Saab wins $4.5bn Brazil fighter jet contract

[Gerald]

http://i1358.photobucket.com/albums/q764/gasturbin/_71836455_88392900_zpscb57800e.jpg (http://s1358.photobucket.com/user/gasturbin/media/_71836455_88392900_zpscb57800e.jpg.html)
The contract win is a major boost for Sweden-based Saab as it looks to take on rivals like Boeing.

The deal is one of the most valuable ones in emerging markets and Saab had faced competition from rivals Boeing and Dassault Aviation.

Many had expected Boeing or Dassault to emerge as the winner.

A good step for Saab to set up in South America, and with the new JAS 39E which model will be called, then the plane extensions, length increases better engine and more capable of arming.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25441231

Note: 19 December 2013 Last updated at 09:34 GMT

[Skybird]

Always had a soft spot for the JAS39, when it appeared it was one of the most modern if not the most modern fighter worldwide.

No doubt that the NSA affair backfired here for Boeing. That US comments reveal that probably not one terror attack has been prevented by the megalomaniac NSA practices, does not help to make things better. Nor are comments by American envoys that data collecting is no data collecting and surveillance no surveillance really helpful. :dead:

What is Brazil to buy next in Sweden? Submarines? :D

South America is the second barrier protecting Boeing's foreign markets that collapses in short time. Some months ago, Japanese airlines cancelled a huge order for Boeing civilian airliners and opened the Japanese market for Airbus instead, rewarding it a record order.

[Gerald]

NSA affair has been featured in the image clearly, but not decisive in the long run I think after that you have looked at that JAS has cheaper running costs, while the deal involves also technology transfer to Brazil.

[mapuc]

NSA affair has been featured in the image clearly, but not decisive in the long run I think after that you have looked at that JAS has cheaper running costs, while the deal involves also technology transfer to Brazil.

According to the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet.se, F-18 Super Hornet was way ahead of the French and the Swedish deal.

As it said in the article the reveal of the NSA surveillance against the leader of Brazil. made the it tip over to the Swedish favour

Markus

[Gerald]

According to the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet.se, F-18 Super Hornet was way ahead of the French and the Swedish deal.

As it said in the article the reveal of the NSA surveillance against the leader of Brazil. made the it tip over to the Swedish favour

Markus I think so too, with wiretapping scandals against the Brazilian leader etc. :yep:

[vanjast]

Probably the same story as here... payments :03:

The Russian aircraft are far superior to anything at the moment, especially the Grippen, and they cost less to maintain. :arrgh!:

Maybe it all about what is perceived to be more important... but I'll encourage my kids to fly in a different air force, like emigrating to Russia :up:

[Stealhead]

In many respects the Gripen is a better aircraft than the competition in this case.Much more bang for your buck really and it has very good rough field capabilities.The Super Hornet does not.

The Sweds can operate Gripen with just on trained tech and 6 or 7 untrained troops in rough field conditions. Gripen has been popular the Czechs went with them and so did the Thai Air Force.

A fully equipped Gripen costs $60 million USD while a Super Hornet cost $66 million.That and the Gripen is Swedish engineered.The Super Hornet is really 35 year old technology with a face lift when you get down to it.

I think you will see more nations choosing not to buy American military technology partly for political reasons but also because there is competing technology that is just as effective and costs less.

I must disagree on the Russian aircraft what they export is crap compared to what they use and it is inferior to western technology not to mention the important factor that Russian pilots see the amount of training in a year that a Western pilot sees in 90 days.Gripen is far superior to the MiG-29 the closest thing to a multi role aircraft that the Russians market.A wise smaller air force would do better buying a few less Gripens for the same cost and focusing on good training with that they'd dominate any local air force.As a matter of fact Hungary acquired the Gripen to replace the MiG-29s they had in their inventory wise choice.In modern warfare quality does trump quantity.

[Oberon]

The Russian aircraft are far superior to anything at the moment

http://blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/files/2011/09/citation_needed.jpg

[vanjast]

Well.. lets start here and work backwards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

:03:

[Oberon]

Well.. lets start here and work backwards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

:03:

Oh no you don't....

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/4fad386beab8eac843000000/its-a-trap-what-happens-when-advertisers-dont-meet-twitters-spending-quotas.jpg

I'm not going to be lured into that one, thank you. I'll let someone else bite that worm. :O:

[Stealhead]

UH no.

All have to say is that the Russian aeronautical research agency its name TsAGI is pronounced soggy that just does not inspire much faith.:sunny:

[vanjast]

Whatever !! :D

[vanjast]

UH no.
All have to say is that the Russian aeronautical research agency its name TsAGI is pronounced soggy that just does not inspire much faith.:sunny:
If you think of the A10 WARTHOG... hells what a name ???
BUT the most effective A-to-G a/c for the past 'how many decades' ??.. a brilliant foresighted design.
Many a US troop will kiss a Warthogs pilot's butt, a female one too :)

Credit where it's due !
:up:

[vanjast]

As an addition:

The A10 was about to be scrapped just before the Saddam Hussein war..
Just the fact that the US actually thought about scrapping it is testament to the politics of the US armaments industry, that does not, repeat, does not care about you.. the ordinary troop or pilot.

I hope you are aware of this, especially with regard to the PAK-FA
:03:

[vanjast]

Why am I saying this... F knows.. it's like preaching to the doff

It just sounds like a repeat of the torpedo problem in the early war years of each nation...

Well, there you go !!

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

If you think of the A10 WARTHOG... hells what a name ???Are you aware that Warthog is nickname? Official name for aircraft is Thunderbolt II.

[vanjast]

Yes

[Stealhead]

If you think of the A10 WARTHOG... hells what a name ???
BUT the most effective A-to-G a/c for the past 'how many decades' ??.. a brilliant foresighted design.
Many a US troop will kiss a Warthogs pilot's butt, a female one too :)

Credit where it's due !
:up:

I know all about the A-10 I worked ground support with them for three years.Drivers call it the "Hog" and I'd kiss a females butt any day if it looked visually pleasing.

As an addition:

The A10 was about to be scrapped just before the Saddam Hussein war..
Just the fact that the US actually thought about scrapping it is testament to the politics of the US armaments industry, that does not, repeat, does not care about you.. the ordinary troop or pilot.

I hope you are aware of this, especially with regard to the PAK-FA
:03:


I know all of that and the reason was actually logical.The A-10 has a very low survivability in a modern air defense environment.The 1991 Gulf War was the first time it ever saw combat and it was highly successful so they realized its worth though in 1991 it was not facing the full brunt of Iraqi air defenses which where father in country around Baghdad.Still a couple got taken down.Not to mention that they where flying under total air superiority.

After 1991 the A-10's role changed from primarily a tank buster to a close support and COIN aircraft as well as being an observer for other fast movers which is why to split hairs it is officially called O/A-10A and O/A-10C depending on the role that it happens to flying that day and in Afghanistan it swings roles mid-mission very often.

I am not even going to comment on the PFC-Super Mega whatever.That is a just a prototypical aircraft so it has not been proven in any way unlike many of its western competition.And not to brag but remind me who first fielded low observable technology and has been constantly improving it over the past 35 years?(rhetorical question)

On top of this the type of combat and avionics systems are different from force to force.therefore what will matter more is who trains the bets and hardest(yeah i have no problem bragging because I have been a part of it) the Us military trains very hard as do most of our western allies much harder than the Russians.The pilot who wins is the pilot who knows his or her aircraft and the enemy aircraft the best I have full confidence that the west has a substantial edge in this department.The typical weapons intel office in the USAF,Navy,USMC works about 14 to 16 hours day studying the enemy.the only force in the Russian military that is elite,hardcore and has integrity though and through is the submarine force the ones that actually go to sea not the desk jockeys.


What makes you think that the Russian Defense Ministry is any better than the DoD?Another rhetorical question.I know without doubt that DoD is much better and treats its troops better and I know via six degrees of separation(comrades of my older brother a USMC officer) a few people that first served in the Russian Army and then immigrated to the US and joined the US military.Some basic research would expose that the Russian military has many discipline issues and in general training is poor.what do Soviet vets from the 1980's Afghan war get?Nothing they must rely on the help of fellow vets and kind strangers and even American Vietnam War veterans groups for help.

So you buy a Swed fighter you get trained by Swedes who are highly skilled you buy a MiG and the contractor that made the deals spends a week at a fancy Russian Dacha.Pfft.

I am not trying to say that Russian people are bad but their government is highly corrupt and lets them down not to say that the US government is perfect none are.

[vanjast]

My point is that:

The PAK FA outshines the latest US aircraft.. not only in altitude, but also in maneuverability... this is before we talk about weapons systems.

If I'm not mistaken the Russians have a 360 'look and shoot' weapons platform whereas the the latest US system is far less capable. These systems already in use on Mig.. and other Russian aircraft.

There is so much info available on the net.. Yes, I know about dis-information.. but make up your own mind.

If you don't like the info, or you do.. I don't actually care
But the info is all there.. :)

[mapuc]

No fighter planes is better than it's pilot

put a newbie in a modern fighterplane like the JAS39 and a very skilled pilot in a old F-4 who's going to win?

Markus

[Skybird]

I agree any time that the Russians have some very lethal, long ranging missiles, both ATGM and AAM, and some strong burning radars, but radars in a stealth fighter are somewhat contradictory, and that Russian plane so far is not fielded, but is a prototype, while the US already has some squadrons of different stealths in operation, though some types often grounded. In ergonomy and electronics, I expect Western aircraft to be ahead any time.

The claims made in this thread are a bit as if I would say: "The Iranians recently have shot an ape into space, and then a second one - when was the last time Russia manged to do that? The Russian space program must be ineferior."

Meanwhile, the jade rabbit is rovering around on the moon.

[Leandros]

NSA affair has been featured in the image clearly, but not decisive in the long run I think after that you have looked at that JAS has cheaper running costs, while the deal involves also technology transfer to Brazil.
That may be but this has never stopped local politicians to prefer US products for - political reasons. Norway being a very good example. Few military purchases are actually based on purely technical, economical or tactical grounds. Just my opinion.

In that respect I suspect the Brazilian decision is very much influenced by the recent sensations regarding US spying on (and disregard of) potentially friendly nations.

That said, much can still happen in this case.

Fred

[Platapus]

I like a good sob story.

[Gerald]

That may be but this has never stopped local politicians to prefer US products for - political reasons. Norway being a very good example. Few military purchases are actually based on purely technical, economical or tactical grounds. Just my opinion.

In that respect I suspect the Brazilian decision is very much influenced by the recent sensations regarding US spying on (and disregard of) potentially friendly nations.

That said, much can still happen in this case.

Fred

Sure, it may well be the case, politicians are slippery says one thing and does another, the future will tell which.

[Leandros]

On top of this the type of combat and avionics systems are different from force to force.therefore what will matter more is who trains the bets and hardest(yeah i have no problem bragging because I have been a part of it) the Us military trains very hard as do most of our western allies much harder than the Russians.The pilot who wins is the pilot who knows his or her aircraft and the enemy aircraft the best I have full confidence that the west has a substantial edge in this department.The typical weapons intel office in the USAF,Navy,USMC works about 14 to 16 hours day studying the enemy.the only force in the Russian military that is elite,hardcore and has integrity though and through is the submarine force the ones that actually go to sea not the desk jockeys.
This is a very interesting subject and I might ask - what do you really know about this - that is - the others - what they do, how they train? I am afraid this is an area where the US has shown a lack of insight. You tend to underestimate the opposition. Just my opinion based on actual happenings in the post-WW2 environment.

Talking about how others train - or their ability to consume training. From my civilian airline time I can mention an example where we leased 737's to a Chinese airline. They sent 22 pilots to our technical base to go through the technical type course. They were not fluent in english so all instruction and training was done through a female translator. All students scored 100 % - on all tests.

Fred

[Stealhead]

This is a very interesting subject and I might ask - what do you really know about this

I know because I served in the USAF in fighter squadrons in the maintenance squadron.I was aerospace ground equipment I worked on the flight line everyday when one trains we all train so I know what the hours are I sat watched them come and go I knew the pilots personally.

Vietnam is an unfair comparison to the whole at that time period fighter pilots where banned from even practicing and it showed early on but we learned.The US Navy started the SFTI program in 1968 and during the air actions in 1971 and 72 the kill ratio completely turned around.The USAF was little slower but also made many changes and started Red Flag in the mid 70's.I can really go on extensively but I will not because the information that proves me correct is easy to find.

Post Vietnam USAF and US Navy have won 99% of air to air engagements and we have suffered no losses a few Serb jets manged to break contact but they dared not stay and fight actually the hallmark of a clever pilot not split when you know you will loose so I fail to see what makes you think that US military air combat performance has been poor we learned the lessons of Vietnam and the mistakes you seem to think have been a problem since then.
In Korea we performed very well the only dip was during the arrival of the MiG-15 which went away once the F-86 arrived and the MiG-15 mostly flew intercept missions so most of their kills where B-29s and other attack aircraft and bombers not fighter sweeps unlike the F-86.

the amount and level of Russian military pilot training is readily available just do some research.As to the technology perhaps my sarcasm with some of what I said was missed which I thought was a bit obvious.Of course in the end likely hood that a fully equipped and kitted out Russian aircraft and a fully kitted out US or Western European designed engaging in combat is pretty unlikely.

P.S. why the bolding of the word female? What is that supposed to mean? My statement of kissing a woman's butt was poking fun at Vanjasts statement that US troops would kiss the butt(show respect to) of a female A-10 pilot as if they normally have no respect when it comes to the combat potential of a female maybe she has Sassanian esprit de corps in her that is where the term "hid behind their women's skirts" comes from the "skirt" of a female Sassanian warrior.

What ever I should have known better than to post my thoughts on military aviation I recon being directly involved in for 12 years means that I know nothing. :smug:

[HW3]

The biggest problem U.S. military aviation had in Vietnam was the White House was running the show, right down to planning the routes to and from the targets, instead of the commanders in the field who knew better.

[Jimbuna]

I know because I served in the USAF in fighter squadrons in the maintenance squadron.I was aerospace ground equipment I worked on the flight line everyday when one trains we all train so I know what the hours are I sat watched them come and go I knew the pilots personally.

Vietnam is an unfair comparison to the whole at that time period fighter pilots where banned from even practicing and it showed early on but we learned.The US Navy started the SFTI program in 1968 and during the air actions in 1971 and 72 the kill ratio completely turned around.The USAF was little slower but also made many changes and started Red Flag in the mid 70's.I can really go on extensively but I will not because the information that proves me correct is easy to find.

Post Vietnam USAF and US Navy have won 99% of air to air engagements and we have suffered no losses a few Serb jets manged to break contact but they dared not stay and fight actually the hallmark of a clever pilot not split when you know you will loose so I fail to see what makes you think that US military air combat performance has been poor we learned the lessons of Vietnam and the mistakes you seem to think have been a problem since then.
In Korea we performed very well the only dip was during the arrival of the MiG-15 which went away once the F-86 arrived and the MiG-15 mostly flew intercept missions so most of their kills where B-29s and other attack aircraft and bombers not fighter sweeps unlike the F-86.

the amount and level of Russian military pilot training is readily available just do some research.As to the technology perhaps my sarcasm with some of what I said was missed which I thought was a bit obvious.Of course in the end likely hood that a fully equipped and kitted out Russian aircraft and a fully kitted out US or Western European designed engaging in combat is pretty unlikely.

P.S. why the bolding of the word female? What is that supposed to mean? My statement of kissing a woman's butt was poking fun at Vanjasts statement that US troops would kiss the butt(show respect to) of a female A-10 pilot as if they normally have no respect when it comes to the combat potential of a female maybe she has Sassanian esprit de corps in her that is where the term "hid behind their women's skirts" comes from the "skirt" of a female Sassanian warrior.

What ever I should have known better than to post my thoughts on military aviation I recon being directly involved in for 12 years means that I know nothing. :smug:




Whilst agreeing with the vast majority of the above and readily admitting I am in no way an expert on military aviation...allow me to make one 'tongue in cheek' observation.

It was the inclusion of the Buccaneer bomber at Red Flag (just so happens to be one of my favourite aircraft) that introduced the US into the reality of what a serious threat ultra low level attack aircraft could pose.

[Stealhead]

Whilst agreeing with the vast majority of the above and readily admitting I am in no way an expert on military aviation...allow me to make one 'tongue in cheek' observation.

It was the inclusion of the Buccaneer bomber at Red Flag (just so happens to be one of my favourite aircraft) that introduced the US into the reality of what a serious threat ultra low level attack aircraft could pose.


Well you also have what the "brass" thinks and what the people who are doing the real thinking think.As an example once all the fancy missiles came along the DoD became one sighted and put too much faith into it.as a result they banned (yes) most forms of simulated dog fighting.Many Navy,USMC and USAF felt other wise and would still practice simulated dogfights as bets they could.

Of course doing so would get those involved in trouble so they had come to this banned training during other planned flights.At some point during the flight "bad weather" often forced them to fly a longer route.Actually for that extra time they simulating air to air combat.

I sometimes forget that non-military do not know how things work on the inside sometimes.As my old Senior NCO loved to say "you have to know the book and you have to know when to throw the book out the ........ door."

The funny thing about the Buccaneer is that SAC had started making the B-52 fly map-of-the-earth back in 1962(and the B-1B got that role inspired by the Buccaneer) so they knew this concept to be some what effective against the Soviets why such should the Buccaneer be such a shock? Of course that was a shock to the guys who write the book not the guys doing the actual thinking.

No organization is perfect in its thinking and conceptual processes someone can come up with a better idea that you did not.What is more important is how when exposed to something you learn from it.

[Jimbuna]

Well you also have what the "brass" thinks and what the people who are doing the real thinking think.As an example once all the fancy missiles came along the DoD became one sighted and put too much faith into it.as a result they banned (yes) most forms of simulated dog fighting.Many Navy,USMC and USAF felt other wise and would still practice simulated dogfights as bets they could.

Of course doing so would get those involved in trouble so they had come to this banned training during other planned flights.At some point during the flight "bad weather" often forced them to fly a longer route.Actually for that extra time they simulating air to air combat.

I sometimes forget that non-military do not know how things work on the inside sometimes.As my old Senior NCO loved to say "you have to know the book and you have to know when to throw the book out the ........ door."

The funny thing about the Buccaneer is that SAC had started making the B-52 fly map-of-the-earth back in 1962(and the B-1B got that role inspired by the Buccaneer) so they knew this concept to be some what effective against the Soviets why such should the Buccaneer be such a shock? Of course that was a shock to the guys who write the book not the guys doing the actual thinking.

No organization is perfect in its thinking and conceptual processes someone can come up with a better idea that you did not.What is more important is how when exposed to something you learn from it.

I was shocked some time ago to learn the tactics Buccaneers were initially trained to use should an interceptor manage to get on their tail at very low level.

As a last resort they were expected to drop a 500lb bomb thus 'hopefully' causing the interceptor fatal damage from the blast.

In later years they were of course kitted out with Sidewinder (usually just the one though).