile.
>JAS 39 Gripen will become the aircraft to test the system.
>
>"Meteor is a beyond visual range missile approximately 3.5 meters in
>length, for use against air targets. In the future it will replace the
>American AMRAAM system. The development of the Meteor air-to-air
>missile is being carried out as an international industrial project
>involving the UK, Germany, Sweden, France, Italy and Spain."


Bribery still works!

[Kevin Brooks]

"Per Nordenberg" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Karl" > skrev i meddelandet
> om...
> > The Czech cabinet decided Wednesday to select new SAAB/BAe JAS 39C
> > Gripen 4th Generation Multirole jetfighters as replacement over
> > their MIG-21 fleet.
> > The Swedish offer outbid 4 other contenders, with the US offer of
> > used F-16's ending in last place, the Belgian F-16 offer came 2nd.
> >
> > http://www.gripen.com
> > http://www.saab.se
>
>
> There's nothing yet about such a decision at these sites. What source do
you have?

A check of current news releases does not indicate that the deal is done
yet. The evaluation board recommended the Gripen lease deal earlier this
month--not a big surprise, as according to Saab's press release issued on 1
Dec the Swedish government is going to cover all costs related to the lease:
"If the Czech Republic chooses the Gripen the Swedish state will fully cover
any costs associated with the loan."
(http://www.newsonline.nu/release.asp?PmId=32380&ComId=260). With that kind
of sweetheart deal, and competing against upgraded F-16A's, it will be
little wonder if the Czechs take them up on the offer. There was a lot of
indignant outrage when the US agreed to a favorable loan package for the
Poles when they selected the F-16C Block 52--where is that outrage now?

Brooks


>
>
> Regards,
>
> Per Nordenberg
>

[phil hunt]

On 17 Dec 2003 15:01:41 -0800, Karl > wrote:
>The Czech cabinet decided Wednesday to select new SAAB/BAe JAS 39C
>Gripen 4th Generation Multirole jetfighters as replacement over
>their MIG-21 fleet.
>The Swedish offer outbid 4 other contenders, with the US offer of
>used F-16's ending in last place, the Belgian F-16 offer came 2nd.

What came 3rd?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Karl]

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On 17 Dec 2003 15:01:41 -0800, Karl > wrote:
> >The Czech cabinet decided Wednesday to select new SAAB/BAe JAS 39C
> >Gripen 4th Generation Multirole jetfighters as replacement over
> >their MIG-21 fleet.
> >The Swedish offer outbid 4 other contenders, with the US offer of
> >used F-16's ending in last place, the Belgian F-16 offer came 2nd.
>
> What came 3rd?

Holland and F-16.
Canada with CF-18 came 4th.

What definately gave Sweden the order was the fact it was brand new
high-tech jets with very low operational cost, plus offsets that
totally cover the lease period. The manufacturer will not be making
money from this special deal, this is the Swedish State offering 14
jets from the 204 pre-ordered for the Swedish Airforce. After the
5-10 year loan period, the Czech will again decide which jets to
equip their airforce with. Continue with the Gripen + add more of them,
or find something else.

[Karl]

"Per Nordenberg" > wrote in message >...
> "Karl" > skrev i meddelandet
> om...
> > The Czech cabinet decided Wednesday to select new SAAB/BAe JAS 39C

> There's nothing yet about such a decision at these sites. What source do you >have?

As soon as it hit the wires I typed it down...
Well, by this time you all know it was correct.

[Anders]

Air Force Jayhawk > wrote in message >...
>
> Bribery still works!

Yea, we learned from the best.

[Magnus Olsson]

In article >,
Per Nordenberg > wrote:
>
>"Karl" > skrev i meddelandet
om...
>> The Czech cabinet decided Wednesday to select new SAAB/BAe JAS 39C
>> Gripen 4th Generation Multirole jetfighters as replacement over
>> their MIG-21 fleet.
>> The Swedish offer outbid 4 other contenders, with the US offer of
>> used F-16's ending in last place, the Belgian F-16 offer came 2nd.
>>
>> http://www.gripen.com
>> http://www.saab.se
>
>
>There's nothing yet about such a decision at these sites. What source do
>you have?

There is now:

http://www.gripen.com/pr_031217_cz.asp

(the link leads to an official press release from a Swedish government
agency).

--
Magnus Olsson )
PGP Public Key available at http://www.df.lth.se/~mol

[Per Nordenberg]

"Air Force Jayhawk" > skrev i meddelandet
...
> Bribery still works!


Apparently threat doesn't...


Regards,

Per Nordenberg

[Kevin Brooks]

"Per Nordenberg" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Air Force Jayhawk" > skrev i meddelandet
> ...
> > Bribery still works!
>
>
> Apparently threat doesn't...

Would that be an accusation? Face facts--the Swedish government agreed to
accept all of the expenses of this lease, which is far beyond what the US
did for the Poles in terms of offering advantageous loans when they selected
the F-16. One has to wonder why Saab felt it necessary to go to such
extremes when they were placing their alleged "fourth generation" Gripen up
against a bunch of MLU'd F-16's and F-18's? Why did they feel so threatened
by what they continaually refer to as "last generation" aircraft? Desperate
much?

Brooks

>
>
> Regards,
>
> Per Nordenberg
>

[Alan Minyard]

On 17 Dec 2003 15:01:41 -0800, (Karl) wrote:

>The Czech cabinet decided Wednesday to select new SAAB/BAe JAS 39C
>Gripen 4th Generation Multirole jetfighters as replacement over
>their MIG-21 fleet.
>The Swedish offer outbid 4 other contenders, with the US offer of
>used F-16's ending in last place, the Belgian F-16 offer came 2nd.
>
>http://www.gripen.com
>http://www.saab.se
>
>Gripen have now been selected by the four nations;
>Sweden, South Africa, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
>
>
>In related news, Saab Bofors Dynamics received Tuesday a further
>order from MBDA UK on the development of the METEOR missile.
>JAS 39 Gripen will become the aircraft to test the system.
>
>"Meteor is a beyond visual range missile approximately 3.5 meters in
>length, for use against air targets. In the future it will replace the
>American AMRAAM system. The development of the Meteor air-to-air
>missile is being carried out as an international industrial project
>involving the UK, Germany, Sweden, France, Italy and Spain."

The Grippens are a gift. When something is completely "free"
it rather skews the "cost/benefit" equation. This was simply
a PR stunt on the part of the Swedes.

Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>The Grippens are a gift. When something is completely "free"
>it rather skews the "cost/benefit" equation.

I know, I've been involved in competitions against US FMS :)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On 17 Dec 2003 15:01:41 -0800, (Karl)
> wrote:
>
>>The Czech cabinet decided Wednesday to select new SAAB/BAe JAS
>>39C Gripen 4th Generation Multirole jetfighters as replacement
>>over their MIG-21 fleet.
>>The Swedish offer outbid 4 other contenders, with the US offer
>>of used F-16's ending in last place, the Belgian F-16 offer came
>>2nd.
>>
>>http://www.gripen.com
>>http://www.saab.se
>>
>>Gripen have now been selected by the four nations;
>>Sweden, South Africa, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
>>
>>
>>In related news, Saab Bofors Dynamics received Tuesday a further
>>order from MBDA UK on the development of the METEOR missile.
>>JAS 39 Gripen will become the aircraft to test the system.
>>
>>"Meteor is a beyond visual range missile approximately 3.5
>>meters in length, for use against air targets. In the future it
>>will replace the American AMRAAM system. The development of the
>>Meteor air-to-air missile is being carried out as an
>>international industrial project involving the UK, Germany,
>>Sweden, France, Italy and Spain."
>
> The Grippens are a gift. When something is completely "free"
> it rather skews the "cost/benefit" equation. This was simply
> a PR stunt on the part of the Swedes.
>
> Al Minyard

On the other hand it shows that it is possible to produce
an advanced and effective weapons system at a manageble
cost. In the words of Colonel Per-Olof Eldh:

http://www.gripen.com/gripen_news/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf

“Compared to other fighter aircraft
currently in service, Gripen is a totally
superior product,” he boasts. “It is a
perfect blend of simplicity and sophistication,
and by far the best handling aircraft
I have ever flown.“

“While its flyaway price is comparable to that of a
new F-16 C/D, Gripen’s operating cost of less than
US$2,500 / flying hour (including fuel and all levels
of maintenance) is unrivalled.


Regards...

[Glenn P.]

Alan Minyard wrote:
> The Grippens are a gift. When something is completely "free"
> it rather skews the "cost/benefit" equation. This was simply
> a PR stunt on the part of the Swedes.

If this goes through, the Czechs will pay $806,000,000 for this free gift.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Glenn P." > wrote in message
...
> Alan Minyard wrote:
> > The Grippens are a gift. When something is completely "free"
> > it rather skews the "cost/benefit" equation. This was simply
> > a PR stunt on the part of the Swedes.
>
> If this goes through, the Czechs will pay $806,000,000 for this free gift.

There is some debate about that; Saab's own earlier relaease stated that the
Swedish government had agreed to absorb ALL costs for this lease.

Brooks
>

[Goran Larsson]

In article >,
Kevin Brooks > wrote:

> There is some debate about that; Saab's own earlier relaease stated that the
> Swedish government had agreed to absorb ALL costs for this lease.

That must be an misunderstanding. The deal is that the Swedish government
will lease, to the Czech Republic, aircraft it has ordered from Saab, but
no longer needs, and that the lease should cover all costs that the Swedish
government have had for the leased aircrafts, i.e. the lease deal is cost
neutral for the Swedish government.

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

[Kevin Brooks]

"Goran Larsson" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
> > There is some debate about that; Saab's own earlier relaease stated that
the
> > Swedish government had agreed to absorb ALL costs for this lease.
>
> That must be an misunderstanding. The deal is that the Swedish government
> will lease, to the Czech Republic, aircraft it has ordered from Saab, but
> no longer needs, and that the lease should cover all costs that the
Swedish
> government have had for the leased aircrafts, i.e. the lease deal is cost
> neutral for the Swedish government.

All I can say is that this is the exact wording from Saab's press release on
Dec 1, 2003:

"Sweden is offering to loan the Czech Republic 14 new Gripen fighter
aircraft for five or 10 years...If the Czech Republic chooses the Gripen the
Swedish state will fully cover any costs associated with the loan."

Source: http://www.saab.se/node3299.asp?id=2003120101310

The only thing I deleted from that excerpt was an explanatory bit about the
JAS-39 NATO compatibility.

Brooks


>
> --
> Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

[Goran Larsson]

In article >,
Kevin Brooks > wrote:

> All I can say is that this is the exact wording from Saab's press release on
> Dec 1, 2003:
>
> "Sweden is offering to loan the Czech Republic 14 new Gripen fighter
> aircraft for five or 10 years...If the Czech Republic chooses the Gripen the
> Swedish state will fully cover any costs associated with the loan."
>
> Source: http://www.saab.se/node3299.asp?id=2003120101310

This text:
If the Czech Republic chooses the Gripen the Swedish state will fully
cover any costs associated with the loan.
can be interpreted in several incompatible ways. The Swedish version of
the text, available from http://www.saab.se/node3299.asp?id=2003120101300,
is much more clear if you understand Swedish.

Om Tjeckien väljer Gripen har den Svenska staten full kostnadstäckning
för de kostnader som uppstår med anledning av utlåningen.

The Swedish text says that the Swedish state will be fully covered for
any costs associated with the loan.

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

[Brett]

"Goran Larsson" > wrote:
> In article >,
> Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
> > All I can say is that this is the exact wording from Saab's press
release on
> > Dec 1, 2003:
> >
> > "Sweden is offering to loan the Czech Republic 14 new Gripen fighter
> > aircraft for five or 10 years...If the Czech Republic chooses the Gripen
the
> > Swedish state will fully cover any costs associated with the loan."
> >
> > Source: http://www.saab.se/node3299.asp?id=2003120101310
>
> This text:
> If the Czech Republic chooses the Gripen the Swedish state will fully
> cover any costs associated with the loan.
> can be interpreted in several incompatible ways. The Swedish version of
> the text, available from http://www.saab.se/node3299.asp?id=2003120101300,
> is much more clear if you understand Swedish.
>
> Om Tjeckien väljer Gripen har den Svenska staten full kostnadstäckning
> för de kostnader som uppstår med anledning av utlåningen.
>
> The Swedish text says that the Swedish state will be fully covered for
> any costs associated with the loan.

What version of the "story" did the Czech Republic get told?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Goran Larsson" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
> > All I can say is that this is the exact wording from Saab's press
release on
> > Dec 1, 2003:
> >
> > "Sweden is offering to loan the Czech Republic 14 new Gripen fighter
> > aircraft for five or 10 years...If the Czech Republic chooses the Gripen
the
> > Swedish state will fully cover any costs associated with the loan."
> >
> > Source: http://www.saab.se/node3299.asp?id=2003120101310
>
> This text:
> If the Czech Republic chooses the Gripen the Swedish state will fully
> cover any costs associated with the loan.
> can be interpreted in several incompatible ways. The Swedish version of
> the text, available from http://www.saab.se/node3299.asp?id=2003120101300,
> is much more clear if you understand Swedish.
>
> Om Tjeckien väljer Gripen har den Svenska staten full kostnadstäckning
> för de kostnader som uppstår med anledning av utlåningen.
>
> The Swedish text says that the Swedish state will be fully covered for
> any costs associated with the loan.

I don't read or speak Swedish, so I have to depend upon Saab to provide a
properly worded press release in english. The fact that what Saab itself
said in english is the direct opposite of what you have provided as a
translation from the Swedish text of the same message is not exactly cause
for comfort--I am still left wondering what the correct account of this
situation is.

Brooks

>
> --
> Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

[Goran Larsson]

In article >,
Kevin Brooks > wrote:

> I don't read or speak Swedish, so I have to depend upon Saab to provide a
> properly worded press release in english.

Why are you using Saab as the source of information? Saab is not part
of the deal, the deal is between the Czech Republic and the Swedish state.

> I am still left wondering what the correct account of this
> situation is.

The situation is that this deal has been promised to not cost the
Swedish tax payers anything.

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

[Glenn P.]

The financing will be coming from a third party. Sweden will be helping
with getting financing--that is, the credit rates will be Sweden's
rates, not those of the Czech Republic. This will save the Czechs tons
of money, and will be only a slight risk (but not a cost) to the Swedes.
Sweden isn't giving away any fighters, and those who earlier clearly
believed in this $806 million would be a gift should question why they
would believe such a ridiculous thing could ever occur.


Glenn P.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Glenn P." > wrote in message
...
> The financing will be coming from a third party. Sweden will be helping
> with getting financing--that is, the credit rates will be Sweden's
> rates, not those of the Czech Republic. This will save the Czechs tons
> of money, and will be only a slight risk (but not a cost) to the Swedes.
> Sweden isn't giving away any fighters, and those who earlier clearly
> believed in this $806 million would be a gift should question why they
> would believe such a ridiculous thing could ever occur.

Because we live in a world where offset agreements exceeding 100% are not
uncommon? Maybe because of the continued success of the F-16 in the export
arena versus their "fourth generation" Gripen? Because, rightly or wrongly,
that allegation was what was released by Saab, the prime contractor
involved? Or maybe because government-to-government transfers of new
military equipment, at no cost to the receiving party, are not unheard of?

Brooks

>
>
> Glenn P.
>

[Glenn P.]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> Because we live in a world where offset agreements exceeding 100% are not
> uncommon?

A 100% offset agreement would mean that for every dollar I spend on your
product, you'll spend $1 on some product of mine. It doesn't mean
anybody is giving anything away, and I think you're an idiot to believe
that this tripe supports your argument.

> Maybe because of the continued success of the F-16 in the export
> arena versus their "fourth generation" Gripen?

Ah. The F-16 is so good, anybody who would want anything else (like new
fighters, instead of used) must be corrupt. I see.

> Because, rightly or wrongly,
> that allegation was what was released by Saab, the prime contractor
> involved?

No, it wasn't, that's just how you misunderstood it. Here's the text,
as you earlier quoted it:

"Sweden is offering to loan the Czech Republic 14 new Gripen fighter
aircraft for five or 10 years...If the Czech Republic chooses the Gripen the
Swedish state will fully cover any costs associated with the loan."

Have you ever bought a car? Have you ever seen dealers have special
deals on financing, or free financing? Well guess what Einstein, that
doesn't mean the car is free. The financing is free. You still have to
pay for the car.

> Or maybe because government-to-government transfers of new
> military equipment, at no cost to the receiving party, are not unheard of?

Cite me one example of a $806,000,000 transfer "at no cost to the
receiving party", and I'll stop thinking you're a ****wit.


Glenn P.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Glenn P." > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > Because we live in a world where offset agreements exceeding 100% are
not
> > uncommon?
>
> A 100% offset agreement would mean that for every dollar I spend on your
> product, you'll spend $1 on some product of mine. It doesn't mean
> anybody is giving anything away, and I think you're an idiot to believe
> that this tripe supports your argument.

No, the point was that the desperation that virtually all nations, and their
manufacturers, often exhibit otwards selling/leasing their aircraft has
increasingly grown--twenty years ago a 100% plus offset would have been
laughed off, now it is common, and IIRC the offset agreed to for the now
stillborne Eurofighter deal in Austria was a full 200%? And FYI, when it
comes down to the final accounting on a national level, if you meet your
100% offset target then you have essentially broken even on the old
balance-of-trade account. It does not take a genius to figure that if all of
your products are marketed in that fashion you'd be bankrupt before very
long. Idiot? (Gee, it would have been nice to have discussed this without
dropping down to your third-grade level, but c'est la vie...)

>
> > Maybe because of the continued success of the F-16 in the export
> > arena versus their "fourth generation" Gripen?
>
> Ah. The F-16 is so good, anybody who would want anything else (like new
> fighters, instead of used) must be corrupt. I see.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, eh? I did not say that, and
how you construed it from what I did say is truly mind-boggling--I think it
is time you got the old graymatter tuned up, eh? The fact is that Saab spent
a lot of capital advertising Gripen as being allegedly the first "fourth
generation" fighter to enter service and to be available for export. Since
that time, they have gotten firm orders from South Africa, Hungary, and now
the Czech Republic, for a total of what, around 60 aircraft? Let's see,
since Gripen entered the export scene, how many F-16's have been sold?
Israel (50), Greece (50), UAE (80), Korea (20), Singapore (20), Chile
(10-12), Poland (48), etc. That is just the new builds. What does that tell
you, especially considering the past claims from Saab that they offered the
only available fourth gen fighter? Sounds to me like a bit of desperation
may be called for on the part of Saab and Sweden if they can't sell their
allegedly more modern, and as cheap (if not cheaper) Gripen as successfully
as the F-16 has been selling (F-16C/D export at about $25 million in '98,
while the Gripen estimated cost hit that figure in 2001
(www.payk.net/mailingLists/iran-news/ html/1998/msg00333.html and
www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-5/sukumar.html )).

>
> > Because, rightly or wrongly,
> > that allegation was what was released by Saab, the prime contractor
> > involved?
>
> No, it wasn't, that's just how you misunderstood it. Here's the text,
> as you earlier quoted it:
>
> "Sweden is offering to loan the Czech Republic 14 new Gripen fighter
> aircraft for five or 10 years...If the Czech Republic chooses the Gripen
the
> Swedish state will fully cover any costs associated with the loan."
>
> Have you ever bought a car? Have you ever seen dealers have special
> deals on financing, or free financing? Well guess what Einstein, that
> doesn't mean the car is free. The financing is free. You still have to
> pay for the car.

This is not a car sale. It said what it said--if that was poor wording on
the part of the folks at Saab, so be it.

>
> > Or maybe because government-to-government transfers of new
> > military equipment, at no cost to the receiving party, are not unheard
of?
>
> Cite me one example of a $806,000,000 transfer "at no cost to the
> receiving party", and I'll stop thinking you're a ****wit.

Ever heard of FMF/FMS? A bunch of sales under its guise are at no cost to
the customer; we pay the expenses. We do grants of more than that every year
to Israel alone, and IIRC Egypt as well ($1.3 billion in contracts to Egypt
in 2002, all waived payment). That is US money paying for US goods for
friendly foreign customers, to support our foreign policy goals. I guess
Sweden could start doing the same kind of thing, though what the objectives
of such a program for a neutral nation would be I don't know.

As to your parting vulgarity...owww, that hurts! Nah, not really...if you
were anything but a clueless imbecile, that would probably hurt. As it is,
it's obviously just a result of poor parental suvervision during your
younger years, by which I mean before the age of twelve--my guess is you are
unlikely to be a day over sixteen now...

Brooks
>
>
> Glenn P.
>
>

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:25:08 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
>> On 17 Dec 2003 15:01:41 -0800, (Karl)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The Czech cabinet decided Wednesday to select new SAAB/BAe JAS
>>>39C Gripen 4th Generation Multirole jetfighters as replacement
>>>over their MIG-21 fleet.
>>>The Swedish offer outbid 4 other contenders, with the US offer
>>>of used F-16's ending in last place, the Belgian F-16 offer came
>>>2nd.
>>>
>>>http://www.gripen.com
>>>http://www.saab.se
>>>
>>>Gripen have now been selected by the four nations;
>>>Sweden, South Africa, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
>>>
>>>
>>>In related news, Saab Bofors Dynamics received Tuesday a further
>>>order from MBDA UK on the development of the METEOR missile.
>>>JAS 39 Gripen will become the aircraft to test the system.
>>>
>>>"Meteor is a beyond visual range missile approximately 3.5
>>>meters in length, for use against air targets. In the future it
>>>will replace the American AMRAAM system. The development of the
>>>Meteor air-to-air missile is being carried out as an
>>>international industrial project involving the UK, Germany,
>>>Sweden, France, Italy and Spain."
>>
>> The Grippens are a gift. When something is completely "free"
>> it rather skews the "cost/benefit" equation. This was simply
>> a PR stunt on the part of the Swedes.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
> On the other hand it shows that it is possible to produce
> an advanced and effective weapons system at a manageble
> cost. In the words of Colonel Per-Olof Eldh:
>
> http://www.gripen.com/gripen_news/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf
>
> “Compared to other fighter aircraft
> currently in service, Gripen is a totally
> superior product,” he boasts. “It is a
> perfect blend of simplicity and sophistication,
> and by far the best handling aircraft
> I have ever flown.“
>
> “While its flyaway price is comparable to that of a
> new F-16 C/D, Gripen’s operating cost of less than
> US$2,500 / flying hour (including fuel and all levels
> of maintenance) is unrivalled.
>
>
> Regards...

This has no relevance, as the Gripens are completely free.
And quoting company web sites is not a good way to
achieve credibility.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:34:55 -0600, "Glenn P." > wrote:

>Alan Minyard wrote:
>> The Grippens are a gift. When something is completely "free"
>> it rather skews the "cost/benefit" equation. This was simply
>> a PR stunt on the part of the Swedes.
>
>If this goes through, the Czechs will pay $806,000,000 for this free gift.

Only if they decide to keep the a/c beyond the "lease" period.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:37:46 GMT, (Goran Larsson) wrote:

>In article >,
>Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>> I don't read or speak Swedish, so I have to depend upon Saab to provide a
>> properly worded press release in english.
>
>Why are you using Saab as the source of information? Saab is not part
>of the deal, the deal is between the Czech Republic and the Swedish state.
>
>> I am still left wondering what the correct account of this
>> situation is.
>
>The situation is that this deal has been promised to not cost the
>Swedish tax payers anything.

The situation is that this was a PR stunt on the part of the Swedish
Government.

Al Minyard

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:25:08 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> > wrote:

>>> The Grippens are a gift. When something is completely "free"
>>> it rather skews the "cost/benefit" equation. This was simply
>>> a PR stunt on the part of the Swedes.
>>>
>>> Al Minyard
>>
>> On the other hand it shows that it is possible to produce
>> an advanced and effective weapons system at a manageble
>> cost. In the words of Colonel Per-Olof Eldh:
>>
>> http://www.gripen.com/gripen_news/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf
>>
>> “Compared to other fighter aircraft
>> currently in service, Gripen is a totally
>> superior product,” he boasts. “It is a
>> perfect blend of simplicity and sophistication,
>> and by far the best handling aircraft
>> I have ever flown.“
>>
>> “While its flyaway price is comparable to that of a
>> new F-16 C/D, Gripen’s operating cost of less than
>> US$2,500 / flying hour (including fuel and all levels
>> of maintenance) is unrivalled.
>>
>>
>> Regards...
>
> This has no relevance, as the Gripens are completely free.

It's simply cost-effective.

> And quoting company web sites is not a good way to
> achieve credibility.
>
> Al Minyard

It's a pilot with 3,500 hours in jets, and the
statement is nothing spectacular, it simply
emphasises the superiority of a 4ht generation
fighter compared to older designs.


Regards...

[Penta]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:27:13 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>The Grippens are a gift. When something is completely "free"
>>it rather skews the "cost/benefit" equation.
>
>I know, I've been involved in competitions against US FMS :)

Yeah, we cheat, but so does everybody else.:-)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Minyard > wrote in
> :
> > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:25:08 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>> The Grippens are a gift. When something is completely "free"
> >>> it rather skews the "cost/benefit" equation. This was simply
> >>> a PR stunt on the part of the Swedes.
> >>>
> >>> Al Minyard
> >>
> >> On the other hand it shows that it is possible to produce
> >> an advanced and effective weapons system at a manageble
> >> cost. In the words of Colonel Per-Olof Eldh:
> >>
> >> http://www.gripen.com/gripen_news/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf
> >>
> >> "Compared to other fighter aircraft
> >> currently in service, Gripen is a totally
> >> superior product," he boasts. "It is a
> >> perfect blend of simplicity and sophistication,
> >> and by far the best handling aircraft
> >> I have ever flown."
> >>
> >> "While its flyaway price is comparable to that of a
> >> new F-16 C/D, Gripen's operating cost of less than
> >> US$2,500 / flying hour (including fuel and all levels
> >> of maintenance) is unrivalled.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards...
> >
> > This has no relevance, as the Gripens are completely free.
>
> It's simply cost-effective.
>
> > And quoting company web sites is not a good way to
> > achieve credibility.
> >
> > Al Minyard
>
> It's a pilot with 3,500 hours in jets, and the
> statement is nothing spectacular, it simply
> emphasises the superiority of a 4ht generation
> fighter compared to older designs.

If it is so superior to the latest F-16 Blocks, then why has it been
repeatedly outsold on the foreign market by what you apparently consider
some kind of "third generation" fighter? You are saying it costs the same,
offers OPTEMPO savings in comparison to the F-16's, and yet it has managed
to sell what, maybe a third the number of F-16's sold externally since the
JAS-39 entered into the fray?

Brooks

>
>
> Regards...

[Marcus Andersson]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:37:46 GMT, (Goran Larsson) wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> >Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> >
> >> I don't read or speak Swedish, so I have to depend upon Saab to provide a
> >> properly worded press release in english.
> >
> >Why are you using Saab as the source of information? Saab is not part
> >of the deal, the deal is between the Czech Republic and the Swedish state.
> >
> >> I am still left wondering what the correct account of this
> >> situation is.
> >
> >The situation is that this deal has been promised to not cost the
> >Swedish tax payers anything.
>
> The situation is that this was a PR stunt on the part of the Swedish
> Government.
>
> Al Minyard

Oh dear, such a bad looser... but you don't have to take this deal
personally, you know

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Alan Minyard > wrote in
>> :

>> > And quoting company web sites is not a good way to
>> > achieve credibility.
>> >
>> > Al Minyard
>>
>> It's a pilot with 3,500 hours in jets, and the
>> statement is nothing spectacular, it simply
>> emphasises the superiority of a 4ht generation
>> fighter compared to older designs.
>
> If it is so superior to the latest F-16 Blocks, then why has it
> been repeatedly outsold on the foreign market by what you
> apparently consider some kind of "third generation" fighter? You
> are saying it costs the same, offers OPTEMPO savings in
> comparison to the F-16's, and yet it has managed to sell what,
> maybe a third the number of F-16's sold externally since the
> JAS-39 entered into the fray?

There's lost of reasons for that, combat proven security is
one factor. For countries already with a fleet of F16 it's
a natural choice to expand with the same type of aircraft,
both from a maintainance and tactical point of view.

Politics, improving NATO and US ties is certainly another
big factor, as is the total industry benefits. The latter
is not always a black and white issue. As an example, in
the 70's F16 programe here in europe a big selling point
was prospects of advanced technology transfers and sustantial
re-purchase agreement, but in the end little benefitted the
Norwegian industry and the re-purchasing pretty insignificant.


Regards...

[Kevin Brooks]

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
> > "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Alan Minyard > wrote in
> >> :
>
> >> > And quoting company web sites is not a good way to
> >> > achieve credibility.
> >> >
> >> > Al Minyard
> >>
> >> It's a pilot with 3,500 hours in jets, and the
> >> statement is nothing spectacular, it simply
> >> emphasises the superiority of a 4ht generation
> >> fighter compared to older designs.
> >
> > If it is so superior to the latest F-16 Blocks, then why has it
> > been repeatedly outsold on the foreign market by what you
> > apparently consider some kind of "third generation" fighter? You
> > are saying it costs the same, offers OPTEMPO savings in
> > comparison to the F-16's, and yet it has managed to sell what,
> > maybe a third the number of F-16's sold externally since the
> > JAS-39 entered into the fray?
>
> There's lost of reasons for that, combat proven security is
> one factor. For countries already with a fleet of F16 it's
> a natural choice to expand with the same type of aircraft,
> both from a maintainance and tactical point of view.
>
> Politics, improving NATO and US ties is certainly another
> big factor, as is the total industry benefits. The latter
> is not always a black and white issue. As an example, in
> the 70's F16 programe here in europe a big selling point
> was prospects of advanced technology transfers and sustantial
> re-purchase agreement, but in the end little benefitted the
> Norwegian industry and the re-purchasing pretty insignificant.

Some of those nations were not F-16 operators, such as Poland, UAE, and
Chile--those sales alone are significantly greater than what the "superior"
Gripen has acheived. So what you are saying is, "The Gripen is the better
aircraft hands-down, but is outsold by the F-16 solely because of political
considerations"? Sorry, but that does not really compute--IMO Saab has in
the Gripen taken a pretty good aircraft and overhyped it, and in the end it
is not demonstrably better than the F-16 Block 50/52, and may even be
considered less capable than the Block 60. If Saab had truly stolen a march
on the rest of the worlds' fighter manufacturers and was offering an
aircraft at similar or cheaper cost to that of the F-16, with cheaper
operating cost than the F-16, and with the alleged tactical advantages that
Saab has assigned to the JAS 39, then the world would have been, if not
beating a path to its door, at least not frequently slamming their own doors
in Saab's face during the competitions.

Brooks
>
>
> Regards...

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
>> :

>> >> It's a pilot with 3,500 hours in jets, and the
>> >> statement is nothing spectacular, it simply
>> >> emphasises the superiority of a 4ht generation
>> >> fighter compared to older designs.
>> >
>> > If it is so superior to the latest F-16 Blocks, then why has
>> > it been repeatedly outsold on the foreign market by what you
>> > apparently consider some kind of "third generation" fighter?
>> > You are saying it costs the same, offers OPTEMPO savings in
>> > comparison to the F-16's, and yet it has managed to sell
>> > what, maybe a third the number of F-16's sold externally
>> > since the JAS-39 entered into the fray?
>>
>> There's lost of reasons for that, combat proven security is
>> one factor. For countries already with a fleet of F16 it's
>> a natural choice to expand with the same type of aircraft,
>> both from a maintainance and tactical point of view.
>>
>> Politics, improving NATO and US ties is certainly another
>> big factor, as is the total industry benefits. The latter
>> is not always a black and white issue. As an example, in
>> the 70's F16 programe here in europe a big selling point
>> was prospects of advanced technology transfers and sustantial
>> re-purchase agreement, but in the end little benefitted the
>> Norwegian industry and the re-purchasing pretty insignificant.
>
> Some of those nations were not F-16 operators, such as Poland,
> UAE, and Chile--those sales alone are significantly greater than
> what the "superior" Gripen has acheived. So what you are saying
> is, "The Gripen is the better aircraft hands-down, but is
> outsold by the F-16 solely because of political considerations"?

No, read the above again. Though it isn't hard to spot
the political motivations behind the Poland and UAE sales.

> Sorry, but that does not really compute--IMO Saab has in the
> Gripen taken a pretty good aircraft and overhyped it, and in the
> end it is not demonstrably better than the F-16 Block 50/52, and
> may even be considered less capable than the Block 60.

In some areas, certainly, but also at a lower cost.

> If Saab
> had truly stolen a march on the rest of the worlds' fighter
> manufacturers and was offering an aircraft at similar or cheaper
> cost to that of the F-16, with cheaper operating cost than the
> F-16, and with the alleged tactical advantages that Saab has
> assigned to the JAS 39, then the world would have been, if not
> beating a path to its door, at least not frequently slamming
> their own doors in Saab's face during the competitions.
>
> Brooks

It's an extreamly tough competition, and there are a lot
more factors involved than pure specification and capability.
Keep in mind that it's the politicians who does the funding,
and it's all about spending the tax-payers money reasonably
and effecitvely. That means they look at the issue from a
grander industrial and economic perspective than the brass
in the defence department, whether we like it or not.


Regards...

[nemo]

Air Force Jayhawk wrote:

> On 17 Dec 2003 15:01:41 -0800, (Karl) wrote:
>
>
>>The Czech cabinet decided Wednesday to select new SAAB/BAe JAS 39C
>>Gripen 4th Generation Multirole jetfighters as replacement over
>>their MIG-21 fleet.
>>The Swedish offer outbid 4 other contenders, with the US offer of
>>used F-16's ending in last place, the Belgian F-16 offer came 2nd.
>>
>>http://www.gripen.com
>>http://www.saab.se
>>
>>Gripen have now been selected by the four nations;
>>Sweden, South Africa, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
>>
>>
>>In related news, Saab Bofors Dynamics received Tuesday a further
>>order from MBDA UK on the development of the METEOR missile.
>>JAS 39 Gripen will become the aircraft to test the system.
>>
>>"Meteor is a beyond visual range missile approximately 3.5 meters in
>>length, for use against air targets. In the future it will replace the
>>American AMRAAM system. The development of the Meteor air-to-air
>>missile is being carried out as an international industrial project
>>involving the UK, Germany, Sweden, France, Italy and Spain."
>
>
>
> Bribery still works!
Not that time....

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:03:08 GMT, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>If it is so superior to the latest F-16 Blocks, then why has it been
>repeatedly outsold on the foreign market by what you apparently consider
>some kind of "third generation" fighter? You are saying it costs the same,
>offers OPTEMPO savings in comparison to the F-16's, and yet it has managed
>to sell what, maybe a third the number of F-16's sold externally since the
>JAS-39 entered into the fray?
>
>Brooks

How many of those sales were to people who already operate F-16s?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Kevin Brooks]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:03:08 GMT, Kevin Brooks >
wrote:
> >
> >If it is so superior to the latest F-16 Blocks, then why has it been
> >repeatedly outsold on the foreign market by what you apparently consider
> >some kind of "third generation" fighter? You are saying it costs the
same,
> >offers OPTEMPO savings in comparison to the F-16's, and yet it has
managed
> >to sell what, maybe a third the number of F-16's sold externally since
the
> >JAS-39 entered into the fray?
> >
> >Brooks
>
> How many of those sales were to people who already operate F-16s?

You are falling behind, Phil--that has already been answered. And the
synopsis is more F-16's sold to new users than Gripens, OK?

Brooks

[Charles Talleyrand]

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message ...
> On the other hand it shows that it is possible to produce
> an advanced and effective weapons system at a manageble
> cost. In the words of Colonel Per-Olof Eldh:
>
> http://www.gripen.com/gripen_news/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf
>
> "Compared to other fighter aircraft
> currently in service, Gripen is a totally
> superior product," he boasts. "It is a
> perfect blend of simplicity and sophistication,
> and by far the best handling aircraft
> I have ever flown."
>
> "While its flyaway price is comparable to that of a
> new F-16 C/D, Gripen's operating cost of less than
> US$2,500 / flying hour (including fuel and all levels
> of maintenance) is unrivalled.
>
>
> Regards...

That cost is either amazing or unbelievable. Larger business jets can
reasonably cost more than that per hour, even on an operating cost
basis. It's hard to believe that a Gulfstream costs more per hour
than a Gripen.

I dunno. This exceeds my area of expertise. Maybe the weapon's radar
never needs expensive parts.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:53:14 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:25:08 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>> > wrote:
>
>>>> The Grippens are a gift. When something is completely "free"
>>>> it rather skews the "cost/benefit" equation. This was simply
>>>> a PR stunt on the part of the Swedes.
>>>>
>>>> Al Minyard
>>>
>>> On the other hand it shows that it is possible to produce
>>> an advanced and effective weapons system at a manageble
>>> cost. In the words of Colonel Per-Olof Eldh:
>>>
>>> http://www.gripen.com/gripen_news/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf
>>>
>>> “Compared to other fighter aircraft
>>> currently in service, Gripen is a totally
>>> superior product,” he boasts. “It is a
>>> perfect blend of simplicity and sophistication,
>>> and by far the best handling aircraft
>>> I have ever flown.“
>>>
>>> “While its flyaway price is comparable to that of a
>>> new F-16 C/D, Gripen’s operating cost of less than
>>> US$2,500 / flying hour (including fuel and all levels
>>> of maintenance) is unrivalled.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards...
>>
>> This has no relevance, as the Gripens are completely free.
>
> It's simply cost-effective.
>
>> And quoting company web sites is not a good way to
>> achieve credibility.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
> It's a pilot with 3,500 hours in jets, and the
> statement is nothing spectacular, it simply
> emphasises the superiority of a 4ht generation
> fighter compared to older designs.
>
>
> Regards...

It is still company propaganda. There is no
standard for what generation an aircraft is. The
F-22 or F-25, now, are most probably the only
aircraft in the world that are "of their generation",
stealth, super-cruise (F-22), really advanced
avionics, etc. The Griped is simply not in that
class.

Al Minyard

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:53:14 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> > wrote:

>>> And quoting company web sites is not a good way to
>>> achieve credibility.
>>>
>>> Al Minyard
>>
>> It's a pilot with 3,500 hours in jets, and the
>> statement is nothing spectacular, it simply
>> emphasises the superiority of a 4ht generation
>> fighter compared to older designs.
>>
>>
>> Regards...
>
> It is still company propaganda. There is no
> standard for what generation an aircraft is. The
> F-22 or F-25, now, are most probably the only
> aircraft in the world that are "of their generation",
> stealth, super-cruise (F-22), really advanced
> avionics, etc. The Griped is simply not in that
> class.

True and I did't claim it was. The F-35 (I presume you
are refering to) is still years from service and by the
time the F-22 is operatonal next year the Gripens will
have logged 8-9 years of service and closer to 40,000
hours in the air, and started delivery of the improved
C version.


Regards...

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in
:
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On the other hand it shows that it is possible to produce
>> an advanced and effective weapons system at a manageble
>> cost. In the words of Colonel Per-Olof Eldh:
>>
>> http://www.gripen.com/gripen_news/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf
>>
>> "Compared to other fighter aircraft
>> currently in service, Gripen is a totally
>> superior product," he boasts. "It is a
>> perfect blend of simplicity and sophistication,
>> and by far the best handling aircraft
>> I have ever flown."
>>
>> "While its flyaway price is comparable to that of a
>> new F-16 C/D, Gripen's operating cost of less than
>> US$2,500 / flying hour (including fuel and all levels
>> of maintenance) is unrivalled.
>>
>>
>> Regards...
>
> That cost is either amazing or unbelievable. Larger business
> jets can reasonably cost more than that per hour, even on an
> operating cost basis. It's hard to believe that a Gulfstream
> costs more per hour than a Gripen.
>
> I dunno. This exceeds my area of expertise. Maybe the weapon's
> radar never needs expensive parts.

Flug Revue 12/2002 had some additional information:

"The small, single-engined jet with delta wings and canards
excels above all else in its easy handling, high reliability
(7.5 flying hours between failures), low maintenance
requirements (less than 10 man-hours per flying hour) and
low operating costs ($2,500 per flying hour)."


Regards...

[Kevin Brooks]

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
...
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in
> :
> > "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On the other hand it shows that it is possible to produce
> >> an advanced and effective weapons system at a manageble
> >> cost. In the words of Colonel Per-Olof Eldh:
> >>
> >> http://www.gripen.com/gripen_news/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf
> >>
> >> "Compared to other fighter aircraft
> >> currently in service, Gripen is a totally
> >> superior product," he boasts. "It is a
> >> perfect blend of simplicity and sophistication,
> >> and by far the best handling aircraft
> >> I have ever flown."
> >>
> >> "While its flyaway price is comparable to that of a
> >> new F-16 C/D, Gripen's operating cost of less than
> >> US$2,500 / flying hour (including fuel and all levels
> >> of maintenance) is unrivalled.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards...
> >
> > That cost is either amazing or unbelievable. Larger business
> > jets can reasonably cost more than that per hour, even on an
> > operating cost basis. It's hard to believe that a Gulfstream
> > costs more per hour than a Gripen.
> >
> > I dunno. This exceeds my area of expertise. Maybe the weapon's
> > radar never needs expensive parts.
>
> Flug Revue 12/2002 had some additional information:
>
> "The small, single-engined jet with delta wings and canards
> excels above all else in its easy handling, high reliability
> (7.5 flying hours between failures), low maintenance
> requirements (less than 10 man-hours per flying hour) and
> low operating costs ($2,500 per flying hour)."

Better watch out...with claims like that, Arndt is inevitably going to claim
it was actually designed and flown by the Germans first, and is the subject
of a massive Swedish cover-up of the "real story"... :)

Brooks

>
>
> Regards...
>
>

[Magnus Redin]

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > writes:

> Flug Revue 12/2002 had some additional information:
>
> "The small, single-engined jet with delta wings and canards
> excels above all else in its easy handling, high reliability
> (7.5 flying hours between failures), low maintenance
> requirements (less than 10 man-hours per flying hour) and
> low operating costs ($2,500 per flying hour)."

I do not know if the $2500/h is correct but Saab has a long history of
developing aircraft that are field servicable, easy to service and
unexpensive to run. The royal swedish airforce has had it as a real
requirement for a long time. We can simply not afford nearly unlimited
expenses for maintainance as the US airforce can seen from a swedish
point of view.

Saab has also a 50 year tradition of building fighters with a fairly
small design team that has kept its knowledge due to constant orders
during the cold war and the near impossibility of quickly enlarging
the team or for the team members to find another aircraft
manufacturer. Thus they do not forget for instance Drakens problems
with the mechanics needing 1,5 m long four jointed arms to do some
service work.

Has any US jet design workshop been kept together during more then 50
years and five generations of jet fighters?

I find it reasonable that this tradition plus the reliability of
modern electronics and a modern engine gives low service costs.

This also means that you must be willing to give up the last 5%
of performance in for instance your radars output. The US tradition is
as far as I know to allways get those last 5% even if thet get very
expensive.

We try to make up for that with systems thinking. As far as I know we
were among the first with a tactical fighter to fighter data-link,
automatic tracking and aiming of the gun, affordable "awacs" radar,
and we are currently concentrating on computer network based battle
(should insert buzwords. ).

I guess our superiors might be the israelis who has had to work with
limited budgets and a constant threat of being attacked while having a
highly educated and skilled population as the best resource.

Best regards,
--
Titta gärna på http://www.lysator.liu.se/~redin och kommentera min
politiska sida.
Magnus Redin, Klockaregården 6, 586 44 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)70 5160046

[phil hunt]

On 22 Dec 2003 01:38:11 +0100, Magnus Redin > wrote:
>
>I guess our superiors might be the israelis who has had to work with
>limited budgets and a constant threat of being attacked while having a
>highly educated and skilled population as the best resource.

Dunno about that. The Israeli military budget is, I imagine, larger
than the Swedish one (even if Sweden does have more people). Also
the Gripen project was more successful than the Lavi project -- I'm
not sure about how much money was spend on developing each plane,
but I suspect the sums were similar.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Alan Minyard]

On 22 Dec 2003 01:38:11 +0100, Magnus Redin > wrote:

>"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > writes:
>
>> Flug Revue 12/2002 had some additional information:
>>
>> "The small, single-engined jet with delta wings and canards
>> excels above all else in its easy handling, high reliability
>> (7.5 flying hours between failures), low maintenance
>> requirements (less than 10 man-hours per flying hour) and
>> low operating costs ($2,500 per flying hour)."
>
>I do not know if the $2500/h is correct but Saab has a long history of
>developing aircraft that are field servicable, easy to service and
>unexpensive to run. The royal swedish airforce has had it as a real
>requirement for a long time. We can simply not afford nearly unlimited
>expenses for maintainance as the US airforce can seen from a swedish
>point of view.
>
>Saab has also a 50 year tradition of building fighters with a fairly
>small design team that has kept its knowledge due to constant orders
>during the cold war and the near impossibility of quickly enlarging
>the team or for the team members to find another aircraft
>manufacturer. Thus they do not forget for instance Drakens problems
>with the mechanics needing 1,5 m long four jointed arms to do some
>service work.
>
>Has any US jet design workshop been kept together during more then 50
>years and five generations of jet fighters?
>
>I find it reasonable that this tradition plus the reliability of
>modern electronics and a modern engine gives low service costs.
>
>This also means that you must be willing to give up the last 5%
>of performance in for instance your radars output. The US tradition is
>as far as I know to allways get those last 5% even if thet get very
>expensive.
>
>We try to make up for that with systems thinking. As far as I know we
>were among the first with a tactical fighter to fighter data-link,
>automatic tracking and aiming of the gun, affordable "awacs" radar,
>and we are currently concentrating on computer network based battle
>(should insert buzwords. ).
>
>I guess our superiors might be the israelis who has had to work with
>limited budgets and a constant threat of being attacked while having a
>highly educated and skilled population as the best resource.
>
>Best regards,

The Israelis working on a "limited budget"?? Hardly. They wasted
millions on the "Lavi" (money provided by the US) and ended up
flying the far superior F-15. As for SAAB, if you want to build a
third rate aircraft simply because you need to keep a bunch of
old time designers employed, so be it.

Al Minyard

[Marcus Andersson]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:53:14 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:
>
> >Alan Minyard > wrote in
> :
> >> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:25:08 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>>> The Grippens are a gift. When something is completely "free"
> >>>> it rather skews the "cost/benefit" equation. This was simply
> >>>> a PR stunt on the part of the Swedes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Al Minyard
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand it shows that it is possible to produce
> >>> an advanced and effective weapons system at a manageble
> >>> cost. In the words of Colonel Per-Olof Eldh:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.gripen.com/gripen_news/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf
> >>>
> >>> ?Compared to other fighter aircraft
> >>> currently in service, Gripen is a totally
> >>> superior product,? he boasts. ?It is a
> >>> perfect blend of simplicity and sophistication,
> >>> and by far the best handling aircraft
> >>> I have ever flown.?
> >>>
> >>> ?While its flyaway price is comparable to that of a
> >>> new F-16 C/D, Gripen?s operating cost of less than
> >>> US$2,500 / flying hour (including fuel and all levels
> >>> of maintenance) is unrivalled.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards...
> >>
> >> This has no relevance, as the Gripens are completely free.
> >
> > It's simply cost-effective.
> >
> >> And quoting company web sites is not a good way to
> >> achieve credibility.
> >>
> >> Al Minyard
> >
> > It's a pilot with 3,500 hours in jets, and the
> > statement is nothing spectacular, it simply
> > emphasises the superiority of a 4ht generation
> > fighter compared to older designs.
> >
> >
> > Regards...
>
> It is still company propaganda. There is no
> standard for what generation an aircraft is. The
> F-22 or F-25, now, are most probably the only
> aircraft in the world that are "of their generation",
> stealth, super-cruise (F-22), really advanced
> avionics, etc.




>The Griped is simply not in that class.
>
> Al Minyard

True... the Gripen is probably a couple of decades ahead (and as Al
puts it, in another class) of anything Lockheed or Boeing can produce.
At least I haven't seen any indication of Saab loosing their position
as being far ahead of anyone else when it comes to most areas of
military aircraft technology.

[Chad Irby]

(Marcus Andersson) wrote:

> True... the Gripen is probably a couple of decades ahead (and as Al
> puts it, in another class) of anything Lockheed or Boeing can produce.

Hey - don't ever let anyone tell you you don't have a sense of humor.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.