Air Force Likely To Opt For Swedish Jet Fighter

[TAWP]

Air force likely to opt for Swedish jet fighter

Multi-role Gripen favoured over SU-30

The air force is set to abandon its preference for Russia's giant, fuel-hungry SU-30 fighters in favour of Sweden's lightweight, multi-role JAS-39 Gripen, a source said yesterday. Purchase of the SU-30 jets was seen as close to a done deal under the ousted Thaksin Shinawatra government.

The cabinet is willing to allow the force to buy six of the 12 jets it has requested over the next five years, the source said. Only after five years will the air force be able to consider buying the rest of the squadron.

The deal would be financed with tied-over fund spreading over five years.

Continued here: http://www.bangkokpost.net/News/05Jul2007_news10.php

[Mid]

how are the Swiss about chicken ??

[chinthee]

how are the Swiss about chicken ??

You mean barter joke? wrong nationality

[Mid]

Sweeds / Swiss ..........................

i'll get ma coat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>exit stage right

Edited July 5, 2007 by Mid

[mellow1]

With 6 of them they should be able to handle any situation.Probably will work good in fighting the southern insurgents.After all if your not on the ground there you won't get hurt.

[chinthee]

Sweeds / Swiss ..........................

i'll get ma coat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>exit stage right

swedish chickenballs??

[Kerryd]

First Thailand (Toxin) wanted to buy the Russian fighters, but his generals objected.

Then his generals did a sudden "about-turn" and declared these planes were the best choice (despite still having all the failings they had originally mentioned).

Now they want to buy a whopping 6 jets now, and 6 more in 5 years ?

When you start figuring in the parts chains and maintenance aspects of these kinds of deals, 6 jets is hardly even worth the effort. Figure on at least two of them being trainers, and another 2 in (routine) maintenance at any one time, that leaves a whopping 2 fighters available to handle any operational tasks that might arise.

Might be better off buying a whole bunch of high-powered slingshots and using all that frozen chicken (that they were going to use to buy the Russian jets) as ammunition !

[mrbojangles]

Figure on at least two of them being trainers

Kerry, I'd have thought something like the Hawk would be more suited as Trainers. Don't personally know what Thailand use a trainers at the moment though.

[Farma]

mrbojangles even if they trained in Hawks they still need twin sticks to learn how to fly these Gripens.

[keebone]

Swedish fighter jets ?

Wouldn't they have an in built system that forces them to stay neutral in a conflict no matter how nasty it is !

[cdnvic]

Swedish fighter jets ?

Wouldn't they have an in built system that forces them to stay neutral in a conflict no matter how nasty it is !

Sweden has a long history of building excellent aircraft, including fighter jets.

Personally, I think they should refurbish the F-16s and fix the roads/airport/sidewalks/hospitals/etc.

Edited July 6, 2007 by cdnvic

[Payboy]

doesn't matter which model they buy - they're going to fly around in circles anyway

[TAWP]

Sweden has a long history of building excellent aircraft, including fighter jets.

And due to the finance-model during development they are cheap to buy for foreign customers compared to comparable aircrafts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_generatio....5th_generation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_generation_jet_fighter#Cost

Sukhoi Su-30 US$ ~38m (Several variants)

Sukhoi Su-30K for Indonesia: '98 US$ 33m

Sukhoi Su-30MKK/MK2 for China: '98 US$ 38m

Sukhoi Su-30MKI for India: '98 US$ 45m

Sukhoi Su-30MKM for Malaysia: '03 US$ 50m

JAS 39 Gripen about '98 US$ 25m

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet '98 US$ 60m

F-22 Raptor Fly away unit cost is about US$ 120m

[cdnvic]

F-22 Raptor Fly away unit cost is about US$ 120m

And only close NATO allies (plus possibly Japan and Australia) would ever be allowed those.

[meadish_sweetball]

First Thailand (Toxin) wanted to buy the Russian fighters, but his generals objected.

Then his generals did a sudden "about-turn" and declared these planes were the best choice (despite still having all the failings they had originally mentioned).

Now they want to buy a whopping 6 jets now, and 6 more in 5 years ?

When you start figuring in the parts chains and maintenance aspects of these kinds of deals, 6 jets is hardly even worth the effort. Figure on at least two of them being trainers, and another 2 in (routine) maintenance at any one time, that leaves a whopping 2 fighters available to handle any operational tasks that might arise.

Might be better off buying a whole bunch of high-powered slingshots and using all that frozen chicken (that they were going to use to buy the Russian jets) as ammunition !

Are you sure you're not confusing this with the first time Thaksin discussed buying jetfighters from Sweden? He definitely offered chickens for barter that time. Then things have been quiet for a long time.

The official statement from Swedish foreign ministry officials is that they have had no formal request or offer from Thailand. Apparently, Sweden has given Thailand a complete quote, but has yet to receive an official reply to this.

It does appear as if non-official talks are ongoing.

[keebone]

First Thailand (Toxin) wanted to buy the Russian fighters, but his generals objected.

Then his generals did a sudden "about-turn" and declared these planes were the best choice (despite still having all the failings they had originally mentioned).

Now they want to buy a whopping 6 jets now, and 6 more in 5 years ?

When you start figuring in the parts chains and maintenance aspects of these kinds of deals, 6 jets is hardly even worth the effort. Figure on at least two of them being trainers, and another 2 in (routine) maintenance at any one time, that leaves a whopping 2 fighters available to handle any operational tasks that might arise.

Might be better off buying a whole bunch of high-powered slingshots and using all that frozen chicken (that they were going to use to buy the Russian jets) as ammunition !

Are you sure you're not confusing this with the first time Thaksin discussed buying jetfighters from Sweden? He definitely offered chickens for barter that time. Then things have been quiet for a long time.

The official statement from Swedish foreign ministry officials is that they have had no formal request or offer from Thailand. Apparently, Sweden has given Thailand a complete quote, but has yet to receive an official reply to this.

It does appear as if non-official talks are ongoing.

Dont count your chickens until they've hatched

[chemist]

QUOTE(keebone @ 2007-07-06 11:07:04) Swedish fighter jets ?

Wouldn't they have an in built system that forces them to stay neutral in a conflict no matter how nasty it is !/QUOTE

As a Swede myself I must say I feel ASHAMED when it comes to Sweden's "neutrality" during the past 100 years or so. Sure, we stayed out of the immediate action and a lot of Swedish lives were saved, but at what cost? Certainly there are a lot of Norwegians and Danes for example who feel very "grateful" for the way we acted during WWII, not helping the allies (until late in the war, when we were forced to by the British and the Americans) and instead supplying the Nazis with raw material for their weapons and letting the Wehrmacht use Swedish railroads for troop transports as they wished. Don't even get me started on Sweden's role during the Cold War... How the he1l can you stay "neutral" between dictatorship and democracy?

Having said the above, I think that the Swedish JAS Gripen, built by the SAAB Company (you may have heard about their cars), is a very fine fighter jet and a good choice for Thailand. As a side note I can mention that about 70 % of the parts that make up the Gripen are made in the USA (according to a friend of mine who works as an engineer at SAAB). Thus, what Thailand will get is essentially an american fighter jet, compatible with NATO's fighter systems, but at a very attractive price.

[chinthee]

Good post chemist, welcome!

[chemist]

Good post chemist, welcome!

Thank you

[mrbojangles]

Yes good post chemist.

But did you also know that Gripen International (Sweden), Export Marketing and Sales of the Gripen Combat aircraft, is a joint venture between SAAB 50% and BAE Systems (formerley British Aerospace) 50%

and that SAAB Sweden, Aerospace and Defence Systems is owned by BAE SYSTEMS 20.5% and Institutional and Private Investors 79.5%

[Eman]

Swedish fighter jets ?

Yes, rated #1 by Soccer Moms for safety

[mrbojangles]

mrbojangles even if they trained in Hawks they still need twin sticks to learn how to fly these Gripens.

Yeah fair point farma. I'm not sure on the training structures that are in place for Thailand or on this contract specifically but in many contracts (BAE Systems for instance) the customer has the option to send the Pilots to England to learn on the training aircraft type they are going to buy.

This is an extra cost but cheaper than having to buy extra aircraft just for training, especially when purchasing such low numbers.

[TAWP]

What chemist misses in his analyse is that it's not really connected to reality.

Much like the socialist goverment has slaughtered the military organisation and spending during the last 20 years the 'wise' politicians post WW1 forsaw no threat (infact, the opposite) so they removed a lot of the organisation and manpower, that was lacking from the start. Having peace (at that time) for over 100 years leaves a mark... so when the WW2 came there was no organisation nor manpower to do anything.

It was either hand material over volontarly or have it taken from you. And at the same time the Swedish military helped the allied with information and performed spionage-operations, especially since the German militarys misjudged the alligience from the Swedish military.

And post WW2 Sweden remaind on paper neutral, but in reality sent a multitude of spies into russia, while russia had spies and subs sent over to Sweden. Sweden also performed signal-surveilance with airplanes and other duties that was reported back to NATO-contacts. One hint of the level of cooperation was the '37-annex' in 1960 allowing the Swedish military access to advanced U.S. aeronautical technology and guarantee that the US would protect Sweden incase of Soviet invasion, while Sweden protected the US polaris submarines, deployed outside the west coast to map and spy on Soviet, against soviet anti-sub aircrafts.

And no, the Gripen isn't 70% american built, it's a joint venture between SAAB Military Systems and BAE Systems (former British Aerospace), under Saab-BAe Gripen AB. Only american is really optional tech and optional weapon-systems, especially in models upgraded to comply with NATO-standard to increase chance of sales to NATO countries (C and D variant).

Edited July 6, 2007 by TAWP

[chinthee]

What chemist misses in his analyse is that it's not really connected to reality.

Much like the socialist goverment has slaughtered the military organisation and spending during the last 20 years the 'wise' politicians post WW1 forsaw no threat (infact, the opposite) so they removed a lot of the organisation and manpower, that was lacking from the start. Having peace (at that time) for over 100 years leaves a mark... so when the WW2 came there was no organisation nor manpower to do anything.

It was either hand material over volontarly or have it taken from you. And at the same time the Swedish military helped the allied with information and performed spionage-operations, especially since the German militarys misjudged the alligience from the Swedish military.

And post WW2 Sweden remaind on paper neutral, but in reality sent a multitude of spies into russia, while russia had spies and subs sent over to Sweden. Sweden also performed signal-surveilance with airplanes and other duties that was reported back to NATO-contacts. One hint of the level of cooperation was the '37-annex' in 1960 allowing the Swedish military access to advanced U.S. aeronautical technology and guarantee that the US would protect Sweden incase of Soviet invasion, while Sweden protected the US polaris submarines, deployed outside the west coast to map and spy on Soviet, against soviet anti-sub aircrafts.

And no, the Gripen isn't 70% american built, it's a joint venture between SAAB Military Systems and BAE Systems (former British Aerospace), under Saab-BAe Gripen AB. Only american is really optional tech and optional weapon-systems, especially in models upgraded to comply with NATO-standard to increase chance of sales to NATO countries (C and D variant).

TAWP, I'm starting to like your style. Yes, I've known some of those neutral Swedish spies in Russia.

[mrbojangles]

And no, the Gripen isn't 70% american built, it's a joint venture between SAAB Military Systems and BAE Systems (former British Aerospace), under Saab-BAe Gripen AB. Only american is really optional tech and optional weapon-systems, especially in models upgraded to comply with NATO-standard to increase chance of sales to NATO countries (C and D variant).

I already said that above. Am i on your ignore list or something Wait a minute, if i am you won't see this post either

[TAWP]

Check post-time, you replied while I was typing. I would never put mr BJ on ignore.

Edited July 6, 2007 by TAWP

[mrbojangles]

Check post-time, you replied while I was typing...

Yeah, i was only messin TAWP (hence the smiley) well at least i know i'm not on your ignore list

[calibanjr.]

QUOTE(keebone @ 2007-07-06 11:07:04) Swedish fighter jets ?

Wouldn't they have an in built system that forces them to stay neutral in a conflict no matter how nasty it is !/QUOTE

As a Swede myself I must say I feel ASHAMED when it comes to Sweden's "neutrality" during the past 100 years or so. Sure, we stayed out of the immediate action and a lot of Swedish lives were saved, but at what cost? Certainly there are a lot of Norwegians and Danes for example who feel very "grateful" for the way we acted during WWII, not helping the allies (until late in the war, when we were forced to by the British and the Americans) and instead supplying the Nazis with raw material for their weapons and letting the Wehrmacht use Swedish railroads for troop transports as they wished. Don't even get me started on Sweden's role during the Cold War... How the he1l can you stay "neutral" between dictatorship and democracy?

Having said the above, I think that the Swedish JAS Gripen, built by the SAAB Company (you may have heard about their cars), is a very fine fighter jet and a good choice for Thailand. As a side note I can mention that about 70 % of the parts that make up the Gripen are made in the USA (according to a friend of mine who works as an engineer at SAAB). Thus, what Thailand will get is essentially an american fighter jet, compatible with NATO's fighter systems, but at a very attractive price.

Man I miss my old Saab 900! Best car in the snow (non-4WD) there is!

[A_Traveller]

F-22 Raptor Fly away unit cost is about US$ 120m

And only close NATO allies (plus possibly Japan and Australia) would ever be allowed those.

Agreed though Thailand is a Major Non-NATO Ally {MNNA}, a status conferred just prior to APEC in 2003.

Regards

[chemist]

What chemist misses in his analyse is that it's not really connected to reality.

Much like the socialist goverment has slaughtered the military organisation and spending during the last 20 years the 'wise' politicians post WW1 forsaw no threat (infact, the opposite) so they removed a lot of the organisation and manpower, that was lacking from the start. Having peace (at that time) for over 100 years leaves a mark... so when the WW2 came there was no organisation nor manpower to do anything.

It was either hand material over volontarly or have it taken from you. And at the same time the Swedish military helped the allied with information and performed spionage-operations, especially since the German militarys misjudged the alligience from the Swedish military.

And post WW2 Sweden remaind on paper neutral, but in reality sent a multitude of spies into russia, while russia had spies and subs sent over to Sweden. Sweden also performed signal-surveilance with airplanes and other duties that was reported back to NATO-contacts. One hint of the level of cooperation was the '37-annex' in 1960 allowing the Swedish military access to advanced U.S. aeronautical technology and guarantee that the US would protect Sweden incase of Soviet invasion, while Sweden protected the US polaris submarines, deployed outside the west coast to map and spy on Soviet, against soviet anti-sub aircrafts.

And no, the Gripen isn't 70% american built, it's a joint venture between SAAB Military Systems and BAE Systems (former British Aerospace), under Saab-BAe Gripen AB. Only american is really optional tech and optional weapon-systems, especially in models upgraded to comply with NATO-standard to increase chance of sales to NATO countries (C and D variant).

So much attention so early in my ThaiVisa career. Where will this end ? Seriously, I appreciate your input . Well, I will try to elaborate on this, although it is only vaguely (if at all) Thai-related.

1) I am in no way claiming to be an expert in the field of fighter jets, but I know that the joint venture deal between SAAB and BAE Systems came into play pretty long AFTER the Gripen was developed and built on an industrial scale. That move was, among other reasons, made in order to obtain a more efficient sales (and further development) organization.

I did not claim that the Gripen is 70 % American built. What I said was that, according to a friend of mine who is working with Gripen at SAAB, 70 % of the parts (materials if you will) that make up the plane come from America. Now, that figure may have changed (perhaps due to the cooperation with BAE) since I last talked about this with my friend a few years ago, and in that case I apologize for being misleading. However, there have been many articles in Swedish newspapers for example over the years presenting the fact that a substantial proportion of Gripen's components (especially electronics) originate, in one way or the other, from the US. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. I still think the Gripen will be an excellent buy for Thailand .

2) About Swedish "neutrality"... Those of you that are not Swedish citizens might be surprised to hear that the debate over this in Sweden has been, shall we say... muffled, for many many years (lately, though, it has become more and more accepted to have different views). The topic was (and to a certain extent still is, especially when it comes to WWII and the subsequent Cold War) VERY sensitive in my native country, and anyone who dared to question the official "we are/were neutral and therefore better than them"-doctrine would immediately be ridiculed in one way or the other. As indicated above however, the debate climate has changed considerably for the better over the last two decades or so.

Anyway, TAWP thinks that my former "analysis" is not connected with reality. That is a matter of opinion in this case (I don't recall writing an "analysis", I just expressed some opinions connected with a few facts). Ok, I actually agree with a lot of the things you say, TAWP. As for WWII:

Quote: "It was either hand material over volontarly or have it taken from you." Yes, but does that justify willingly supplying the Nazis with raw materials (especially metal ore from the north of Sweden) to keep their war machine running (we are talking about HUGE amounts of material here)? On your neighbour countries' (and other countries, naturally)expense? And let us not forget that the Swedish government made enormous profits out of this deal. Does that sound moral to you? To me it doesn't. Does your statement above justify letting the Germans use Sweden's railway system for troop transports (troops heading for parts of Norway, mostly)? Does it justify turning away some (but not all, granted) of the Norwegians trying to flee into Sweden for fear of upsetting the Nazis? You must of course be aware of the fact that a substantial proportion of the Swedish government (and the Swedish population) was pro-Hitler, and that anti-Nazi propaganda was verboten(!) in Swedish media during the first part of the war? And all of this under the mighty doctrine of "neutrality"? I would call it appeasement. Granted, the Swedish military resources were not great at the time, but they were certainly not non-existant. The Swedish Army has for a long time focused on guerilla warfare in the event of an enemy attack (after the first hectic days of the attack, that is). So, what we are talking about here is a matter of principles. Do you do your best to stop or slow down an evil aggressor (by ANY means), even if you know that you can probably not win, or do you put your hands up in the air and actually help said aggressor at the expense of your peaceful democratic neighbours? As for your statements about the Swedish government helping the allies with information, that might be true after the point when the British and Americans "convinced" Sweden to switch sides (appeasement again, but this time in a good way if you believe in democracy). At that point the brave Swedes had no problems with switching sides, since the war had started to turn sour for Adolf. Again, I see this as a matter of principles. The Swedish government didn't.

The cold war: Well, after Sweden's flip-flopping during WWII the country decided it wanted to stay the course of "neutrality". TAWP claims that the Swedes, although officially neutral, in reality was on West's side, and I totally agree. The problem is/was that while Sweden expected the West (that is, NATO, and especially the US) to come and help us militarily in the event of a crisis, the Swedes didn't make (and still hasn't made) any commitment whatsoever to offer any military help in return, because, yes you guessed it, we were/are "neutral". So, while we have expected NATO to save our a$$es, we would not return the favour if called upon. Yes, Sweden helped the West with some surveillance, but is that really enough in this case? I don't think so myself (again, a matter of principles). To conclude, the inofficial, military, version of Sweden's "neutrality" was not very neutral at all, but, as I see it, a coward's way of not making anybody angry.

As for the official, political side of Sweden's "neutrality", well, here even more shame surfaces. Sweden has for most of the 20:th century been run by the Social Democratics, which, in my view, at least up until a decade ago, could be considered as semi-communists. Anyway, in the name of the mighty Neutrality the socialists proclaimed after WWII that Sweden was embarking on a "third way" of politics, that is, a way somewhere between capitalism and communism (although democratic). I remember that in school I was taught that "capitalism and communism both have their upsides and downsides" and that which ideology you chose was merely a matter of taste. No talk about such things as democracy in this case; at least not in my school books in the seventies. So, officially, Sweden was "politically neutral", but actually criticising the US about virtually everything, while most of the criticising of the Soviets was pretty lame. Hence my question in my first post: How the he1l can you stay neutral between dictatorship and democracy? There are tons of things to say about this issue, like fore example Sweden's deportation of Baltic refugees back to the then Soviet occupied Baltic states, but I think I have written enough already .

End of rant, and apologies to the mods who naturally are encouraged to remove this post if they so wish.

Best regards