ThePointblank wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

Initially you did not talk generally, when you said, that the Gripen never came out ahead of the F-16. Dont do it now.

Name a customer that has chosen the Gripen over the F-16 when both were offered.

Since you ignored it the first time, I will mention it again:

The Czech Republic, Hungary, South Africa, Botswana, Thailand, Brazil, Switzerland and Sweden all chose the Gripen over the F-16. The F-16 was offered in all cases.

VSMUT wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

Initially you did not talk generally, when you said, that the Gripen never came out ahead of the F-16. Dont do it now.

Name a customer that has chosen the Gripen over the F-16 when both were offered.

Since you ignored it the first time, I will mention it again:

The Czech Republic, Hungary, South Africa, Botswana, Thailand, Brazil, Switzerland and Sweden all chose the Gripen over the F-16. The F-16 was offered in all cases.

I certainly have the impression that F-16 is a thing fading into the past compared to Gripen E being a thing of the future.

I also have the impression that Swedish SAAB is a more reliable company to partner with than American LM. It only needs Trump to decide that India is not toeing the line in some way or other for LM to stop being co-operative. Same risk applies to the supply of the US content of Gripen E, of course. By nature the USA is an unreliable partner since the country does not see a contract as a contract that cannot be suspended / broken unilaterally if USA changes its mind.

anshabhi wrote:

Yeah you want India to rely on an organization which could not even make a capable jet in 33 years. Even Navy rejected it and IAF knows its not enough.

FYI, Gripen project started in 1979 and entered service in 1997.

anshabhi wrote:

And some good news for you- Saab is partnering with Adani and India will make a big announcement before 18 February.

Good, it will be fast tracked like there is no tomorrow. Let me predict, the scam investigation starts in 2020.

anshabhi wrote:

And some good news for you- Saab is partnering with Adani and India will make a big announcement before 18 February.

FAKE NEWS!!!!

Anyways, Saab has made it clear that it will take 3 years to start deliveries from whenever it's awarded contract. By 2020, if no new deal is signed, IAF will be down to 20 squadrons.

dtw2hyd wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

Yeah you want India to rely on an organization which could not even make a capable jet in 33 years. Even Navy rejected it and IAF knows its not enough.

FYI, Gripen project started in 1979 and entered service in 1997.

anshabhi wrote:

And some good news for you- Saab is partnering with Adani and India will make a big announcement before 18 February.

Good, it will be fast tracked like there is no tomorrow. Let me predict, the scam investigation starts in 2020.

Development of the Gripen began back in 1982. It first took to the air in December 1989, becoming operational (in the
Swedish Air Force) in 1996. The first JAS-39C, on which the SAAF version is based, was delivered in September 2002.

anshabhi wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

And some good news for you- Saab is partnering with Adani and India will make a big announcement before 18 February.

FAKE NEWS!!!!

Anyways, Saab has made it clear that it will take 3 years to start deliveries from whenever it's awarded contract. By 2020, if no new deal is signed, IAF will be down to 20 squadrons.

FAKE NEWS? You really should cross-check your facts. Heres some reading for you:

Bloomberg report


While certain parts of the Gripen E planes will be built in factories fully owned by Saab, other components will be manufactured jointly, said Jan Widerstrom, chairman of Saab India Technologies Pvt. The Adani Group could be among companies being considered, the Economic Times reported in May, without saying where it got the information.


Business Insider

[i]
The Adani Group is planning to invest in defence and aerospace production, thanks to Modi's 'Make in India' campaign.

According to media reports, the company is in talks with international defence companies for a strategic partnership to set up a defence manufacturing hub in India. It has been pitching its main asset — the country's largest private port with it's sea and land links and the SEZ at Mundra in Gujarat.

Sweden's Saab is among the few companies being approached for these partnerships.[i]

But then again what do Bloomberg, CNN, Business Standard, CNBC etc know? As Trump Sir rightly described them: they are FAKE NEWS!

A little info on the LM position:

- the assembly plant has work until September
but when would India come to place an order (including a deposit) if it chose F-16?

- Randy Howard, of F-16 business development, is confident that this will not be a challenge. He says the F-16 is well placed to win various international deals for new fighters...
but if LM do win contracts for new F-16's, when would the assembly line be free to be shipped to India? I thought the logic of the deal was for the equipment used for F-16 production to be moved to India when the line in the USA closed. That would mean production either in the USA or in India (some time after US production ended).

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ch-434158/

Both Gripen and F16 are good deals for America, GE will sell F414s anyway. GE-India relationship is more mature and less troublesome than any other US-India partnerships and it is wide ranging from gas turbines for utilities, locos, civil aviation, army,navy, air force and even aircraft carrier. Large scale Tejas MK2 and Gripen-E production should be good for GE.

art wrote:

A little info on the LM position:

- the assembly plant has work until September
but when would India come to place an order (including a deposit) if it chose F-16?

- Randy Howard, of F-16 business development, is confident that this will not be a challenge. He says the F-16 is well placed to win various international deals for new fighters...
but if LM do win contracts for new F-16's, when would the assembly line be free to be shipped to India? I thought the logic of the deal was for the equipment used for F-16 production to be moved to India when the line in the USA closed. That would mean production either in the USA or in India (some time after US production ended).

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ch-434158/

There are also reports that Trump might deny LM permission to move to India:

http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news ... hands.html

It would be very short sighted to not see that F16 demand will completely dry up in next 5 years. F35, Gripen and Rafale will be the main competitors then.
Saab's make in India offer is a lot better than LM as well.

Saab has offered modern sensor's package for Tejas: http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/02 ... 487175933/ they would be made in India as well.

anshabhi wrote:

It would be very short sighted to not see that F16 demand will completely dry up in next 5 years.

5 years? More like 6 months. The F-16 is dead.

VSMUT wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

It would be very short sighted to not see that F16 demand will completely dry up in next 5 years.

5 years? More like 6 months. The F-16 is dead.

USA could tell India (openly/covertly) that exports of Gripen E from an Indian production line would not be possible unless they left the engine out of the deal whereas exports of F-16 from an Indian production line would be possible with an engine as part of the deal.

art wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

It would be very short sighted to not see that F16 demand will completely dry up in next 5 years.

5 years? More like 6 months. The F-16 is dead.

USA could tell India (openly/covertly) that exports of Gripen E from an Indian production line would not be possible unless they left the engine out of the deal whereas exports of F-16 from an Indian production line would be possible with an engine as part of the deal.

Yeah, but export it to who? 6 additional frames for Pakistan and 3 for Iraq? Nobody is buying the F-16. The entire concept of exporting F-16s from India is a folly, thats why LM has made that offer.

art wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

It would be very short sighted to not see that F16 demand will completely dry up in next 5 years.

5 years? More like 6 months. The F-16 is dead.

USA could tell India (openly/covertly) that exports of Gripen E from an Indian production line would not be possible unless they left the engine out of the deal whereas exports of F-16 from an Indian production line would be possible with an engine as part of the deal.

For US, made in Sweden or made in India should be the same thing.
Denying its one of the most important allys will invite a diplomatic tsunami for US. After all, India wants the best to fight common enemy- China.
That will not happen, unless India decides to export to North Korea or Russia..

VSMUT wrote:

art wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

5 years? More like 6 months. The F-16 is dead.

USA could tell India (openly/covertly) that exports of Gripen E from an Indian production line would not be possible unless they left the engine out of the deal whereas exports of F-16 from an Indian production line would be possible with an engine as part of the deal.

Yeah, but export it to who? 6 additional frames for Pakistan and 3 for Iraq? Nobody is buying the F-16. The entire concept of exporting F-16s from India is a folly, thats why LM has made that offer.

That's because buying any new 4th or 4.5th gen fighters in another 5-10 years is a complete folly. Either you are buying the F-35, or you are buying the Russian PAK-FA, or the Chinese stealth aircraft, or developing one yourself. There's a massive fundamental difference between how a 5th generation fighter can fight, and a 4th or 4.5th gen fighter can do, to the point where if you are sitting in a 4th or 4.5th gen fighter and you are going up against a 5th gen platform assuming similar pilot skill levels, you are as good as dead, 99 times out of 100.

ThePointblank wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

art wrote:

USA could tell India (openly/covertly) that exports of Gripen E from an Indian production line would not be possible unless they left the engine out of the deal whereas exports of F-16 from an Indian production line would be possible with an engine as part of the deal.

Yeah, but export it to who? 6 additional frames for Pakistan and 3 for Iraq? Nobody is buying the F-16. The entire concept of exporting F-16s from India is a folly, thats why LM has made that offer.

That's because buying any new 4th or 4.5th gen fighters in another 5-10 years is a complete folly. Either you are buying the F-35, or you are buying the Russian PAK-FA, or the Chinese stealth aircraft, or developing one yourself. There's a massive fundamental difference between how a 5th generation fighter can fight, and a 4th or 4.5th gen fighter can do, to the point where if you are sitting in a 4th or 4.5th gen fighter and you are going up against a 5th gen platform assuming similar pilot skill levels, you are as good as dead, 99 times out of 100.

So what does - let's say - Peru or Botswana or Slovakia do to have a fighter force that is not a 99% waste of money? Buy 12 F-35? What does that cost? Say $1.1 billion... + quite a lot more than $1.1 billion in setup costs + (for the aircraft's service life) having to pay LM or a partner country to do a lot of the maintenance + having to pay LM for targeting databases... and what is ALIS going to cost? I don't think countries with small budgets for a small fighter force can afford it. This is where Gripen is going to be very difficult to beat. If Gripen is built in India, Asian countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand , Philippines could be customers.

By the way, a 4th generation fighter v a Cessna 172 smuggling drugs is going get the better of the Cessna more than 99% of the time. Same thing for hijacked airliners.

art wrote:

So what does - let's say - Peru or Botswana or Slovakia do to have a fighter force that is not a 99% waste of money? Buy 12 F-35? What does that cost? Say $1.1 billion... + quite a lot more than $1.1 billion in setup costs + (for the aircraft's service life) having to pay LM or a partner country to do a lot of the maintenance + having to pay LM for targeting databases... and what is ALIS going to cost?

Those costs would be essentially similar to what a customer would pay for a Gripen E. Remember Gripen E apparently has sensor fusion, but fuses with what database? And if you can't maintain an F-35 why would you be able to maintain a Gripen E?

Having ALIS actually makes maintaining your aircraft easier than current aircraft, it will tell you when parts need to be replaced as well as order them from the global stockpile, a global stockpile that allows you to have a reduced spares holding, directly saving money.

art wrote:

I don't think countries with small budgets for a small fighter force can afford it. This is where Gripen is going to be very difficult to beat. If Gripen is built in India, Asian countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand , Philippines could be customers.

Thailand already has Gripen C and will likely pick up more as they are retired from Swedish service. They won't be buying new builds again. The Philippines ordered T-50s and won't be getting Gripen anything. Malaysia has already said no to Gripen, as has Indonesia.

The future for small air forces is not Gripen E, it is T-50, M-346, Yak-130, Tejas or JF-17. Gripen A/C failed to be the light fighter replacement for nations operating F-5s and MiG-21s, why is Gripen E going to be any different?

ThePointblank wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

art wrote:

USA could tell India (openly/covertly) that exports of Gripen E from an Indian production line would not be possible unless they left the engine out of the deal whereas exports of F-16 from an Indian production line would be possible with an engine as part of the deal.

Yeah, but export it to who? 6 additional frames for Pakistan and 3 for Iraq? Nobody is buying the F-16. The entire concept of exporting F-16s from India is a folly, thats why LM has made that offer.

That's because buying any new 4th or 4.5th gen fighters in another 5-10 years is a complete folly. Either you are buying the F-35, or you are buying the Russian PAK-FA, or the Chinese stealth aircraft, or developing one yourself. There's a massive fundamental difference between how a 5th generation fighter can fight, and a 4th or 4.5th gen fighter can do, to the point where if you are sitting in a 4th or 4.5th gen fighter and you are going up against a 5th gen platform assuming similar pilot skill levels, you are as good as dead, 99 times out of 100.

Feels like you are slipping off the road a little bit here. India will most likely have the PAK-FA as well, but since we alllow ourselves to speculate, why would you want to buy a F-35 whose only advantage is against a 4th or maybe a 4,5th generation fighter? because,lets face it, sitting in a F-35 assuming similar pilot skills,facing another 5th generation fighter you are as good as dead 99 times out of 100, right?

ThePointblank wrote:

That's because buying any new 4th or 4.5th gen fighters in another 5-10 years is a complete folly. Either you are buying the F-35, or you are buying the Russian PAK-FA, or the Chinese stealth aircraft, or developing one yourself.

And yet, according to LM, there IS a market for antique fighters such as the F-16. That is part of LMs own sales pitch to India.

On top of that, why do you assume that every future conflict will involve 5th generation wielding jets? You do realise that there is a world outside of the Americas, right? The Eritrean-Ethiopian war featured some quite hefty fighting (air combat included). Regarding potential India enemies, Pakistan doesn't have any 5th generation fighters.
For the export potential, most African nations will never be able to afford the F-35 or any other so-called "5th generation fighter". Said African nations also have a habit of getting into wars with each other from time to time. Most won't even be allowed to buy a 5th generation fighter if they could afford it.

Ozair wrote:

art wrote:

So what does - let's say - Peru or Botswana or Slovakia do to have a fighter force that is not a 99% waste of money? Buy 12 F-35? What does that cost? Say $1.1 billion... + quite a lot more than $1.1 billion in setup costs + (for the aircraft's service life) having to pay LM or a partner country to do a lot of the maintenance + having to pay LM for targeting databases... and what is ALIS going to cost?

Those costs would be essentially similar to what a customer would pay for a Gripen E. Remember Gripen E apparently has sensor fusion, but fuses with what database? And if you can't maintain an F-35 why would you be able to maintain a Gripen E?

Having ALIS actually makes maintaining your aircraft easier than current aircraft, it will tell you when parts need to be replaced as well as order them from the global stockpile, a global stockpile that allows you to have a reduced spares holding, directly saving money.

Cost of buying (just the aircraft) similar for F-35 and Gripen E? I think Gripen E is somewhat cheaper. 36 for Brazil cost $4,5 billion including not just extras but TOT and setting up a Brazilian production line. Figure for the deal apparently subsequently rose to take account of tailoring it to Brazilian requirements. At the $4.5 billion figure the average cost of aircraft plus all the extra components of the deal was $125 million each.

I thought there were quite a few restrictions on maintaining F-35 which denied buyers doing all the maintenance they would normally do. If so that means maintenance jobs that could be done locally at a labour cost of X dollars an hour will have to be done out of the country at a cost of Y dollars an hour. I am pretty sure that it will be the case that Y>X. I believe F-35 CPFH in USAF service is several times as much as what Sweden pays to fly Gripen C. Swedish govt figures show Gripen C costing <$5,000 CPFH. Even if Gripen E costs 50% more (say $7,500 CPFH), flying one for 6,000 hours would cost $45 million. In contrast I think F-35 would cost well over $100 million.

In short, I think Gripen E costs will be in an entirely different league to F-35 costs.

I think the statement I made in my earlier post holds true:

art wrote:

I don't think countries with small budgets for a small fighter force can afford it. This is where Gripen is going to be very difficult to beat[ If Gripen is built in India, Asian countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand , Philippines could be customers.

Ozair wrote:

The future for small air forces is not Gripen E, it is T-50, M-346, Yak-130, Tejas or JF-17. Gripen A/C failed to be the light fighter replacement for nations operating F-5s and MiG-21s, why is Gripen E going to be any different?

[/quote]

I think Gripen E is going to have a slice of the market where countries can afford something that costs more than KAI F-50/Tejas Mk1A with higher performance than those but which cannot afford the performance offered by Super Hornet/Rafale/Typhoon/F-35.

Indian Defence Minister Mr Manohar Parrikar announces Gripen-E to be made in India:

https://facebook.com/IADnews/photos/a.2 ... 612631657/

anshabhi wrote:

Indian Defence Minister Mr Manohar Parrikar announces Gripen-E to be made in India:

https://facebook.com/IADnews/photos/a.2 ... 612631657/

No sign of this news on the iadn.in site.

Is this 'alternative news''?

art wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

Indian Defence Minister Mr Manohar Parrikar announces Gripen-E to be made in India:

https://facebook.com/IADnews/photos/a.2 ... 612631657/

No sign of this news on the iadn.in site.

Is this 'alternative news''?

It appears they have removed it from FB page as well. Sooner or later, that's going to be true however.

art wrote:

Cost of buying (just the aircraft) similar for F-35 and Gripen E? I think Gripen E is somewhat cheaper. 36 for Brazil cost $4,5 billion including not just extras but TOT and setting up a Brazilian production line. Figure for the deal apparently subsequently rose to take account of tailoring it to Brazilian requirements. At the $4.5 billion figure the average cost of aircraft plus all the extra components of the deal was $125 million each.

Yes the cost is similar. F-35A with engine is now below US$100 million and on target to reach US$80-85 million during FRP. A non JSF partner Air Force that acquires F-35 could do so via FMS, meaning they pay approx 6% on top of the same price the USAF pays for the jet. They can also become part of the global spares program, reducing greatly the cost of operating and holding spares for the jet. Yes there is a cost to set up all the ancillary items associated with operating the aircraft but that is no different to Gripen.

art wrote:

I thought there were quite a few restrictions on maintaining F-35 which denied buyers doing all the maintenance they would normally do. If so that means maintenance jobs that could be done locally at a labour cost of X dollars an hour will have to be done out of the country at a cost of Y dollars an hour. I am pretty sure that it will be the case that Y>X. I believe F-35 CPFH in USAF service is several times as much as what Sweden pays to fly Gripen C. Swedish govt figures show Gripen C costing <$5,000 CPFH. Even if Gripen E costs 50% more (say $7,500 CPFH), flying one for 6,000 hours would cost $45 million. In contrast I think F-35 would cost well over $100 million.

There is no way a Gripen costs < US$5000 to operate per hour, the Swedish figure is completely not an apples to apples comparison as the Canadians determined. The Swiss estimated the Gripen was going to be somewhere near US$22,000 per hour to operate. While comparing Swedish, Swiss and US costs per hour to operate is pointless we know that the US projects that F-35 will cost approximately 10-15% more to operate per hour than F-16. Many countries operate the F-16 at a much lower per hour cost than the USAF does.

art wrote:

I think the statement I made in my earlier post holds true:

I think Gripen E is going to have a slice of the market where countries can afford something that costs more than KAI F-50/Tejas Mk1A with higher performance than those but which cannot afford the performance offered by Super Hornet/Rafale/Typhoon/F-35.

History does not support your assessment. Gripen A/C has not had any sales success despite being positioned in exactly the same place in the market.

anshabhi wrote:

Saab's make in India offer is a lot better than LM as well.

On what do you base that above assertion? Kindly post all the relevant articles that show why the Saab offer is better than all the other offers on the table.

PS: As I write this, a PIL is being filed to investigate corruption in the Saab deal. It may reach the swedish courts as well.

VSMUT wrote:

And yet, according to LM, there IS a market for antique fighters such as the F-16. That is part of LMs own sales pitch to India.

I think it is a little too early to write the F16 off as an "antique" fighter. The F-16 Viper has EW suites, AESA, all new mission computers and so on. The Block 72 version being proposed to India will be significantly cheaper than the Gripen overall especially when taking operational costs into account. And there will be significant cost savings , to the order of billions, if HAL instead of a private party is awarded the contract.

The aircraft being chosen right now is for the Light Multi-role Fighter. I see this as the first lot of many more hundreds to come. Just like the Mig-21 was in the 60's of which IAF ended up operating over 800!

The Gripen is an overpriced piece of junk totally unsuited to Indian service. Infact, the Swedish internal parliamentary report described it as an "overpriced cuckoo which failed to meet any of the design goals". The only reason we are even discussing the Gripen is a desperate SAAB has used 3rd World Corruption to buy their way into a competition they had no right to be in.

Deleted

BawliBooch wrote:

I think it is a little too early to write the F16 off as an "antique" fighter. The F-16 Viper has EW suites, AESA, all new mission computers and so on. The Block 72 version being proposed to India will be significantly cheaper than the Gripen overall especially when taking operational costs into account. And there will be significant cost savings , to the order of billions, if HAL instead of a private party is awarded the contract.

About F-16 cost... Has Block 72 been developed? If not the US government will not be picking up the bill, so who will? I'm curious why you say that choosing a partner from the private sector will result in Gripen costing billions more. Cronyism? Some airliner parts are already made for commercial western OEM's, aren't they? They choose suppliers that are competitive.

BawliBooch wrote:

IThe Gripen is an overpriced piece of junk totally unsuited to Indian service. Infact, the Swedish internal parliamentary report described it as an "overpriced cuckoo which failed to meet any of the design goals".

[/quote]

I'm a bit confused. The design goals will have been specified before Sweden placed an order. Whether or not it meets those specifications should have been de-risked by testing the NG. How is it alleged that the aircraft fails to meet specifications? The production aircraft has not yet flown so how can it be known that it fails to meet the design goals Perhaps you mean it's overweight. That can be measured before flight testing.quote]

BawliBooch wrote:

I think it is a little too early to write the F16 off as an "antique" fighter. The F-16 Viper has EW suites, AESA, all new mission computers and so on. The Block 72 version being proposed to India will be significantly cheaper than the Gripen overall especially when taking operational costs into account. And there will be significant cost savings , to the order of billions, if HAL instead of a private party is awarded the contract.

About F-16 cost... Has Block 72 been developed? If not the US government will not be picking up the bill, so who will? I'm curious why you say that choosing a partner from the private sector will result in Gripen costing billions more. Cronyism? Some airliner parts are already made for commercial western OEM's, aren't they? They choose suppliers that are competitive.

BawliBooch wrote:

IThe Gripen is an overpriced piece of junk totally unsuited to Indian service. Infact, the Swedish internal parliamentary report described it as an "overpriced cuckoo which failed to meet any of the design goals".

I'm a bit confused. The design goals will have been specified before Sweden placed an order. Whether or not it meets those specifications should have been de-risked by testing the NG. How is it alleged that the aircraft fails to meet specifications? The production aircraft has not yet flown so how can it be known that it fails to meet the design goals?Perhaps you mean it's overweight. That can be measured before flight testing.

deleted

art wrote:

Perhaps you mean it's overweight. That can be measured before flight testing.

It is overweight. The empty weight has risen one tonne before first flight...

BawliBooch wrote:

The aircraft being chosen right now is for the Light Multi-role Fighter. I see this as the first lot of many more hundreds to come. Just like the Mig-21 was in the 60's of which IAF ended up operating over 800!

If this project actually comes to fruition and F-16 is chosen there may, may not be export customers. Same for Gripen E. Whatever, if no export customers emerge, we will never know if the rejected aircraft would have found export customers.

My money is on Gripen E coming through, though. I think SAAB is prepared to offer much more to India than LM.

art wrote:

BawliBooch wrote:

The aircraft being chosen right now is for the Light Multi-role Fighter. I see this as the first lot of many more hundreds to come. Just like the Mig-21 was in the 60's of which IAF ended up operating over 800!

If this project actually comes to fruition and F-16 is chosen there may, may not be export customers. Same for Gripen E. Whatever, if no export customers emerge, we will never know if the rejected aircraft would have found export customers.

My money is on Gripen E coming through, though. I think SAAB is prepared to offer much more to India than LM.

The problem is that Gripen E also doesn't have much of an export market as well.

It's going to get eaten alive in the world market by the F-35 and PAK-FA on the high end, and the middle of the class already has aircraft like the Rafale and the various Sukhoi Flanker variants making up the middle of the market, and the low end of the market is dominated by used fighters and high end trainers.

The customer base just isn't there for many sales of the Gripen E. The American content of the aircraft pretty much makes this a primarily Western-aligned fighter, and the nations that have the money and access are buying into the F-35. If they have money, but don't have immediate access to F-35, they are mainly buying Rafales, Eurofighters, F-15E's, F/A-18 E/F's, and F-16's. If they don't have the money, they are buying used aircraft and having them refurbished.

And the worst thing of all is that Gripen E is coming onto the market at a time where the majority of the customers that can afford brand new fighters have already made up their minds about their next fighter choice, and the low end of the market is in the process of being flooded by used fighters meaning that less wealthy nations can pickup a decent fighter with plenty of service life left in them on the cheap, and have them upgraded and refurbished on the cheap.

For example, the Israeli's a few months ago placed just under 100 older F-16's on the market, and the USAF also has over 500 older model F-16's sitting in storage that they are selling. So, if you are a lower end user, why pay $100 million for a brand new Gripen E, when I can buy 5 modernized and refurbished F-16's?

ThePointblank wrote:

The customer base just isn't there for many sales of the Gripen E. The American content of the aircraft pretty much makes this a primarily Western-aligned fighter, and the nations that have the money and access are buying into the F-35. If they have money, but don't have immediate access to F-35, they are mainly buying Rafales, Eurofighters, F-15E's, F/A-18 E/F's, and F-16's. If they don't have the money, they are buying used aircraft and having them refurbished.

And the worst thing of all is that Gripen E is coming onto the market at a time where the majority of the customers that can afford brand new fighters have already made up their minds about their next fighter choice, and the low end of the market is in the process of being flooded by used fighters meaning that less wealthy nations can pickup a decent fighter with plenty of service life left in them on the cheap, and have them upgraded and refurbished on the cheap.

For example, the Israeli's a few months ago placed just under 100 older F-16's on the market, and the USAF also has over 500 older model F-16's sitting in storage that they are selling. So, if you are a lower end user, why pay $100 million for a brand new Gripen E, when I can buy 5 modernized and refurbished F-16's?

Agreed - big problem selling new Gripen E or F-16 to countries really strapped for cash. There will be a market for old F-16's IMO. I'm thinking of countries still flying MiG-21's, Mirage 3 derivatives well past their use by date. However, refurbishing F-16's is not cheap. I think Romania/Bulgaria (one of the 2) was offered free F-16's by the US. All that was required was to pay for refurbishment but that was sufficiently costly to kill the deal. Old F-16's might be welcomed by countries having to groundTtheir fighters in the near future unless they can procure something dead cheap.

Did Argentina show any interest in older F-16's, I wonder, before they decided to postpone buying replacement fighters?

art wrote:

Did Argentina show any interest in older F-16's, I wonder, before they decided to postpone buying replacement fighters?

Yes, before Argentina acquired the 36 A-4AR Fightinghawks. The attempts to acquire surplus IAI Kfirs or F-16As failed for economic and political reason.

art wrote:

About F-16 cost... Has Block 72 been developed? If not the US government will not be picking up the bill, so who will?

I believe the Block 72 is based primarily on the UAE's Block 60 aircraft, but with some updates. It's mostly already developed. I imagine that elements of the F-16V will make its way into a proposed Block 72 as well, such as the updated AESA radar.

art wrote:

Did Argentina show any interest in older F-16's, I wonder, before they decided to postpone buying replacement fighters?

It was considered, but now with Argentina being effectively bankrupt, and the British exerting a lot of pressure on the US, I doubt Argentina will get export clearance for the F-16.

Block 70 is basically the F-16V. More common with the F-16I and -16V than the Blk60, for which royalties would be involved. There's a lot of bad blood between the USA and UAE now on the Blk60 programme.

Cheers

SAAB partners with Adani group to manufacture the Gripen in India,

https://www.google.com/amp/www.thehindu ... 3.ece/amp/

So they are moving forward, does this mean that the Gripen "M" has a shot as well? When will this decision be reached?

Dutchy wrote:

So they are moving forward, does this mean that the Gripen "M" has a shot as well? When will this decision be reached?

The Navy and Air Force conpetitions are not linked so Gripen being represented in both does not have any bearing on either.

As for moving forward, LM has already signed with their local partner so both contenders are probably now in a similar position.