Spanish Air Force

[Vivendi]

This is the only valid reason the F-35 didn't make it into the F-X2 competition. AFAIK the FAB was keen to acquire the F-35, however it would not meet their acquisition time table. Lockheed Martin offered the F-16BR along with a transition plan to the F-35. The F-16BR was cut in the 1st round.

I found it strange that the "F-16BR with the transition plan to the F-35" was cut in the first round, if timelines was the only reason F-35 was not offered. This is what I did not understand.

Unless the offer from LM was so crappy compared to the others that Brazil decides to go for another, cheaper stop-gap? I find it hard to believe that SH and Rafale are cheaper than F-16, but I may be wrong? If I am not wrong, only Gripen NG is left on the table as a cheap, relatively capable stop-gap until F-35 becomes available.


V

 

[Aussie Digger]

I found it strange that the "F-16BR with the transition plan to the F-35" was cut in the first round, if timelines was the only reason F-35 was not offered. This is what I did not understand.

Unless the offer from LM was so crappy compared to the others that Brazil decides to go for another, cheaper stop-gap? I find it hard to believe that SH and Rafale are cheaper than F-16, but I may be wrong? If I am not wrong, only Gripen NG is left on the table as a cheap, relatively capable stop-gap until F-35 becomes available.


V

If the timetable IS an issue, then the Gripen NG would seem to have very little chance. Rafale and Super Hornet can be ordered pretty much "off the shelf".

Gripen NG is a development aircraft, that doesn't even have a radar yet and hasn't completed it's testing and development on the airframe and engine integration. With the radar, they only chose a development partner (it's second one) a couple of days ago...

Whilst it's no doubt a good opportunity to get in early on the development of a 4.5 gen fighter, it won't be in-service any time soon...

 

[swerve]

Gripen NG is a development aircraft, that doesn't even have a radar yet and hasn't completed it's testing and development on the airframe and engine integration. With the radar, they only chose a development partner (it's second one) a couple of days ago...

First development partner. The supply of an array for Saab-Ericsson to use as a development tool was always intended to be separate from the selection of a development partner for the definitive radar. Thales was only ever one of three or four contenders for the development partner (Selex, Raytheon & maybe Northrop Grumman being the others), despite being chosen to supply the test array.

BTW, the NG is, in theory, available with the current Gripen radar. The NG isn't an all-new aircraft, it's a set of incremental upgrades, not all dependent on each other. You'll be able to retrofit the avionics upgrades to older Gripens without the airframe or engine changes, for example.

 

[Aussie Digger]

BTW, the NG is, in theory, available with the current Gripen radar. The NG isn't an all-new aircraft, it's a set of incremental upgrades, not all dependent on each other. You'll be able to retrofit the avionics upgrades to older Gripens without the airframe or engine changes, for example.

Indeed, and this is where I see it being most successful. Countries who want a heavier fighter with more range, would be more likely just to buy one initially, I'd suggest.

Extent Gripen users will be wanting upgrades in future years though, I would expect, hence it's a smart idea to do it this way.

Possible new-build orders and probable upgrade paths...

 

[swerve]

Agreed. As an upgrade path, it has the potential to be successful in a modest way even if no all-new airframes are sold, & for sales of even a small number of new aircraft to be viable. It makes second-hand Gripens, & new-build non-NG Gripens, more attractive.

I don't see large numbers of Gripen NGs being sold, though, unless it's bought by India, which I think is unlikely. Scores rather than hundreds.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Agreed. As an upgrade path, it has the potential to be successful in a modest way even if no all-new airframes are sold, & for sales of even a small number of new aircraft to be viable. It makes second-hand Gripens, & new-build non-NG Gripens, more attractive.

I don't see large numbers of Gripen NGs being sold, though, unless it's bought by India, which I think is unlikely. Scores rather than hundreds.

Yep and all those recently retired A/B model Gripens, with relatively low flight hours, are going to decrease the chances of new build orders.

Sweden is reducing her Gripen fleet, to around 100 I think? Didn't she originally order 200+?

That's a LOT of aircraft that are seemingly already available, for an aircraft type that has attracted a few international orders, but all relatively small...

I see Bulgaria and Greece have already been offered some...

 

[Salty Dog]

If the timetable IS an issue, then the Gripen NG would seem to have very little chance. Rafale and Super Hornet can be ordered pretty much "off the shelf".

Gripen NG is a development aircraft, that doesn't even have a radar yet and hasn't completed it's testing and development on the airframe and engine integration. With the radar, they only chose a development partner (it's second one) a couple of days ago...

Whilst it's no doubt a good opportunity to get in early on the development of a 4.5 gen fighter, it won't be in-service any time soon...

The acquisition timetable was an issue for the F-35, but most likely not for the Gripen NG as it is one of the three F-X2 finalists.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The acquisition timetable was an issue for the F-35, but most likely not for the Gripen NG as it is one of the three F-X2 finalists.

I agree, but what does the SAAB proposal actually include? Bulgaria, Romania and Greece have been offered second hand Gripens initially, with new builds "down the track", when they are ready.

NG IS a development fighter. They are developing the AESA, which I presume is included in their response, from scratch. The airframe has been redesigned somewhat, especially with landing gear and fuel tank arrangements, the weapons load configurations are different and the flight testing to verify these changes has yet to be done.

Only a demonstrator has been created so far and for a significant flight test program, they are going to need more than one aircraft to conduct it in any sort of rapid timeframe, yet I haven't seen any announcements of money going towards building more development aircraft...

Being the cynic that I am, it seems to me, that such will only occur, once a buyer decides to fund it...

 

[Salty Dog]

I agree, but what does the SAAB proposal actually include? Bulgaria, Romania and Greece have been offered second hand Gripens initially, with new builds "down the track", when they are ready.

AFAIK it's the Gripen NG variant, new builds only for F-X2.

Nice information on the used Gripens, makes me wonder about the Indian MRCA program.

 

[Vivendi]

I agree, but what does the SAAB proposal actually include? Bulgaria, Romania and Greece have been offered second hand Gripens initially, with new builds "down the track", when they are ready.

Saab seems to claim that NG can be ready 24 months after signing the contract; second hand Gripens delivered 6 months after signing the contract:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/104336/sweden-offers-gripen-to-greece.html

I think Saab indicated last year that NG can be ready by 2012, if a customer needs it by that time.

NG IS a development fighter. They are developing the AESA, which I presume is included in their response, from scratch. The airframe has been redesigned somewhat, especially with landing gear and fuel tank arrangements, the weapons load configurations are different and the flight testing to verify these changes has yet to be done.

Saab has been working on the AESA for several years, partly in R&D projects with Selex, the selected partner for AESA development:

http://www.saabgroup.com/SaabGroup.Web.WebSite/Templates/PressRelease.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7BC0AA8263-9E03-4267-89C7-7FFBC109CD63%7D&NRORIGINALURL=%2Fus%2FMediaRelations%2FPressreleases%2Fpressrelease.htm&NRCACHEHINT=Guest&Print=yes&Print=yes&Year=2006&PressreleaseId=139674

The mods to the airframe we've talked about before; they are rather small, with minimal changes in aerodynamics. Also a CFT changes aerodynamics, and planes getting a CFT are of course tested, but not to the same extent as a new plane, and few would claim that an a/c with CFT is a "new" a/c.

V

 

[swerve]

NG IS a development fighter. They are developing the AESA, which I presume is included in their response, from scratch. The airframe has been redesigned somewhat, especially with landing gear and fuel tank arrangements, the weapons load configurations are different and the flight testing to verify these changes has yet to be done.

Only a demonstrator has been created so far and for a significant flight test program, they are going to need more than one aircraft to conduct it in any sort of rapid timeframe, yet I haven't seen any announcements of money going towards building more development aircraft...

Being the cynic that I am, it seems to me, that such will only occur, once a buyer decides to fund it...

Of course it needs flight testing, but it isn't an all-new aircraft, & doesn't need the same level of testing as an all-new aircraft would. The airframe is mostly the same. The demonstrator was rebuilt from an old Gripen, flying 10 months after the decision was taken to go ahead. The aerodynamics are only slightly changed, & shouldn't need much change to the software. Radar development isn't from scratch. Work on the back end has been going on for years, though I think at a fairly low tempo. IIRC Ericsson had a Raytheon array connected to a modified PS/05A back end on a test bench a long time ago, & may have flown it - though not in a Gripen.

The Swedish government agreed to fund the NG 4 months after it was launched.

 

[Josef]

Spanish Air Army would have to start doing something with the F-18 and Harriers.
everything points to a future F-35, the bad idea that is not like in Spain.

It's supposed to be F-16s.

NATO standard in Spain until 2030?

 

[Alonso Quijano]

It's supposed to be F-16s.

NATO standard in Spain until 2030?

F-18 I do not think we will last more than 10 years ...