Saab competes with Lockheed for Dutch jet contract

[davros]

Saw this news on CNN sorry if its allready been posted.

Saab offers Gripen to Netherlands, competes with Lockheed Martin for Dutch fighter jet pact

August 25, 2008: 09:48 AM EST


NEW YORK (Associated Press) - Saab AB has offered to sell 85 JAS Gripen fighter jets to the Netherlands, going head to head with Lockheed Martin Corp. for the lucrative deal of replacing the country's aging F16 fleet, the Swedish aerospace and defense company said Monday.

Saab said it has responded to an open request by the Dutch Ministry of Defense by offering to sell 85 Next Generation Gripen fighters. The offer also includes training, spares, simulators and support.

The Netherlands has already requested an offer from Lockheed Martin for the Joint Strike Fighter and is deeply involved in the production and support phase of building that fighter jet.

However, Saab spokeswoman Linn Lichtermann said the country later requested offers from Saab and the manufacturers of French fighter Rafale and the Eurofighter. The two other companies have not yet responded to the request.

The Dutch request follows similar moves by NATO peers Norway and Denmark, who have both requested information about other aircraft despite being involved in the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Saab said it is prepared to offer cooperation for industry in the Netherlands corresponding to at least 100 percent of the total value of a possible contract.

The Dutch Defense Ministry is expected to decide by 2010 how to replace its current generation of F-16 fighters.

Sweden has previously sold Gripen fighter jets to the Czech Republic, Hungary, South Africa and Thailand

[Ths]

Off hand it is difficult to see, what requirements The Netherlands can have, that demand an F-35 - anybody have the presentation materiel, that Lockheed has submitted???

[rattmuff]

The presentations from SAAB that were presented during the press-conference.
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/NLGRIPENOVERVIEWAug08.pdf
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/NLGRIPENPRESSBRIEFAug08.pdf

I don't think Gripen NG has a chance here. The dutch have already invested allot in the JSF-programme. I don't know how much and that "6 billion € cheaper" seems a bit optimistic.

[gvg]

The dutch government has invested $800 million (and personnel) in the JSF program.

[Ths]

Always look where the presentation is "streaching" it! To anchieve air air range over Estonia, they have to have external fuel. And they have hardly any range beyond Poland.

Gripen is a dead duck in this context.

As fra as I see it: The role of the Netherlands Air Force is to provide a Nato reserve offensive and defensive capability - a long way off.
If the Danes and Germans get overwhelmed the Dutch are available to stop a gap. The Poles - in that contingency - will have been destroyed in the air and on the ground.

It is also rather obvious what scenario the Gripen has been designed for: The defence of Sweden (not surprising): Move the pip to Gulland, and see the coverage: Finland and the Baltic states - that is with any capability.

Look at the range with internal fuel - divided it by 2 and you have the air air range with external fuel.

This graf reflects a Swedish strategy: The aim is under nocircumstance to garantee Baltic independence! If it were so the Gripen would have a longer range.

[swerve]

This graf reflects a Swedish strategy: The aim is under nocircumstance to garantee Baltic independence! If it were so the Gripen would have a longer range.
Ths, can you, just for once, not bring an anti-Swedish angle into something? And especially not one based on pure fantasy.

Consider this: when Gripen was designed (development contract awarded 1982, first flight 1988), the Baltic states were firmly under Soviet control, & expected to remain so. Sweden couldn't design Gripen for a task which didn't exist, & wasn't expected to exist. You are attributing motives to the Swedes which are impossible. Gripen was designed to defend Sweden. Full stop. At the time, what other options were there? Offensive action against the USSR was (rightly, in the opinion of any sane person) regarded as suicidal, so there was no point planning for it. If they could save money, or weight, on Gripen by not giving it the range to do something which was, in any case, pointless, why not?

[SlyDog]

Ths: I don't see any statement for Combat range for internal fuel only in the presentation. I can read:

1. Combat radius 1300 km (incl. 30 min. on station) Ex. 4RR+2IR+ext.fuel (Meteor and IRIS-T?)

2. Unrefueled range 2500 km (internal fuel) *

3. Unrefueled range 4075 (internal+external fuel) *

*Probably "naked" or with only 2 IRIS-T - how knows?


Add:

Ths- what do you expect when it comes to combat range without ext. fuel?

Take a look on the alternatives...JSF have long range with internal fuel only. But that relates to the VLO-concept used for JSF, I believe. Take a look on tyfoon. How long is the combat range for tyfoon - with only internal fuel?

[Vivendi]

Always look where the presentation is "streaching" it! To anchieve air air range over Estonia, they have to have external fuel. And they have hardly any range beyond Poland.

Gripen is a dead duck in this context.

As fra as I see it: The role of the Netherlands Air Force is to provide a Nato reserve offensive and defensive capability - a long way off.
If the Danes and Germans get overwhelmed the Dutch are available to stop a gap. The Poles - in that contingency - will have been destroyed in the air and on the ground.

It would be interesting if somebody from Holland could comment on what is actually driving the Dutch process. In Norway the goverment has made it clear that the situation with Russia in the Barents region is a strong motivator to make sure that Norway gets an a/c that can handle different "scenarios" in that region one may care to imagine the next 40 years or so. NATO missions is secondary.

However for Holland I would assume that the situation is quite different? Seriously, Russia launching a full-scale attack on NATO seems not too realistic to me? Therefore I'm guessing that the 85 a/c will not be bought to protect Denmark and Germany in case of a Russian invasion but rather for political/economical reasons.

If I am right it means that to understand which a/c would best suit Holland one must understand the politics behind. So, if Holland wants to strenghten ties with US and also want to offer a "full" expidationary capability F-35 seems the best choice. If however Holland wants to stress European relationships, Typhoon or Gripen would be the better choice. For economical benefits, I guess it depends who you ask. Probably the Dutch defence industry in general would prefer F-35 since (AFAIK) they got some very good deals with LM. Saab may offer industrial deals outside of the defence industry (at least they did in Norway) so companies outside of the defence industry may prefer Gripen...


Of course Ths and I know very little about this but I hope my post will trigger (or provoce :) )somebody who knows the Dutch process and politics intimately to give a better description of the Dutch situation. Could be interesting.


V

[Ths]

Internal fuel range is 2500 km - half is 1250 km.
Resistance from PGM should not be too serious - so a rough estimate puts in the same ballpark.

Swerve: I know You don't care for my documentation, and think blatantly false statements as having higher value.

[Vivendi]

Internal fuel range is 2500 km - half is 1250 km.
Resistance from PGM should not be too serious - so a rough estimate puts in the same ballpark.

Swerve: I know You don't care for my documentation, and think blatantly false statements as having higher value.
What is PGM?

If a longer range is needed, add external tanks. Gripen NG with external tanks has greater range than F-35 with external tanks. So if range is your main criterion, go for Gripen NG not F-35.

When the Dutch Gripen arrive above the baltics in your surreal scenario, it can drop the tanks and become a mean & lean fighter, perform the mission (a2a or a2g) and surf back to base.



V

[swerve]

Swerve: I know You don't care for my documentation, and think blatantly false statements as having higher value.
What documentation (you have submitted none in this case) & what blatantly false statements? Put up or shut up.

What I don't care for is your obsession with libelling Sweden. It's not through any particular affection for Sweden (I have no connection with the place - unlike Denmark), but on principle. I'd object equally whatever country you selected to hate. In this particular case, you have invented an anachronistic reason for a Swedish aircraft design decision, in order to insert a dig at Sweden. Look in a mirror, man! Read what you write, & think about it! How could the Swedes have been determined not to guarantee the independence of countries which weren't independent, & which had, as far as anyone knew, no prospect of it! When the design parameters of Gripen were defined, Brezhnev was running the USSR, & when detailed design was done, Andropov was in charge.

BTW, what was Denmark doing to guarantee the independence of the Baltic states at the time? Apart, that is, from spending a third less of its GDP on its armed forces than Sweden did?

[Note: I am part Danish, & am rather fond of the place. This is not evidence of any anti-Danish feeling.]

[swerve]

What is PGM?
Precision Guided Missile. Includes unpowered guided weapons.

[Grand Danois]

M = Munition

;)

[swerve]

OK, OK. :dunce

[gvg]

The Dutch MoD has given Saab (and LM) more time to submit their answers (Both the Gripen and the Advanced F-16 questionnaires were incomplete). They now have until September 30.