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
  • Tonnyc
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Dec 2013
    • 102

    You know who's going to scream the loudest if the US government prohibits the export of GE F-414 to Brazil? General Electric. Because then the US government would have denied them an order worth hundreds of millions of dollars plus who knows how many billions in follow-up contracts. There had better be a damn good reason and some sweet sweet bribe to make up for it. Removal of US components from Gripen? GE doesn't give a damn about that, the parts removed aren't what they're selling, and they will lobby the hell out of the US government if some two-bit fuel valve manufacturer tried to kill their hundred million dollars engine order to "protect US interests".
    Last edited by Tonnyc; 22nd March 2016, 14:52.

    Comment

    • NotOnlyaSwede
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Sep 2005
      • 55

      Siddar, you're correct, was thinking in ~SEK...

      Comment

      • Spitfire9
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jul 2008
        • 2834

        Originally posted by Siddar View Post
        The global aviation industry does not work like that. Replacing all US content except engines on a plane is not a economic action.
        If I manufacture something containing parts where a government (not MY government) can stop me selling my product to a customer, it makes business sense for me to try to replace all components from that other country if practical to prevent political control over my product by that other country. To me that is an economic action on my part. Since there is no practical possibility of substituting a different engine with Gripen E, I don't see any possibility of avoiding USA having to agree to an export sale, so the only reason I see for substituting American components with others is (a) if non-US components are cheaper/better (b) to provide offset work to export customers.

        You have talked about political actions quite a lot in your posts. Surely you cannot get more political in this matter than a country in which Gripen E is not manufactured deciding who buys it. That is not a risk. It is a certainty. UK govt would refuse supply of UK components in Gripen to Argentina. Equally USA would block supply of US components in Gripen to any country USA had blacklisted. Sweden the same.
        Sum ergo cogito

        Comment

        • Sintra
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Aug 2007
          • 3849

          Originally posted by Siddar View Post
          The only reason the Gripen exists is because US granted technology on very favorable terms.
          The Gripen exists because the Swedish government choosed to invest in it in the eighties, end of story. The main American components on the aircraft, the engine and the fly by wire system were chosen through competition, more specificaly the F404 faced a version of the Turbo Union RB199, and the GD fly by wire faced an offer from MBB.

          Originally posted by Siddar View Post
          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.
          OH the Ebil Swedes! How dare they choose non American components for their fighter?!
          No, it was not "a political act against US", thats Sweden, not North Korea. The equipments were chosen through competition or there was a requirement from their main export customer, Brasil (see the Wide Area Display, by AKAER, or the Brasilian Data Link).
          If somehow the US would block the sale of the F414 to Sweden, then GE and SAAB would be worse for it, Eurojet would be delighted.
          sigpic

          Comment

          • Sintra
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Aug 2007
            • 3849

            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.
            Something that they have been doing for decades and have absolutely no problems with it. The US Government doesnt seem to agree with you! What a surprise, eh?
            A citizen of the US, the biggest weapons exporter on the planet asking for proteccionism and stoping exports of engines to friendly western Countries... Rich...
            Last edited by Sintra; 22nd March 2016, 15:12.
            sigpic

            Comment

            • Sintra
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Aug 2007
              • 3849

              Originally posted by NotOnlyaSwede View Post
              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.
              The Gripen canopy is British, GKN Aerospace.
              sigpic

              Comment

              • NotOnlyaSwede
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Sep 2005
                • 55

                Aha, ok, sorry US...

                Comment

                • Siddar
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Feb 2013
                  • 263

                  Originally posted by Sintra View Post
                  The Gripen exists because the Swedish government choosed to invest in it in the eighties, end of story. The main American components on the aircraft, the engine and the fly by wire system were chosen through competition, more specificaly the F404 faced a version of the Turbo Union RB199, and the GD fly by wire faced an offer from MBB.



                  OH the Ebil Swedes! How dare they choose non American components for their fighter?!
                  No, it was not "a political act against US", thats Sweden, not North Korea. The equipments were chosen through competition or there was a requirement from their main export customer, Brasil (see the Wide Area Display, by AKAER, or the Brasilian Data Link).
                  If somehow the US would block the sale of the F414 to Sweden, then GE and SAAB would be worse for it, Eurojet would be delighted.
                  Protectionism is keeping products out of a countries domestic market. US blocking export of Gripen has nothing to do with protectionism.

                  If Brazil was responsible for the equipment sourcing choices then a dual message should be sent to both Saab and Brazil by blocking Gripen exports.

                  GE can go to hell as well by the way they're not really an american company anymore.

                  Comment

                  • Spitfire9
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jul 2008
                    • 2834

                    Originally posted by Siddar View Post
                    GE can go to hell as well by the way they're not really an american company anymore.
                    Why do you say that? Is it because not all the shares in the company are owned by US citizens/companies (and all the shares in those companies are owned by US-based entities)? Is it because not all GE products are entirely developed and manufactured on US soil? What conditions need to be met for a company to really be an American company?
                    Sum ergo cogito

                    Comment

                    • Sintra
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Aug 2007
                      • 3849

                      Originally posted by Siddar View Post
                      Protectionism is keeping products out of a countries domestic market. US blocking export of Gripen has nothing to do with protectionism.

                      Off course, your rant has nothing to do with the competition that SAAB has been doing with Lockheed and Boeing, and your problem with that particular aircraft has nothing to do with protecting LMs and Boeings exports... Right

                      Originally posted by Siddar View Post
                      If Brazil was responsible for the equipment sourcing choices then a dual message should be sent to both Saab and Brazil by blocking Gripen exports.

                      GE can go to hell as well by the way they're not really an american company anymore.
                      Warn the State Dpt they didnt get your memo.
                      Last edited by Sintra; 22nd March 2016, 17:21.
                      sigpic

                      Comment

                      • Tonnyc
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Dec 2013
                        • 102

                        Originally posted by Siddar View Post
                        If Brazil was responsible for the equipment sourcing choices then a dual message should be sent to both Saab and Brazil by blocking Gripen exports.

                        GE can go to hell as well by the way they're not really an american company anymore.
                        Hahaha. Send a message to Saab and Brazil indeed. Yeah, you go ahead and try that. Good luck trying to outlobby General Electric.

                        I am not saying that it's impossible for the U.S. to embargo Brazil, but it will be for something like a coup d'tat over there, or Brazil aligning with Russia or China. Not for some piddly little stuff like component sourcing changes on Gripen.

                        Comment

                        • maurobaggio
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jul 2008
                          • 521

                          Originally posted by NotOnlyaSwede View Post
                          Maurobaggio, in your last link:

                          There you have it...
                          I'm not sure about that...

                          In my humble opinion if some country has been considering to develop and produce a modern fighter, it has been necessary full knowledge about the technology of this engine, at least India has been request this in relation to F414 engine:

                          “The US manufacturer has won a deal to supply 99 F414-INS6 turbofans for the Tejas MkII, following a selection decision by India's Aeronautical Development Agency.
                          "GE Aviation will supply the initial batch of engines and the rest will be manufactured in India under a transfer of technology arrangement," says GE India chief executive John Flannery in a 1 October statement.”

                          https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ighter-348059/

                          Apparently it has no been necessary to sign a contract to purchase the Gripen E with a requirement of 100% of ToT to obtain access of technologies from Saab:

                          A top Saab official told Business Standard on the condition of anonymity: "If we are approached by the government of India, Saab would be happy to partner the Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO),

                          Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) or an Indian private company in not just manufacturing fighters in India, but in developing real capabilities for building a single-engine fighter for the IAF."

                          In 2012, DRDO chief VK Saraswat had sent Saab a "Request for Information", followed in January 2013 with a "Request for Proposal" inviting Saab to jointly audit the Tejas design with DRDO.

                          http://www.business-standard.com/art...1800799_1.html

                          However, the following text should be emblematic:

                          The agreement comes with a strong technology commitment from Sweden to transfer "everything" that Brazil will need to develop its own next-generation military jets.

                          http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...deal/74415116/

                          By placing quotes around the word “everything” in the text from article above , indeed this grammar option could give several meaning for it, as well as the ironic sense at the word of “everything”, once for the author could not longer means everything as his wrote, so that “everything” could have been meaning like something or even nothing important...
                          Last edited by maurobaggio; 24th March 2016, 03:09.

                          Comment

                          • FBW
                            FBW
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Dec 2011
                            • 3295

                            Some of you posting here about ToT of the F414 would do well by reading the new ITAR laws. There are certain parts of domestic fighter turbofans that are absolutely restricted from ToT agreements as S. Korea is finding out the hard way on the T-50. GE cannot transfer; Saab cannot transfer this technology as it is restricted.
                            It is this simple:

                            https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/FR/2016/81FR02587.pdf

                            Comment

                            • Tonnyc
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Dec 2013
                              • 102

                              Originally posted by FBW View Post
                              Some of you posting here about ToT of the F414 would do well by reading the new ITAR laws. There are certain parts of domestic fighter turbofans that are absolutely restricted from ToT agreements as S. Korea is finding out the hard way on the T-50. GE cannot transfer; Saab cannot transfer this technology as it is restricted.
                              It is this simple:

                              https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/FR/2016/81FR02587.pdf
                              This isn't for FBW in particular.

                              There are two things I want to address in relation with the F414 engine in Gripen NG.

                              One is the idea that the USG will block the sale of F414 engines to Brazil for some reason. This is not going to happen barring some major political event in either Brazil or the U.S. that makes Brazil somehow a pariah state to the U.S. No, the reduction of U.S.-made components in the Gripen NG is not sufficient reason. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is not a profitable action.

                              Two is the idea that Brazil is getting the F414 technology. A few individuals insist that Saab swindled Brazil by promising Brazil things that Saab can't possibly accomplish, such as giving Brazil F414 technology. This is delusional. Saab is not some two-bit swindler out to make a quick buck. Brazil is not some stupid hick easily tricked by outlandish promises. Both Saab and Brazil know exactly what is and what is not in the deal. And the technology to make F414 is not in the deal. Brazil knows that, Saab knows that. And if some individuals chose to be deluded, well, that's their choice. Brazil and Saab will proceed with what's in the contract, not with what's on their delusional minds.
                              Last edited by Tonnyc; 24th March 2016, 05:47. Reason: typo

                              Comment

                              • Halo
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Apr 2009
                                • 212

                                @siddar, get back to your board games!
                                The power and wealth of the west is and has been built on free trade, I'm sure US government is very happy that they export high tech components. I do not think that SAAB or Boeing care on what side of the border a great product is made as long as it can contribute to their own product.

                                Comment

                                • FBW
                                  FBW
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Dec 2011
                                  • 3295

                                  Originally posted by Tonnyc View Post
                                  This isn't for FBW in particular.

                                  There are two things I want to address in relation with the F414 engine in Gripen NG.

                                  One is the idea that the USG will block the sale of F414 engines to Brazil for some reason. This is not going to happen barring some major political event in either Brazil or the U.S. that makes Brazil somehow a pariah state to the U.S. No, the reduction of U.S.-made components in the Gripen NG is not sufficient reason. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is not a profitable action.
                                  .
                                  All very true, there is a difference between blocking a sale and not transferring sensitive technology. Saab made the decision to use the F414 for obvious reasons: size, power, familiarity with the F404, bypass ratio, economies of scale. It is absolute bunk to think that Saab could/would just "drop" in a replacement engine such as the EJ2000. Simply does not work that way: you might have to redesign the intakes and ducting, redesign the rear fuselage, center of gravity issues, on and on. For what? Would the UK allow Rolls Royce, or Germany allow MTU, to export restricted technology?

                                  I cant think of very many nations that the US would raise a howl over Saab selling the Gripen to (that Sweden and others owning intellectual property in the Gripen would be willing to), and the objection would likely be on the sale any fighter to said nation.

                                  For ITAR restrictions on the F414, the issue is the transfer of hot section components (high and low pressure blades, vanes, disks- esp. actively cooled), information on the composition (composites, alloys, thermal coatings) of restricted engine sections,etc. The restrictions have actually eased in the last few years over what can be exported. Note: the new ITAR rules are not specifically about exporting the engine, it restricts the classified technology needed to design/build high performance turbofans. As the PLAAF has found, you can have the engine, reverse engineer it to a degree, but the methods for manufacturing, metallurgy, tolerances, are not easily replicated.

                                  Comment

                                  • swerve
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jun 2005
                                    • 13610

                                    The justification for the EJ200 would have been avoidance of US restrictions on the export of the F414 - NOT connected to the transfer of the technology to make the engine. It's not an unreasonable concern. The USA has been known to obstruct exports of non-US weapons & systems which include US technology while the same US technology (even the same components) is approved for export to the same customers at the same time - but in weapons made in the USA. These matters are often resolved eventually, as with the UK sale of Paveway IV to Saudi Arabia, which went through - with a delay.

                                    The UK & Germany don't have such a record. Germany limits what it will sell to who, but does not usually apply that to German parts in things made & sold by its allies.

                                    The Swedes (who as you rightly say have their own scruples about who they will export what to) obviously thought that was not enough of a concern to avoid using the F414, & so far they have been right.
                                    Last edited by swerve; 24th March 2016, 13:59.
                                    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                    Justinian

                                    Comment

                                    • swerve
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jun 2005
                                      • 13610

                                      Sweden has never designed & built every part of a jet fighter. From the J21R onwards, engines have been either imported, or license built with some imported components. SAAB can & does offer to teach others how to design & build jet fighters, but that does not & can not include how to design & make every component. SAAB knows about designing & building aircraft as a whole - not every nut & bolt that goes into them. But knowing how to make every nut & bolt is not, in itself, enough to produce your own aircraft. You need to know how to make them go together properly, the integration of many components & sub-assemblies (including talking to suppliers & getting them to make exactly what you want), & how to design & make the overall structure they fit into.

                                      Embraer knows how to do all that for aircraft from propellor driven trainers up to commuter jets. It appears to be successfully applying that knowledge to the design & development of a military transport jet. SAAB can help Embraer build on that solid base & add the skills to make an up-to-date supersonic jet fighter.

                                      Let us consider what Embraer is actually doing now. Does anyone deny that it can design & build internationally competitive commuter jets? And turboprop-powered trainers? Surveillance aircraft on civil platforms? No, of course not. Some US manufacturers have even lobbied (unsuccessfully - the US congress & government had more sense) for political barriers to be put in Embraer's way because they feared its competition. So, there's no doubt that Embraer is a world-class designer & manufacturer of aircraft in particular niches - with engines & a hell of a lot of other parts bought in. In that, it's exactly like Boeing & Airbus. It's how the world works.

                                      We're being asked here to say that the Swedish offer accompanying Gripen E is a swindle because it does not include what Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed Martin, BAE etc. can't do. Doh! It's being suggested that because SAAB has replaced some US parts by others (while simultaneously replacing some other parts by US-made parts) that it should be punished by the US state. Again doh! This is all idiocy.
                                      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 Halo View Post
                                        @siddar, get back to your board games!
                                        The power and wealth of the west is and has been built on free trade, I'm sure US government is very happy that they export high tech components. I do not think that SAAB or Boeing care on what side of the border a great product is made as long as it can contribute to their own product.
                                        http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...bloomberg-poll

                                        Comment

                                        • swerve
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jun 2005
                                          • 13610

                                          Not what you've been arguing for. You propose that the USA should stop country A buying something from the USA & selling it to country B, & country B buying stuff from the USA to put into things made in country B. What has that got to do with protecting US jobs?

                                          You're proposing banning US exports, to 'punish' customers for not buying more. Doh!
                                          Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                          Justinian

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X