JAS 39 Gripen is growing up.... (1 Viewer)

[GTX]

Yes a lot of those sub-components are made in the US or by US companies but there are also a lot of non US components. Changing many of them would not be difficult if there was a non US equivalent

That might sound easy but it would involve a lot of time and cost in reality.

I would not be surprised if offering US companies funding to manufacture off shore or to relocate to Europe happens or funding is supplied to EU and other manufacturers to develop drop in replacements for current US components.

If the components in question are still the same part numbers they will potentially still be subject to things such as ITAR and thus will have restrictions, at the very least on the US companies involved. These restrictions, if broken/ignored, could result in significant fines/prison time/sanctions on said businesses.

The other thing they may do is trade rights - if the US wants to use EU and other patents/products then they must, as part of the deal remove certain manufacturing restrictions on certain US patents/products.

Not really viable when things such as ITAR is in place.

With the size of the group they have enough purchasing power and control of enough intellectual property that means this is not impossible.

If using independent (i.e. no US involvement what-so-ever) IP then yes, things are possible. But that is easy to say and difficult to actually do.

Given a generation in drone warfare can be as little as a month, and that Ukraine and European NATO members are now some twenty plus generations ahead of the US,

The explosion in drones is a different matter to something such as a manned combat aircraft. be careful assuming what happens in one field easily transfers to the other.

Sorry to sound like I am trying to 'pour cold water' on what you are saying but I live and breath this stuff on a daily basis as part of my job. I even visited and met with GKN Aerospace people last week in Sweden discussing aspects like the RM12/RM16 (Swedish designation for the F414).

 

[MiTasol]

That might sound easy but it would involve a lot of time and cost in reality.

Agreed, depending on what it is that is the requirement that one is trying to meet.

If the components in question are still the same part numbers they will

be what is commonly called bogus parts and would be totally unacceptable. They would have to have totally different part #s for multiple reasons. There are multiple legal processes in both the civil and military aviation for certified replacement parts. PMA for one.

Not really viable when things such as ITAR is in place.

There is nothing to stop the rest of NATO doing exactly the same as the current US administration is doing and tearing up agreement (eg ITAR) because they do not like it. The US admin would have a hissy fit but are massively vulnerable to external financial forces in multiple ways as has been pointed out by the Canadian PM and others.

If using independent (i.e. no US involvement what-so-ever) IP then yes, things are possible. But that is easy to say and difficult to actually do.

It is amazing how many people think the US owns almost all IT and other IP. Unfortunately Europe does not make computer chips but China does and, as certain AI and other IT programs have proven for the last 10 years, China is NOT behind the US in many such technologies. In case you had not noticed it, in the last 12 months multiple NATO countries have signed trade agreements with China in a range of areas that were, until then, exclusively US supplied because like it or lump it, and I do not like it, the US is now viewed as an unreliable and/or unstable trading partner.

The explosion in drones is a different matter to something such as a manned combat aircraft. be careful assuming what happens in one field easily transfers to the other.

New engines and manned airframes have long lead times and the need is now so they are off the table. On the other hand Antonov and other Ukrainian companies long predate drones and so do both Ukrainian other NATO companies in multiple other mil tech areas, not just aviation.

Think of companies like Firepoint that did not even exist before this war and are now one of the world leaders in short to medium range airborne weapons and who will, as soon as they sort out the flamingos problems, be also be a leader in long range weapons that cost a small fraction of what the US equivalent missile costs. And all their weapons are combat tested and continuously being refined as a result of that combat testing. This is why India has just signed to obtain, and no doubt manufacture, Ukrainian drones, not Russian or American drones.

What I am suggesting will happen is not creating complete aircraft but, in the short term, primarily electronic components for all US made weapons as they are the fastest to design, prototype, test and produce. The purpose of these electronics would be to remove the US's ability to kill the weapons if used without US approval. It is through electronic components that the US can kill Ukrainian and other countries weapons being used against targets in Russia. Think how many times Ukraine could have shot down Russian bombers or destroyed them on the ground but the US said no right back to day one of this war. Secondly I can see Ukraine building their own missiles to fire from American launchers and Ukraine modifying those launchers to prevent the US preventing that use. It is a logical use of existing hardware and Ukraine has shown great ability to do such adaptations.

Remember also that Boeing outsourced a lot of their IT for civil, and probably military, aircraft to India and India is also a possible source of such replacement electronics. They are a world leader in many IT areas and willing to take on challenges that others may shy away from. Everyone thinks Apple and Google invented electronic payments using mobile phones but they were at least five years behind India in that field. Ukraine has been smart enough to use hackers to design the electronics in many of their unmanned systems because hackers think outside the box and rapidly create things that conventional university educated designers "know" are impossible. Perfect example - watch this on how one hacker, officially in one sitting, broke open Pandoras box and created the AI agent.

View: https://youtu.be/WnzR5aOElvw?is=iABxpS9kA5Ii5rpG

Sorry to sound like I am trying to 'pour cold water' on what you are saying but I live and breath this stuff on a daily basis as part of my job. I even visited and met with GKN Aerospace people last week in Sweden discussing aspects like the RM12/RM16 (Swedish designation for the F414).

No. I agree with a lot of what you said but I think you were discussing apples when I was discussing oranges. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Dimlee]

Think of companies like Firepoint that did not even exist before this war and are now one of the world leaders in short to medium range airborne weapons and who will, as soon as they sort out the flamingos problems, be also be a leader in long range weapons that cost a small fraction of what the US equivalent missile costs.

Another interesting thing about Firepoint. They promise never to install a "kill switch" into their products.
Whether the promise will withstand the political and other pressures... we will see.

 

[GTX]

be what is commonly called bogus parts and would be totally unacceptable. They would have to have totally different part #s for multiple reasons. There are multiple legal processes in both the civil and military aviation for certified replacement parts. PMA for one.

I am not talking about bogus or PMA parts - these don't really come into play in the military aircraft environment unless you are someone like Iran. If done 'above board' you are talking about licensed production and if an ITAR controlled part you are still back to where you started.

There is nothing to stop the rest of NATO doing exactly the same as the current US administration is doing and tearing up agreement (eg ITAR) because they do not like it. The US admin would have a hissy fit but are massively vulnerable to external financial forces in multiple ways as has been pointed out by the Canadian PM and others.

ITAR is not going to be torn up. To think it would is pure fantasy. Even in the case of the UK and Australia and in a different way, Canada, which have special privileges WRT ITAR, there are still significant rules/laws to play within.

Unfortunately Europe does not make computer chips but China does and, as certain AI and other IT programs have proven for the last 10 years, China is NOT behind the US in many such technologies. In case you had not noticed it, in the last 12 months multiple NATO countries have signed trade agreements with China in a range of areas that were, until then, exclusively US supplied because like it or lump it, and I do not like it, the US is now viewed as an unreliable and/or unstable trading partner.

I don't see anyone in the 'West' (Europe, Australia, Canada etc) partnering with/using Chinese produced systems on their combat platforms. To think otherwise is another fantasy.

New engines and manned airframes have long lead times and the need is now so they are off the table. On the other hand Antonov and other Ukrainian companies long predate drones and so do both Ukrainian other NATO companies in multiple other mil tech areas, not just aviation.

Again, don't be misled by the unique situation with Ukraine and drones.

What I am suggesting will happen is not creating complete aircraft but, in the short term, primarily electronic components for all US made weapons as they are the fastest to design, prototype, test and produce. The purpose of these electronics would be to remove the US's ability to kill the weapons if used without US approval.

Even electronics of the type we are talking takes time and a lot of money.

Remember also that Boeing outsourced a lot of their IT for civil, and probably military, aircraft to India and India is also a possible source of such replacement electronics. T

I challenge you to point to a military product that this applies to.

Ukraine has been smart enough to use hackers to design the electronics in many of their unmanned systems because hackers think outside the box and rapidly create things that conventional university educated designers "know" are impossible.

Again the electronics in somethign like a drone are a different thing to somethign in a manned combat platform.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Another interesting thing about Firepoint. They promise never to install a "kill switch" into their products.
Whether the promise will withstand the political and other pressures... we will see.

That and the whole "right to repair" thing are absolutely crucial to all of this

 

[Steamed_Banana]

As for the military electronics, the US may have designed and patented a lot of crucial tech designs and own the IP on it, but most of the chips and electronic components are being manufactured in Taiwan and South Korea etc. The Europeans have very good designers and Saab in particular is advanced in EW, as is Ukraine. The French, Germans, British and Italians aren't exactly slouches either, and Continental Europe has robust domestic manufacturing capability. Now that we have forced Germany to re-align their posture toward military production they have pivoted and are seriously engaged. They just surpassed US production of artillery shells as of late April.

South Korea is already capitalizing on access to advanced manufacturing domestically and regionally to make very good second tier systems which are rapidly improving toward world class status, notably the KAI KF-21 which includes some stealth capability as well as advanced EW. Several European countries are making partnerships with KAI, notably Poland has bought FA-50 and is now in talks to buy KF 21, along with buying multiple other South Korean made systems (tanks and howitzers etc.). The Japanese are also of course making serious moves toward re-arming and producing a whole new generation of their own domestic military technology, having cooled somewhat on direct partnerships with the big five US defense industry firms after experiencing a lot of trouble with joint projects like the Mitsubishi F2, notably on their new F-X fighter. It's still not yet clear if they are going to partner with BAE and the UK, or with US firms for that project, but it's starting to learn more toward the former.

I think the position that the US industry is inevitable and 'too big to fail' is going to shoot us in the foot in the long run. There is no valid reason to force our closest Allies to accept conditions for sales which undermine their sovereignty, and our recent political antics have made it clear that we can't necessarily be counted on as NATO partners, and to the contrary have proven quick to use military alliances as leverage. On the other hand, from the US point of view I think we probably should impose some control restrictions on countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE etc. since they have historical ties to terrorist organizations and ongoing links to proxy wars in Africa etc. which may not be in our national interests. But this is more or less the opposite of our recent policy decisions - we are hostile toward Europe and friendly toward the Gulf Arab nations.

Having had a much more brutal experience during WW2, Europeans were hoping to avoid wars and were willing to go along with US hegemony of the short-lived Pax Americana essentially out of convenience and caution. But we have shaken them out of that tree, we will have to live with the consequences and so will they.

 

[Admiral Beez]

As for the military electronics, the US may have designed and patented a lot of crucial tech designs and own the IP on it, but most of the chips and electronic components are being manufactured in Taiwan and South Korea etc. The Europeans have very good designers and Saab in particular is advanced in EW, as is Ukraine.

I expect the Gripen will be the last combat aircraft designed and produced in Europe with much of any US tech or IP. I bet the only American bits on the GCAP Tempest, FCAS, CA-1 Europa, NGRC, and of course the Saab Future Fighter Technology Demonstrator will be low tech, over the counter consumables with easy swapability. As for Asia, the Koreans and Japanese must be just as wary of America's ITAR and EAR, which will see KAI and Mitsubishi lean elsewhere. For example, while the KAI KF-21 relies heavily on Lockheed-Martin and GE, the Koreans are designing their own engine and sourcing domestic and European components for the KF-21's successor.

 

[GTX]

South Korea is already capitalizing on access to advanced manufacturing domestically and regionally to make very good second tier systems which are rapidly improving toward world class status, notably the KAI KF-21 which includes some stealth capability as well as advanced EW. Several European countries are making partnerships with KAI, notably Poland has bought FA-50 and is now in talks to buy KF 21, along with buying multiple other South Korean made systems (tanks and howitzers etc.).

You might be surprised to know that the KF-21 is still heavily relying on non Sth Korean items despite the narrative put out there:

KAI KF-21 Boramae - program supplier guide | Airframer

www.airframer.com

 

[Steamed_Banana]

You might be surprised to know that the KF-21 is still heavily relying on non Sth Korean items despite the narrative put out there:

KAI KF-21 Boramae - program supplier guide | Airframer

www.airframer.com

Oh I believe it, I think the plan all along was to gradually phase into both true 5th Gen and true "no strings attached" / local / regional production.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Oh I believe it, I think the plan all along was to gradually phase into both true 5th Gen and true "no strings attached" / local / regional production.

It still is. Hopped-up trainers like the T/FA-50 aside, the KF-21 is KAI's first ever combat aircraft, and even this first swing has a good degree of Korean tech. And it's not about non-Korean content, but non-American. No one trusts America anymore. Meanwhile, the Euros will be more than happy to sell Korea whatever the KF-21's successors need.

 

[GTX]

And it's not about non-Korean content, but non-American. No one trusts America anymore. Meanwhile, the Euros will be more than happy to sell Korea whatever the KF-21's successors need.

Except if you look most of the subsystems for the T-50 and KF-21 are American.

 

[Lucky13]

View: https://youtu.be/LTEuM1DNJiM?si=QpSDRChD_rjzpFr5

 

[Lucky13]

Ouch! (If it's true!)

"Denmark is facing a 14 billion kroner ($2.2 billion) cost overrun for its fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets. According to a report by Denmark's national audit office, Rigsrevisionen, the lifetime operational costs for the 27 aircraft have blown past original calculations. The total budget has ballooned to 71.2 billion kroner ($10.5 billion) over the fleet's projected 30-year service life."

Denmark's F-35 programme faces DKK 14bn cost gap

 

[Lucky13]

14.000.000.000 Dkr....
£1,616,867,000.00
$2,166,148,600.00
€1,873,060,000.00
20,477,100,000.00:-

That's some serious coin!

For 20,477,100,000.00:-, the Swedish Air Force would get 20-25 JAS 39E/F....

 

[Lucky13]

Swedish Gripen Launches Taurus KEPD 350 Cruise Missile for the First Time

 

[GTX]

 

[Lucky13]

Well, what comes after....

Saab receives order from FMV for further work on future concept

 

[Lucky13]

In Canada, Ukrainian Pilots Prepare to Fly Gripen Fighter Jets

 

[MiTasol]

In Canada, Ukrainian Pilots Prepare to Fly Gripen Fighter Jets and F-16's.

Why is this not done in the US seeing they operate one of the two types the pilots will fly in combat? The answer is obvious.

 

[Lucky13]

Why is this not done in the US seeing they operate one of the two types the pilots will fly in combat? The answer is obvious.

If I remember correctly, they're training in Sweden already, for the Gripen.
One does wonder why train in Canada, who doesn't fly either type, perhaps something is in the works.
That is, if the article is correct....