News: Czech Republic select European Fighterjets over F-16

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:27:13 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
The Grippens are a gift. When something is completely "free"
it rather skews the "cost/benefit" equation.

I know, I've been involved in competitions against US FMS

Yeah, we cheat, but so does everybody else.:-)

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
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.

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?

Brooks



Regards...

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
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

Oh dear, such a bad looser... but you don't have to take this deal
personally, you know

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
Alan Minyard wrote in
:

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.

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.


Regards...

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
Alan Minyard wrote in
:

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.

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"? 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. 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


Regards...

"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...

Air Force Jayhawk wrote:

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."



Bribery still works!
Not that time....

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:03:08 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:

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?

Brooks

How many of those sales were to people who already operate F-16s?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:03:08 GMT, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

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?

Brooks

How many of those sales were to people who already operate F-16s?

You are falling behind, Phil--that has already been answered. And the
synopsis is more F-16's sold to new users than Gripens, OK?

Brooks

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message ...
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...

That cost is either amazing or unbelievable. Larger business jets can
reasonably cost more than that per hour, even on an operating cost
basis. It's hard to believe that a Gulfstream costs more per hour
than a Gripen.

I dunno. This exceeds my area of expertise. Maybe the weapon's radar
never needs expensive parts.