"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...