News: Czech Republic select European Fighterjets over F-16

"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/

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/

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.

"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.

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.

"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
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITO...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.

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

Alan Minyard wrote in
news
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/gr...ws_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

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

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:37:46 GMT, lid (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

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/gr...ws_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...