Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Siddar
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Feb 2013
    • 263

    Originally posted by Sintra View Post
    Where did you get the idea that "those parts" are "based" on American non compliant ITAR hardware?
    Last time I've checked the Swedes are entirely free to use things like a new Israeli MAWS or a German radio in their new version of the Gripen.
    The only reason the Gripen exists is because US granted technology on very favorable terms. The resulting plane had a large amount of US content so that transfer of technology was beneficial to US economically. Now Saab seems to have undertaken a program to deliberately reduce US content. The newest version with almost no US content does not serve US national interests as it competes with US manufactured planes and provides no real benefit to the US. If US has ability to block sales of this plane then it should do so simply out of its own self interest and an also a bit of spite for being used like it appears to have been in this case.

    And just to add no I don't think the shift in origins of part shown was based on competition. It appears to have been an entirely political act against US. To try and increase sales by courting the less pro american governments.
    Last edited by Siddar; 22nd March 2016, 12:28.

    Comment

    • JakobS
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Aug 2015
      • 155

      Originally posted by Siddar View Post
      The only reason the Gripen exists is because US granted technology on very favorable terms. The resulting plane had a large amount of US content so that transfer of technology was beneficial to US economically. Now Saab seems to have undertaken a program to deliberately reduce US content. The newest version with almost no US content does not serve US national interests as it competes with US manufactured planes and provides no real benefit to the US. If US has ability to block sales of this plane then it should do so simply out of its own self interest and an also a bit of spite for being used like it appears to have been in this case.

      And just to add no I don't think the shift in origins of part shown was based competition. It appears to have been an entirely political act against US. To try and increase sales by courting the less pro american governments.
      That was the dumbest thing I have read in quite a while.

      Comment

      • swerve
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jun 2005
        • 13610

        [edit] Jakob - you posted while I was typing the text below. You're absolutely right. [/edit]

        That's a stupid policy. It would guarantee that other European countries would act to completely remove US technology from any products they wanted to export. There's already concern over US blocking of exports for commercial, not strategic, reasons.

        And 'spite'? Do you think that playground politics are appropriate for great nations?

        And just to add no I don't think the shift in origins of part shown was based competition. It appears to have been an entirely political act against US. To try and increase sales by courting the less pro american governments.
        Do you not see the internal contradiction in what you've written? "I don't think ... was based [on] competition. ... entirely political ... to try and increase sales". Doh!
        Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
        Justinian

        Comment

        • Siddar
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Feb 2013
          • 263

          Originally posted by swerve View Post
          [edit] Jakob - you posted while I was typing the text below. You're absolutely right. [/edit]

          That's a stupid policy. It would guarantee that other European countries would act to completely remove US technology from any products they wanted to export. There's already concern over US blocking of exports for commercial, not strategic, reasons.

          And 'spite'? Do you think that playground politics are appropriate for great nations?


          Do you not see the internal contradiction in what you've written? "I don't think ... was based [on] competition. ... entirely political ... to try and increase sales". Doh!
          A political choice to court sales is still a political act not a economic one.

          But please feel free to try and explain how US letting US content on Gripen be massacred for purely political reasons serves US interests?

          You seem to think Saab should be able to make political decisions to court sales based on political reasons but US should for some reason not defend itself.

          Saab knew from day one of Gripen that they would never export a Gripen without US approval it seems someone in Saab has forgotten that.

          But really do try and make a coherent argument for why US should tolerate what Saab has done.

          Comment

          • Spitfire9
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jul 2008
            • 2834

            Originally posted by Siddar View Post
            The only reason the Gripen exists is because US granted technology on very favorable terms. The resulting plane had a large amount of US content so that transfer of technology was beneficial to US economically. Now Saab seems to have undertaken a program to deliberately reduce US content. The newest version with almost no US content does not serve US national interests as it competes with US manufactured planes and provides no real benefit to the US. If US has ability to block sales of this plane then it should do so simply out of its own self interest and an also a bit of spite for being used like it appears to have been in this case.

            And just to add no I don't think the shift in origins of part shown was based on competition. It appears to have been an entirely political act against US. To try and increase sales by courting the less pro american governments.
            As others have said, what you say is not sensible. Do you think that SAAB is a company that sets out to design products that maximise the commercial benefits of US companies rather than trying to maximise the commercial benefits to itself?
            Sum ergo cogito

            Comment

            • Spitfire9
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jul 2008
              • 2834

              Originally posted by Siddar View Post
              You seem to think Saab should be able to make political decisions to court sales based on political reasons but US should for some reason not defend itself.

              Saab knew from day one of Gripen that they would never export a Gripen without US approval it seems someone in Saab has forgotten that.
              If you sell military equipment to other countries, every sale is political by nature. It increases the military capability of the customer country.

              Originally posted by Siddar View Post
              But really do try and make a coherent argument for why US should tolerate what Saab has done.
              Have you got a screw loose? If Volvo export a car to a customer in France or Chile or America that could have been supplied by an American manufacturer, is that intolerable? What do you suggest the USA does? Nuke Sweden?
              Sum ergo cogito

              Comment

              • Siddar
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Feb 2013
                • 263

                Originally posted by Spitfire9 View Post
                If you sell military equipment to other countries, every sale is political by nature. It increases the military capability of the customer country.



                Have you got a screw loose? If Volvo export a car to a customer in France or Chile or America that could have been supplied by an American manufacturer, is that intolerable? What do you suggest the USA does? Nuke Sweden?
                You are correct every military sale is a political act. Every time US approves a Gripen export sale it is a political act. Saabs removal of US content was also political act as well. Now explain why US should not react to the political action taken against it by Saab.

                Please also remember the sequence of events here is Saab taking actions that harm US interests and a potential US response.

                The only ones with a screw loose would be those who think US should not respond to Saab's actions.
                Last edited by Siddar; 22nd March 2016, 13:11.

                Comment

                • Spitfire9
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jul 2008
                  • 2834

                  Originally posted by Siddar View Post
                  Please also remember the sequence of events here is Saab taking actions that harm US interests and a potential US response.
                  The primary duty of the American government is to act in the interests of America. The primary duty of the directors of a company is to act in the interests of the company. The American government has no duty to act in the best interests of Swedish industry. SAAB does has no duty to act in the best interests of the American government. What exactly do you see as the problem with SAAB acting in the best interests of SAAB?
                  Sum ergo cogito

                  Comment

                  • Siddar
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Feb 2013
                    • 263

                    Originally posted by Spitfire9 View Post
                    The primary duty of the American government is to act in the interests of America. The primary duty of the directors of a company is to act in the interests of the company. The American government has no duty to act in the best interests of Swedish industry. SAAB does has no duty to act in the best interests of the American government. What exactly do you see as the problem with SAAB acting in the best interests of SAAB?
                    Yes Saab should act in the best interest of Saab and US should act in the best interest of US.

                    So we both agree that US government should block all future Gripen exports? Because said Gripen exports no longer serve US interests as result of the intentional reduction in US content on Gripen.

                    Comment

                    • TooCool_12f
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Dec 2009
                      • 3321

                      as long as it has a US engine, the US can block the export, so, removing smaller US-made parts for euro-made ones (and a few israeli ones) doesn't remove the US capacity to intervene in the choice of customers. However, If the initial equipments were US-made, it may have been also because they were more readily available. If SAAB gets better deals from other manufacturers, the problem is on US side (companies, not government) and is part of normal competition.

                      If the USA tried to block the gripen to protect US companies for a european product, besides being illegal, it would trigger a response that would cost the US much more than the benefit for participating in these few airframes

                      Comment

                      • Siddar
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Feb 2013
                        • 263

                        Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post
                        as long as it has a US engine, the US can block the export, so, removing smaller US-made parts for euro-made ones (and a few israeli ones) doesn't remove the US capacity to intervene in the choice of customers. However, If the initial equipments were US-made, it may have been also because they were more readily available. If SAAB gets better deals from other manufacturers, the problem is on US side (companies, not government) and is part of normal competition.

                        If the USA tried to block the gripen to protect US companies for a european product, besides being illegal, it would trigger a response that would cost the US much more than the benefit for participating in these few airframes
                        The global aviation industry does not work like that. Replacing all US content except engines on a plane is not a economic action.

                        Comment

                        • TooCool_12f
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Dec 2009
                          • 3321

                          Prove it

                          Comment

                          • Spitfire9
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jul 2008
                            • 2834

                            Originally posted by Siddar View Post
                            Yes Saab should act in the best interest of Saab and US should act in the best interest of US.

                            So we both agree that US government should block all future Gripen exports? Because said Gripen exports no longer serve US interests as result of the intentional reduction in US content on Gripen.
                            I suspect you have not studied economics if you think that protectionism and suppression of trade is in the best interest of a country pursuing such policies.
                            Sum ergo cogito

                            Comment

                            • TooCool_12f
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Dec 2009
                              • 3321

                              And, in any case, as Spitfire9 said, SAAB is a swedish commercial company, they do business and are free to make their product the way they want. The government of the USA has absolutely no say in what parts they put in their aircraft

                              Comment

                              • NotOnlyaSwede
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Sep 2005
                                • 55

                                Siddar, look at the pictures again, they are surely directed to different markets, the last one showing the large participation of Brazil companies in Gripen construction are, IMO, ment as a "convincing" PR argument to select it instead of Rafale or SH.

                                Take the canopy for example, it's still made in US I think but just not mentioned, same for other little bits here and there, they are just not shown. The us total parts procentiges are somewhat lower though.

                                Whatever... A big chunk, the engine is US, about $20-25 million a piece. To think that Us would start a trade war over fuel tank sealants and some mechanical parts and lose export is stupid...

                                BTW, Sweden(Saab) export quite a lot of military equipment to US Army and AF so...

                                Comment

                                • Siddar
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Feb 2013
                                  • 263

                                  Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post
                                  Prove it
                                  It will be up to Saab to prove that it isn't case to the US government when they ask for export permission.

                                  Comment

                                  • Siddar
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Feb 2013
                                    • 263

                                    Originally posted by NotOnlyaSwede View Post
                                    Siddar, look at the pictures again, they are surely directed to different markets, the last one showing the large participation of Brazil companies in Gripen construction are, IMO, ment as a "convincing" PR argument to select it instead of Rafale or SH.

                                    Take the canopy for example, it's still made in US I think but just not mentioned, same for other little bits here and there, they are just not shown. The us total parts procentiges are somewhat lower though.

                                    Whatever... A big chunk, the engine is US, about $20-25 million a piece. To think that Us would start a trade war over fuel tank sealants and some mechanical parts and lose export is stupid...

                                    BTW, Sweden(Saab) export quite a lot of military equipment to US Army and AF so...
                                    Very likely you're right but I'm taking both at face value until proven otherwise.

                                    Engine is not 20-25 million not even half that, 4.5 million seems to be the price per engine.

                                    Comment

                                    • TooCool_12f
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Dec 2009
                                      • 3321

                                      Originally posted by Siddar View Post
                                      It will be up to Saab to prove that it isn't case to the US government when they ask for export permission.
                                      We'll see then

                                      Comment

                                      • swerve
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jun 2005
                                        • 13610

                                        Originally posted by Siddar View Post
                                        A political choice to court sales is still a political act not a economic one.

                                        But please feel free to try and explain how US letting US content on Gripen be massacred for purely political reasons serves US interests?

                                        You seem to think Saab should be able to make political decisions to court sales based on political reasons but US should for some reason not defend itself.

                                        Saab knew from day one of Gripen that they would never export a Gripen without US approval it seems someone in Saab has forgotten that.

                                        But really do try and make a coherent argument for why US should tolerate what Saab has done.
                                        Your basic premise is completely wrong. If an action is taken in order to get sales (for the purpose of making money) it is a commercial decision, by definition. You ask for coherent arguments while rejecting basic logic. THINK!

                                        Note that your hypothesis is unsustainable even within the terms you set, since the US share of Gripen has not been substantially reduced. The engine, for example, is more American in Gripen E than in Gripen A-D. The RM12 is a Swedish-built development of the F404, with Swedish-designed changes. The F414 of Gripen E is made in the USA. Reductions in US content elsewhere do no more than balance out the increased engine share.

                                        Note that SAAB has already got US approval of Gripen E exports, in principle.
                                        Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                        Justinian

                                        Comment

                                        • swerve
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jun 2005
                                          • 13610

                                          Originally posted by NotOnlyaSwede View Post
                                          ...
                                          BTW, Sweden(Saab) export quite a lot of military equipment to US Army and AF so...
                                          And the US navy. SAAB radars, & Volvo makes parts for F414s which go in USN F-18Es.
                                          Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                          Justinian

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X