What's new

Saab wins Brazil's F-X2 fighter contest with Gripen NG

Even if India signs 126 aircraft deal, it will take two years for the first aircraft to arrive and the last ones in 2020s, increase the number to 200 and that pushes the timetable further down.

Makes me wonder if Rafale is actually a good buy. Really expensive, not really combat tested (SEAD and etc in Libya doesn't count much, Libya wasn't much of an Air Defence threat anyway) and no export buyer compared to F-16s, Gripen, Typhoon, F-15s etc

If the Su30 MKI is as superior as India makes it to be (not saying it is not) then where does the Rafale fit?

Strange logic. Why would you compare a heavy fighter like the SU with a medium fighter like the Rafale? The roles are different. Timeline for all aircraft are similar to what you have mentioned. We don't see any significant changes to PAF in the next 3/4 years for sure.

That's funny.

Please tell us about the super criteria of IAF for selection process. After all, all those nations where Rafale failed to score a deal, they opted for F-16s, Gripen, Typhoon and F-15s

Hmm, the fact that these aforementioned aircraft are still seeing sales while Rafale is not, puts doubt on it's capabilities.

Your doubts are irrelevant. Our evaluation is the most thorough in the world and Rafale is the best plane for the role we have in mind. Period.
 
Honestly, I have always wondered how a small country with a small population can create a competitive weapon capable of almost all kinds. And even more - airplanes. Swedes - amazing designers and engineers, just amazing.

If you read about it, you will find out that Britain helped in the design of the wings and the US supplied it most recent engine. It does not mean that the sweeds are not capable on their own, they have already proved their engineering capabilities in many civilian and military matters, this only shows how the European nations and the US help each other to boost their economies and to share technological advancements, it is a good example of cooperation in many fields and should be followed by other nations .

So this SAAB fighter plane deal benefits England, the US as well as Sweeden, and maybe it is a compromise by Brasil, because it has different advanced technologies that in order to aquire one has to buy different airplanes from each of these countries.
This SAAB is a very capable fighter jet by all accounts, and mostly because it can operate from rugged terrain and has (very) short take-off and landing capabilities, this alone makes it unique, since it rivals VTOL aircrafts like the F-35 by a very close margin (both have single engines too), So to say the least this is a very wise decision on the part of Brasil, and knowing the german style precision in engineering and handcraft of the Sweeds, apart from their unique designs, it makes the Brasilian decision very smart.
 
Even thought Gripen NG/E-F is being offered with transfer of technology, engine and certain components would come from US-UK however before the contract is penned down it will be discussed regarding wings manufacturing [UK's involvement], GE Engine and alternative. Perhaps we might see alternate Engines are replacement of GE post 2020. cost wise good deal but a risky deal but i am sure brazil must have done their home work.
 
Even thought Gripen NG/E-F is being offered with transfer of technology, engine and certain components would come from US-UK however before the contract is penned down it will be discussed regarding wings manufacturing [UK's involvement], GE Engine and alternative. Perhaps we might see alternate Engines are replacement of GE post 2020. cost wise good deal but a risky deal but i am sure brazil must have done their home work.

Radar - UK / SWE
Engine - US
IRST & HMS - UK/ITA
MAWS, LDP - ISR

Some sub components also will come from S. Africa or Switzerland now after their deal, so from a ToT and restriction free point of view, the Gripen clearly is not a good choice. However, the fact that the fighter is still under development and Brazil basically will be the only operator of the Sea Gripen, it is likely that they will get a greater share of the development of the fighter, which will be included in the ToT part. That's something that neither Boeing nor Dassault could offer, although the best ToT offer of techs should had come from the Rafale partners.
For the engine, one could imagine a Swedish / Brazilian co-developed engine as a long term solution. Sweden had modified the GE 404 for the older Gripen varients and Brazil has own jet engine developments now too, so joining hands would be a logical choice for both countries.

The necessity to go for the cheapest fighter, might get Brazil the most in the long term.
 
^^ @sancho For 36 aircrafts, I doubt there will be any significant development share... I have often wondered why hasn't embraer jumped into the fighter jet game....
 
Firstly i WANT TO SAY i love the Gripen Fighter i think its a supberb looking fighter and i imagine very efficient and capable especially when it gets AESA radar and meteore BVRS post 2017

1. The price has shocked me 36 planes @ over $4.2 billion shows why PAF will never buy a euro canard...ridiculous prices.

2. Those questioning RAFALE dont forget israeli with kifir jets the pakistanis with the mirages 5 and the indians with mirage2000 swear by french technology.. Rafale is a superb MR fighter but massively over priced.

As a indian fan boy
USA hardware too many strings attached dont trust them so F18/F16 was a no no
Russia we have too much RUSSIAN hardware SU30MKI MIG29 & FUTURE FGFA
That left europe where gripen was too much like TEJAS mk2

LEAVING TYPHOON & RAFALE ..
 
The Long term plan, according to todays commenst from Brazilian sources, is over a 100 planes
(if they can afford it) and then it starts to make sense to join development and production.

Radar - UK / SWE
Engine - US
IRST & HMS - UK/ITA
MAWS, LDP - ISR

Some sub components also will come from S. Africa or Switzerland now after their deal, so from a ToT and restriction free point of view, the Gripen clearly is not a good choice. However, the fact that the fighter is still under development and Brazil basically will be the only operator of the Sea Gripen, it is likely that they will get a greater share of the development of the fighter, which will be included in the ToT part. That's something that neither Boeing nor Dassault could offer, although the best ToT offer of techs should had come from the Rafale partners.
For the engine, one could imagine a Swedish / Brazilian co-developed engine as a long term solution. Sweden had modified the GE 404 for the older Gripen varients and Brazil has own jet engine developments now too, so joining hands would be a logical choice for both countries.

The necessity to go for the cheapest fighter, might get Brazil the most in the long term.

Volvo Flygmotor used to develop jet engines, but I do not think any
new engine development is planned by SAAB.
Using components is the modern way to build stuff.
Why reinvent the wheel?
 
Last edited:
No, it is not easy to understand, and thus i brought it up for debate.
let it go now
export orders are no indicators of fighter jet capabilities. its not household products and brands

these are fighter jets. India and Brazil have had very different reasons to choose their jets their threat perceptions are different, their needs are different their preferences dont make the other aircraft's less able.
 
If the Su30 MKI is as superior as India makes it to be (not saying it is not) then where does the Rafale fit?
3 Points:

1. Rafale falls in the Medium Category.

Any Airforce operates all 3 categories of planes. Su-30MKI is the Heavy end of the spectrum.
LCA would be the light end of the spectrum(to replace MiG 21's)
Rafale falls in the middle - with lower operating costs.
Buying more Heavy fighters is not a solution.

2. Rafale has a different task. It is the intended replacement for Jaguars. Its primary role would be A2G, though Rafale is also a multirole plane.
Su-30MKI is a air dominance platform even though its multirole. Its intended role is air superiority.

3. Rafale was selected after numerous trials.
Only Rafale and Typhoon qualified IAF's criteria.
F-16, Gripen, F-18 failed the technical requirements.

Of the two IAF said that Rafale is 15-20% cheaper per unit than Typhoon. So being the LC contender, it won the contract.
[/QUOTE]

Can u please provide the operating cost figures of rafale and su-30mki if u have any. Because i read somewhere that rafale's operating cost is also higher compared to su-30.
Otherwise if an su-30mki costs lesser and also its operational & maintenance cost are less than rafale + you already have the infrastructure for su-30's. Then does it matter if its a heavy weight aircraft, it would be just a plus point if anything. Though it would provide diversity to induct a new type that i understand but from the economic point of view not a good option.
 
^^ @sancho For 36 aircrafts, I doubt there will be any significant development share... I have often wondered why hasn't embraer jumped into the fighter jet game....

Of course not, but the navy has a requirement of at least 12 x fighters for their current carrier and the long term plan include a new carrier with the prospect of around 30 fighters. So providing Brazil with a major part in the development of the Sea Gripen, that actually only they will operate is a logical way to divert offsets / ToT.
Not to mention that the air force requirement for the long term is far higher as well and could go up to 100+ fighters. So all in all, the Brazilian competition had a long term potential, comparable to the MMRCA, which is why Dassault, or Boeing were so interested in it. And as I said in another thread, to me this Saab/Embraer team up is a huge one for the military aero sector, not because of the Gripen , but because of the potential both companies combined have for the future. New AWACS and MPAs based on Embraer 190 platforms are already under consideration, KC390 transport and tanker versions, most likely for Swedish forces too and if the financial situation of both gets better again, a joint 5th gen fighter as an evolution of the Gripen E, would be nothing but a logical growth map for this cooperation.

Volvo Flygmotor used to develop jet engines, but I do not think any
new engine development is planned by SAAB.
Using components is the modern way to build stuff.
Why reinvent the wheel?

There was an offer for an upgraded RM12 for the Swedish Gripens, but mainly if no further exports of the Gripen could be sealed. That however has changed now and it's more likely that they will convert most of the older C/Ds to E/F with the GE414. Using "components" from foreign suppliers is no problem, but the Gripen E/F actually uses less Swedish parts and techs than the C/D, that makes ToT more difficult, since Saab is dependent on approval of the manufacturers and their countries for approval. And as shown above, it's not only 1 country that Saab has to ask for approval, so if critical ToT is important in a competition, it is more difficult with the Gripen than with the Rafale, or EF. On the plus side however, is the fact that using ready developed off the shelf parts much more cost-effective than developing it from the scratch.
 
Last edited:
Was reading some article in DID and here is what they wrote about the FX2 competition about Gripen.

Analysis: F-X2 Competitors
Some quick handicapping follows. The F-X2 finalists were Saab’s JAS-39 Gripen, France’s Rafale, and Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Beyond the air force, the Marinha do Brazil eventually intends to buy 24 fighters of its own, to operate from the carrier that replaces NAe Sao Paulo beginning in 2025. They’re watching the competition closely, and would prefer to buy the same aircraft.

Saab JAS-39 Gripen NG (Winner)

Gripen: air show
(click to view full)
Pros: The JAS-39 Gripen Next Generation program offered key industrial opportunities, along with a high-performance fighter whose price and operating costs are both low. Gripen is likely to be Brazil’s cheapest option over its service life; indeed, it could save its full contracted cost of acquisition and maintenance, relative to a Rafale offer that was reportedly twice as expensive.

Saab offers strong industrial partnerships, and has a record of successful technology transfer agreements. For starters, Brazilian industry would be involved in fighter design stage, not just construction. Beyond late-stage development of the JAS-39E/F, Brazil is the likely launch customer for a naval Sea Gripen, which could add considerable local design work under a future contract. A 2nd factor involves integration source codes, allowing Brazil’s growing arms industry to quickly add the weapons they’re developing for use by the FAB – or indeed, by any Gripen customer. On a very concrete level, the JAS-39BR’s avionics suite will be sourced entirely from Elbit’s Brazilian subsidiary AEL, giving it commonalities with the FAB’s other fighters. JAS-39BRs would also give Brazil’s Air Force immediate integration with the cooperative A-Darter air-air missile that Brazil is developing with fellow Gripen customer South Africa, and deploying on its own modernized A-1M AMX fighters.

Grey Areas: The developmental nature of the JAS-39E/F, which won’t be ready before 2018, is both a plus and a minus for Saab. It’s a minus from the standpoint of technical and delivery risk, especially with the FAB expecting delivery by December 2018. On the other hand, as noted above, it’s a strength from an industrial perspective.

The plane’s radar offers the same kind of duality. The JAS-39 NG includes the Raven AESA radar developed with Selex Galileo, whose long history with Brazil’s FAB includes the F-5BR (Grifo-F) and AMX (Scipio) fighter programs. The Raven is an unusual combination of an AESA radar that can be mechanically pivoted, offering more points of failure, but widening the radar’s scanning cone versus other competitors. That’s a strong plus, but the Raven is less mature than the AESA radars equipping the Super Hornet and Rafale.

The last gray area was the twin-engine issue. The F414 engine that Gripen shares with the Super Hornet offers the advantages of well-tested performance and a long-term customer base, but if it fails, you will lose the plane. Brazil combines vast over-water areas and even vaster wilderness areas to patrol, which often translates into a focus on range and 2-engine safety. The other 2 Brazilian finalists were both 2-engine planes, but it’s worth noting that most of Brazil’s other fighters (Tucano ALX, AMX, Mirage 2000) have just one engine.


Gripen NG Demo
(click to view full)
Weaknesses: Saab’s biggest handicap was the industrial and geopolitical weight of its rivals from France & the USA. As the competition unfolded, the NSA’s all-encompassing spying turned the USA’s strength into a weakness, destroying the Super Hornet’s prospects. That created some blowback for Saab as well, however, since their fighter relies on GE F414 engine. That means the Gripen NG partnership of Sweden, Switzerland, and Brazil will be forced to abide by American ITAR rules for export sales, and must live with the understanding that American sanctions could cripple their fighter fleets. Brazil already lives with this for its front-line F-5 fighters, and they decided they could live with it here, too.

Another handicap involves its lack of a naval variant, or even a flying prototype of same, in a competition where both competitors are naval fighters and the customer operates a carrier. Conversion of land-based aircraft for naval aviation is often unrealistic, but Sweden’s insistence on short take-off and landing performance from surfaces like highways gives Gripen a strong base to work from. Saab began serious work on a “Sea Gripen” in March 2011, and can offer Brazilian industry the unique opportunity to be involved in developing the modified aircraft in time for 2025. It’s still a weakness, but it’s a weakness with a hook that may have been attractive.

Offer: The JAS-39NG reportedly ranked 1st in the FAB’s technical trials, had strong support from Brazilian aerospace firms, and offered a complete package worth about $6 billion (about 10 billion Reals), of which $1.5 billion was for maintenance. Saab even began working with a number of Brazilian firms in advance of any contracts, discussing sub-contracting possibilities, and working to improve their industrial proficiency with key technologies like advanced composite materials. Looks like that’s about to pay off.
 
That's O.K. We'll be fine. Let them take the inferior product. None of those other 'contenders' have been battle tested like the F-18. There's nothing like war to show you what you REALLY have and unfortunately we've been there, done that.:usflag:
 
That's O.K. We'll be fine. Let them take the inferior product. None of those other 'contenders' have been battle tested like the F-18. There's nothing like war to show you what you REALLY have and unfortunately we've been there, done that.:usflag:

War against countries like Iraq and Afghanistan!:omghaha:
 
Grippen vs FC-1. The price of FC-1 is around half of Grippen. Unit cost is of FC-1 around USD20 million. Brazil should buy from Pakistan.


fc1vsjas39nl7.jpg



GVFjn.jpg


Gripen-J-10-FC-1-580x622.jpg
 
Even if India signs 126 aircraft deal, it will take two years for the first aircraft to arrive and the last ones in 2020s, increase the number to 200 and that pushes the timetable further down.

Makes me wonder if Rafale is actually a good buy. Really expensive, not really combat tested (SEAD and etc in Libya doesn't count much, Libya wasn't much of an Air Defence threat anyway) and no export buyer compared to F-16s, Gripen, Typhoon, F-15s etc

If the Su30 MKI is as superior as India makes it to be (not saying it is not) then where does the Rafale fit?

Rafale is Omni-role fighter. Su-30 though multi-role, has evolved from Su-27 which is AWACs Killer/Air Superiority Fighter.

Su-30 is mainly an Air superiority fighter while Rafale has been developed with clear emphasis on A2G role.

Apart from that it shares several similarities with Mirage. The Mig-35 was observed as bigger, more maintenance intensive Mig 29 by the Indian evaluators, according to one article on broadsword.

SH came with strings, offering very limited/No ToT and you know very well why we didn't choose F-16 Block 70 Super Viper.

Gripen was not suitable for role and it having american power plant didn't help either.

Hope it clears your doubt.

Gripen is a very good low cost fighter so it will get orders

F-16 are good but most of orders are by us allies who are under pressure by U.S like the recent buying of F35 by South Korea

Typhoon also got very little orders except member states

Rafale failure is more political than technical i think . There are very few countries with which france has good relations

They say French are bad sellers. How much true it is?
 
Back
Top Bottom