What's new

countries should be buying Saab’s Gripen fighter jet

That was in 2011 and Gripen C which did not have the AESA radar.
MMRCA was a dud anyway.
We have paid billion extra for India specific enhancements in Rafale. Already invested in infra for it. Either Rafale or American ( only under their pressure though) will win
 
Yes and he doesn't understand that India will never by a fighter jets from X country who is dependent on Y country for engine to put it up into the air..... Why buy such a plane when you have single supplier with engine and jet ready? That engine too will be on the mercy of uncle Sam whose mood keeps changing like a dresses.... Follow on orders for Rafales in small batches over the years is only the plan....
  • I am not going to buy an aircraft, because it is using the F414 engine.
  • Instead, I am going to design my own aircraft, and that is going to use the F414 engine.
  • Then I am going to design another aircraft with TWO F414 engines
Yes, that kind of thinking might be rational to You, but I doubt you find many that agree with you.

We have paid billion extra for India specific enhancements in Rafale. Already invested in infra for it. Either Rafale or American ( only under their pressure though) will win

Rafale is designated to launch nuclear weapons. India does not need zillions of Rafales for that.

We have paid billion extra for India specific enhancements in Rafale. Already invested in infra for it. Either Rafale or American ( only under their pressure though) will win

It will still be about twice the cost to India over the length of the program.
Do You really know what You got for the money?
Perhaps you only got what is available off the shelf for others.

What is official is that India got Meteors, SCALPs and a 5 year service contract.
If India want a further 36 Rafales, they will have to cough up more money for service.
Same for more missiles.
 
Last edited:
  • I am not going to buy an aircraft, because it is using the F414 engine.
  • Instead, I am going to design my own aircraft, and that is going to use the F414 engine.
  • Then I am going to design another aircraft with TWO F414 engines
Yes, that kind of thinking might be rational to You, but I doubt you find many that agree with you.



Rafale is designated to launch nuclear weapons. India does not need zillions of Rafales for that.



It will still be about twice the cost to India over the length of the program.
Do You really know what You got for the money?
Perhaps you only got what is available off the shelf for others.
Indian specific enhancements are classified i guess ,atleast some definitely are.......
 
  • I am not going to buy an aircraft, because it is using the F414 engine.
  • Instead, I am going to design my own aircraft, and that is going to use the F414 engine.
  • Then I am going to design another aircraft with TWO F414 engines
Yes, that kind of thinking might be rational to You, but I doubt you find many that agree with you.

Tejas is our own fighter jet and for that initially we can have foreign engines till our own engine is matured but purchasing jet from Sweden flying on USA engines just doesn't make any sense.... if we're buying jet from international markets then obviously we will go for a supplier who will give you complete plug and play product.... with Tejas any issue India will just have to face USA.... with gripen any issue India will have to face both Sweden and USA together.... Sweden too is not trustworthy supplier as they blocked our spares for boforse during kargil war... however I accept that Gripen is one really great and potent fighter jet.... no less than Rafales or typhoon....
 
  • I am not going to buy an aircraft, because it is using the F414 engine.
  • Instead, I am going to design my own aircraft, and that is going to use the F414 engine.
  • Then I am going to design another aircraft with TWO F414 engines
Yes, that kind of thinking might be rational to You, but I doubt you find many that agree with you.



Rafale is designated to launch nuclear weapons. India does not need zillions of Rafales for that.



It will still be about twice the cost to India over the length of the program.
Do You really know what You got for the money?
Perhaps you only got what is available off the shelf for others.

What is official is that India got Meteors, SCALPs and a 5 year service contract.
If India want a further 36 Rafales, they will have to cough up more money for service.
Same for more missiles.
Why are u trying to convince Indians here that buying Gripen makes sense? Let them go on their goose chases...let them build something for 20 years...and waste money and time. Would Sweden really want to deal with a country that did the whole "mother of all deals" for a decade...only to end up buying 36 after all that drama bcuz "it was too expensive". Not to mention all the headaches and long list of demands such as having to invest back in India, providing help in the development of their engine, etc. U guys should consider urselves lucky that u dodged that bullet...France got the short end of the stick. France is still trying to eat the carrot dangling in front of it(possibly more Rafale orders from IAF and IN)...let's see how that pans out.
 
Tejas is our own fighter jet and for that initially we can have foreign engines till our own engine is matured but purchasing jet from Sweden flying on USA engines just doesn't make any sense.... if we're buying jet from international markets then obviously we will go for a supplier who will give you complete plug and play product.... with Tejas any issue India will just have to face USA.... with gripen any issue India will have to face both Sweden and USA together.... Sweden too is not trustworthy supplier as they blocked our spares for boforse during kargil war... however I accept that Gripen is one really great and potent fighter jet.... no less than Rafales or typhoon....

The Kaveri was restarted with Safran, but it died again.
India will have to buy engines for the forseeable future.
If India does design an engine that can replace the F414 in Indias own aircraft,
it would also fit inside Gripen E.

No manufacturer gives you a plug and play aircrafts.
If India goes with the F-16, it should be aware that Lockheed Martin only has production rights to about 40% of the aircraft, and India may have to negotiate with Turkey and a dozen other countries for production of the other 60% which will be produced outside India.

Production of Tejas needs to involve at least the US, Israel, the UK and possibly France.

And no, India was not blocked from buying spare Haubits 77 parts. India decided to not buy any spare parts, but changed their mind when they realized how effective the Bofors gun was.
 
Last edited:
The Kaveri was restarted with Safran, but it died again.
India will have to buy engines for the forseeable future.
If India does design an engine that can replace the F414 in Indias own aircraft,
it would also fit inside Gripen E.

No manufacturer gives you a plug and play aircrafts.
If India goes with the F-16, it should be aware that Lockheed Martin only has production rights to about 40% of the aircraft, and India may have to negotiate with Turkey and a dozen other countries for production of the other 60% which will be produced outside India.

Production of Tejas needs to involve at least the US, Israel, the UK and possibly France.

And no, India was not blocked from buying spare Haubits 77 parts. India decided to not buy any spare parts, but changed their mind when they realized how effective the Bofors gun was.

I myself am a great fan of Gripen bro... but if it's coming with Swedish engine.... your boforse were damn effective and accurate... so never doubt Swedish technology.... just don't want one more totally new platform in iaf as it will be a maintenance headache...
 
I myself am a great fan of Gripen bro... but if it's coming with Swedish engine.... your boforse were damn effective and accurate... so never doubt Swedish technology.... just don't want one more totally new platform in iaf as it will be a maintenance headache...

I remember reading about a study which claimed that a common platform only makes sense until you have about 100 aircrafts. If you have two platforms with 50 aircrafts each, you would be better off with one platform with 100 aircrafts.

If you on the other hand have two platforms with 100 aircrafts each, you would NOT be better off with one platform with 200 aircrafts.
 
Gripen A/B was in production with first deliveries in 1996.
Sweden ordered a total of 204 Gripen.
The same year, it was decided the remainder of the order (about half) would be the upgraded NATO compatible C/D version. It was also decided to reduce the size of the Air Force, first to 140, then to 100 aircraft. All the ordered aircrafts were delivered, but the surplus aircrafts were sold or leased to other countries that passed through the needlehole.

Swedish Law requires that any interested buyer is evaluated according to a number of criteria, which are weighed together to give a go, no go for a weapons sale.
How democratic a country is has quite heavy weight. Military Coups likewise but results in anegative rating. Once someone gets approval, follow on orders of spares etc are generally not a problem, even if conditions change.

With a series of military coups, it was obvious Pakistan would not make the cut.
Yet Sweden is still in the running offering weapons systems to a country (India) that has been occupying Kashmiris for over 70 years, whose leadership has essentially declared that it wants to commit a form of ethnic cleansing in Kashmir by allowing settlers from the rest of India, a country that has passed laws clearly discriminating against a particular community.
 
The Gripen NG fighter jet by all accounts is an excellent fighting aircraft and in direct comparisons can keep up with the world’s best, costing nearly half the price of the F-35.

Gripen performance is very strong even compared to the most expensive fighters

When comparing the Gripen to other fighter jets that are available on the market, things look very positive for Saab, despite the difficulties finding clients. The jet can outcompete the Eurofighter for instance in a number of key areas. Whilst there is never a perfect fighter and each will have its downsides, the Gripen’s lower price tag is not backed up with lesser performance. Whilst being nearly $40m cheaper than a Eurofighter the Gripen has a better range, higher speed, less weight and lower operating costs. Currently the Eurofighter can provide a larger range of variant types to suit different operating roles, but ultimately the Gripen can carry all relevant NATO spec weapons, so countries are not lumbered with new weapon costs or retrofits.

Gripen’s overall cost of a fleet of 150 NG Gripens for more than 40 years is approximately $22bn. Which when compared to the F-35 that the USA and UK are purchasing is significantly cheaper at 48% of the cost of a fleet of 65 F-35As. So effectively a country could purchase a great deal more fighters and still save money over the F-35. Ultimately unless the country is requiring some unique and staggeringly expensive stealth technology (which is the technological focus of the new breed of top fighters) then the Gripen is an extremely good package for the money compared to what else is available.

The Gripen NG includes some excellent technology advances

Gripen includes some unique tricks in order to maintain an advantage and keep the ability of the vehicle high, without compromising the intended low price point of the vehicle. AESA radars have changed aerial combat, offering huge improvements in range, resolution, fast scanning capabilities, stealth and reliability for radar systems. But the system does have limitations in its rather narrow field of view. Saab has used a clever spinning ‘repositioner’ in the nose of the jet which allows the angle to be increased significantly.


This allows the Gripen the ability to take a shot from beyond visual range, and then turn 90 degrees in avoidance tactics, while still providing mid-course updates for the missile fired and keeping situational awareness high in mid combat. With new missiles that have extreme ranges, like MBDA’s Meteor, a Gripen NG could fire at enemy fighters at extreme range and then effectively hide from enemy radar and infrared tracking systems used on other types of fighters, while still guiding its missiles. This development, though relatively minor in cost, provides a major benefit to the new series of Gripens and is one of the ways that the Gripen can maintain relevancy when compared with its peers.

The Saab ‘Gripen-E’

Gripen-E is upgraded fighter of gripen series .It is a light fighter with advanced electronic warfare capabilities and a broader multirole capabilities .

The AESA radar of gripen is superior and has higher field of view than other AESA radars in the world ,the field of view of gripen’s radar is 120 while most other radars has a field of view of 60 degree . Gripens have one of the most advanced tactical links . Gripen carries high off bore sight capable air to air missiles and they carry pretty deadly advanced air to air missiles such as AMRAAM- one of the deadliest missiles out in sky and a helment mounted display to lock and launch missiles! Which can target adversery at 90 degree off the sight! And they have IRST too. The next deadly weapon of grippen is meteor a long range air to air missile , which has three times the kill proablility of AMRAAM and with high range and mordern than it. Meteor has no escape zone of 60km! Gripen have defeated F16s and F18s in combat exercises in 2004 (thats a older gripen variant) Gripen proved to be superior especially in BVR combats than the F16 and F18. Grippen have advanced datalink as I have already mentioned .

Gripen E has weapons like guided glide bombs, long-range and agile air-to-air missiles and heavy anti-ship armaments. Additionally, the aircraft has an inherent precision strike and stand-off capability, says Saab Gripen E offers here is a Contemporary Electronic Warfare abilities that is what truly matters in Next Gen. warfare. The price is high but that is because Gripen has got so much to offer.



Current foreign customers are relatively small military powers with small orders

Whilst the specific selling point of the Gripen has been to capture western friendly nations that cannot afford more expensive machinery, part of the problem for the future is that these countries have a small demand for vehicles and update slowly and in limited orders. Coupled with this the bidding process is expensive and fraught with difficulties, usually requiring numerous commitments from defense companies to secure loans for the country or to manufacture the vehicles in the country. Despite some positive orders in the past it is difficult to see Saab raising more than 50-100 new aircraft sales from its existing friendly clients, which means that in order for Saab to meet its expected orders of 300 aircraft, it will have to find multiple new clients, that meet Sweden’s arms sales criteria.
I won't buy Grippen, I will rather buy Selex/Leonardo radar it sports (Raven-E or something). That radar IS indeed good. Take that radar and F-414 and build a plane around that which is best suited for your usecase. You will have integration with best of the missiles and an option to extend it.

Yet Sweden is still in the running offering weapons systems to a country (India) that has been occupying Kashmiris for over 70 years, whose leadership has essentially declared that it wants to commit a form of ethnic cleansing in Kashmir by allowing settlers from the rest of India, a country that has passed laws clearly discriminating against a particular community.
Business.

I myself am a great fan of Gripen bro... but if it's coming with Swedish engine.... your boforse were damn effective and accurate... so never doubt Swedish technology.... just don't want one more totally new platform in iaf as it will be a maintenance headache...
I always wonder why India did not select Leonardo/Selex Radar for its own fighter jet program. It has more integration with a number of missiles from US/EU.
 
Which would be fine as a justification, but the poster I was responding to was arguing that Sweden ‘refused to sell the Gripen to Pakistan because of her record on democracy and military coups’.

So my issue isn’t with the justification of ‘business’ as much as it is with hiding behind BS about ‘caring for democracy & human rights’.
 
Which would be fine as a justification, but the poster I was responding to was arguing that Sweden ‘refused to sell the Gripen to Pakistan because of her record on democracy and military coups’.

So my issue isn’t with the justification of ‘business’ as much as it is with hiding behind BS about ‘caring for democracy & human rights’.
PR is a part of business.
 
Back
Top Bottom