Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gripen counteroffers the Romanian F-16 deal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gripen counteroffers the Romanian F-16 deal

    Although it seemed secure just a few weeks ago, F-16 business is staggering. Swedish Gripen is proposing a counteroffer legislature intended to put Bucharest thoughts on: 24 New multirole aircraft at a cost of one billion euros. For the same amount, the Americans offer the F-16 aircraft refurbished and a promise: entering in the F-35 program. The Swedish offer comes with maximum offsets, technology transfer and a unbeatable financing plan . In the new light in Bucharest can not rely on the economic downturn.
    Richard Smith, marketing director of Saab Gripen Programme Romania

    The story is far-reaching. Romanian Air Force's MiG 21 are depleting by 2012 they're flight resource. In other words, over three years Romania will not be able to meet state obligations to NATO and to ensure, ultimately, their own security.

    On March 23, 2010, a meeting of the Supreme Defence Council forwarded the proposed acquisition of 24 refurbished multirole aircraft, a Washington-Bucharest line transaction. American competitors, Swedish Gripen and the Eurofighter European concern reacted quite hard at the time, citing lack of government transparency and calling Romanian F-16 aircraft as "junk."

    "There's no money to finance the purchase of new aircraft" called in unison, the voice of the Bucharest officials. At that time, the Americans require about 1.3 billion dollars to supply aircraft, refurbishing them , pilot training and modification of Romanian air bases.

    In return, Gripen and the Eurofighter offers reached to the threshold of two billion dollars. Economic calculation was simple: buy second hand now covering national security deficit, and we see later ( about new aircraft).
    Why the Gripen offer worth consideration ;

    CSAT's business not directly authorized F-16, but only recommended it. Formally, the parliament should decide by vote approving the proposed acquisition. And if the past two weeks nothing shook Romanian-American trade prospects from closing, an announcement made Thursday at the Embassy of Sweden could put even the Bucharest parliament in thoughts.

    In short, Swedes counteract with a new multirole aircraft offer to replace the MiG's: 24 JAS 39 Gripen equipment in exchange for the sum of 1.3 billion dollars. The announcement was made by Jerry Lindbergh (Photo), representing the government in Stockholm in military transactions.

    "We are here to ensure the transparency of the procedure and to clarify the issue of Romania's financial inability to equip the air force with new aircraft. That is why we are here to tell you what solutions are in Sweden, Lindbergh began his speech.

    "We are talking about a complete package that includes training pilots, technicians, spare parts. We also offer technology transfer, the so-called Gripen User Group, a forum through which countries can participate directly operate our aircraft in Avionics Component Improvement Program. Gripen offers 100% offset, "the Swedish official completed. That everything is fair and square ," Gripen has provided a plan to pay the payments on 15 years with the possibility of missing any payments in the first two years of purchase.

    "Gripen and Eurofighter we are unable to deliver, by 2012, 24 new aircraft. The F-16 are readily available, "says Julian Chifu EVZ recently, director of the Center for Conflict Prevention. The Gripen offer is conflicting . The Swedes claim that the first aircraft deliveries can be made within one year after signing the contract, which means that by early 2013, Gripen and could meet commitments to Romania.

    Why the Swedes have almost no chance

    Swedes have announced that the new offer will be brought before Parliament, so that Romanian legislature can study compared the acquisition of F-16 Gripen aircraft acquisition. The result is, after all data, predictable: on paper, the Europeans offer is, in new circumstances, more convenient.

    If Bucharest relied on economic recession just weeks ago for failure to replace the MiG's with new aircraft , Romania today is offered for the same amount circulated in the business of the F-16's , planes which do not need reconditioning. What Sweden seems to lose sight of the moment is the political dimension of equipping the Romanian military.

    EVZ sources claimed in March that the six military procurement programs, three are "with dedication" to American or Israeli companies - the "price" informal received for NATO partnership . In these circumstances, although the economic argument is circulated, any counteroffer, no matter how good it is in financial terms, Romania will not frustrate the F-16 purchase.

    In addition, long-term prospects have also considered: whether Bucharest intends to buy more aircraft in 15 years, F-35 multirole U.S. next generation , the F-16 deal is inevitable. Even Mark Gitenstein said in an interview EVZ in October 2009 that "We want Romania to buy F-16 and hope that the Romanian government to purchase also F-35.

    "You think these guys in the Air Force did not wanted a new Gripen, Eurofighter or a F-35 ? They would have wished it with all their soul, but they said: 'Gentlemen politicians, why do we stretch?'. And so, we take from the mouth to put some one billion to train pilots to make tracks, to make upgrades. Who claims beyond that, merely speaks unrealistic "

    Traian Basescu ( Romania president ) , April 12, 2010, at the talk show "The Godfather"


    Counter

    Stockholm's refuses to surrender

    Mats Aberg, Swedish Ambassador in Bucharest hosted the event in which officials from Stockholm and public representatives were Gripen offer new multirole aircraft. Aberg argued, in turn, some interesting statements.

    * "We are in contact , for years, with government and presidency for the purchase of Gripen aircraft. So I was surprised when we began to notice that the F-16 deal will be recommended to Parliament. Let me clarify: no one will challenge Romania's right to decide what kind of aircraft purchases. That's the power of leading the country and we do not dispute their choices. What we put into question is the transparency of the procedure, that the former government has assured us to. "

    * "To contribute to this transparency, we decided to present our offer of Parliament, so they decide knowingly. We believe that the Gripen offer price is now comparable with the U.S., given that we offer new aircraft. Furthermore, we offer a highly competitive grant, which means that it is important for Romania, in this crisis. "

    * "We offset 100%. Not only military, but, for example, and separate programs related to renewable energy. We have a project in this regard. I just hope that Romanian officials to look out our offer and compare with other offers. "

    * "There were aircraft business in the past. Some have brought planes unreliable and ended up still on the ground. And pilots have become, in the meantime, very good tennis players, while the aircraft sat on the ground. My message is this: Romanian air force deserves to be supported, not a bunch of tennis players, as good as they might be . "
    Translation belongs to me
    Source :
    Gripen torpileaz? oferta F16: JAS 39 noi, acela?i pre?. ?Merita?i avioane fiabile, nu juc?tori de ping-pong? - Exclusiv EVZ > EVZ.ro
    Last edited by 1979; 16 Apr 10,, 11:38. Reason: grammar
    J'ai en marre.

  • #2
    Lets see the grippen is a nice multirole light fighter backed by saab. Its about 20 years new development wise than the falcon. They are offering new airframes versus refurbs.

    Upsides new airframes versus refurbs Its nice but not a huge deal. Both share interoperability within the nato framework and are operated by close allies though the f-16 has more users. The f16 is goping to get more updates and likely have more life extension programs developed by various users. The f-35 carrot is fairly nil since I personally think sometime in the next 5 years or so someone else will have a decent proposal for a gen 5 fighter and it'll be 20 before romania gets new fighters..

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Maxor View Post
      Lets see the grippen is a nice multirole light fighter backed by saab. Its about 20 years new development wise than the falcon. They are offering new airframes versus refurbs.

      Upsides new airframes versus refurbs Its nice but not a huge deal. Both share interoperability within the nato framework and are operated by close allies though the f-16 has more users. The f16 is goping to get more updates and likely have more life extension programs developed by various users. The f-35 carrot is fairly nil since I personally think sometime in the next 5 years or so someone else will have a decent proposal for a gen 5 fighter and it'll be 20 before romania gets new fighters..
      I am not sure if future upgrade programs will be of much relevance to Romania -- those F16s they will be getting are old! They will have to replace them in 10-15 years or so I think... And the plan of LM is of course to replace with F-35. I can imagine the Romanian air force has mixed feelings about this - on the one hand a more modern and much easier to maintain fighter like Gripen should seem attractive; on the other hand the "attractiveness" of these old F16 would be that they may be replaced by F-35 in 15 years, whereas the Gripens can evidently fly much longer than that.

      Sweden seems to plan to keep flying (and upgrading) Gripen until 2040.

      In the end it's political, of course -- still I wonder; what punishment did Hungary and the Czech Republic get from the US for not buying F16...?

      Perhaps some countries are scared too easily by the LM salespeople (and yes people from the local US embassy is very much part of the LM salesforce).

      Comment


      • #4
        The support for F16 is nil among the AF and the armed forces in general.Except a few chaps with stars on their shoulders(aka political douchebags).Maxor's opinion on the F35 is not singular,to say the least.Hopefully the problem will be brought to the Parliament,although I don't have many hopes(it's the Parliament afterall).
        The offset and technology transfers are the big carrot for me(and not only).Our industry desperately needs such things to stay afloat.The terms for payment are also fine.100 millions/year from 2012 till 2025 is peanuts,even for the joke that is the defense budget.
        The sole real advantage F16 has over Grippen are the bribes.Unfortunately this may the most important advantage.

        Btw,1979,I saw El Presidente with his outrageous claims.I'm curious what he'll invent this time.Fvcking b@stard

        p.s The proposed F16's are Block25.
        Last edited by Mihais; 16 Apr 10,, 13:37.
        Those who know don't speak
        He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mihais View Post
          Btw,1979,I saw El Presidente with his outrageous claims.I'm curious what he'll invent this time.Fvcking b@stard
          I did not see Radu Moraru talk-show myself ,however the populist trade mark in that claim is nonrefundable .
          About the offset issues here are some of my thoughts:
          Poland received 257 % offset for the block 52, from what i have heard, LockMart
          would have invested this money anyway ,but probably not in Poland.
          Nobody gives offsets just for the sake of offsets, after 10 years this investment would pay off and start to bring profits for L.M.
          Needles to say , you don't get offsets in the first place ,just for refurbishment ...
          J'ai en marre.

          Comment


          • #6
            Their profit is not the issue,as you know too well.That's why they're in business in the first place.However,deals made in the ''good ole fashion'' are the problem.And I don't even blame them.They ask,our esteemed elected leaders give.
            We benefit twice from any deal with any European company.We get crap twice from US.
            If you ask me,my favorite was Rafale.A fine machine,but given their export problems we could have ripped them.A return to the 60's,so to speakWe would have been back in business with regard to the aeronautical industry and that's no small feat.
            Those who know don't speak
            He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mihais View Post
              A fine machine,but given their export problems we could have ripped them.A return to the 60's,so to speak
              Ahh, but you are underestimating the French, so to speak :)

              Look, i just wanted a fair deal just like anyone else, it does not matter if it's french , europeean, swedish or american , i even turn a blind eye to the unavoidable bribes if it get's the deal going.
              But Loke and you are right, there is no political dimension of equipping the Romanian military , my problem is the fact the we are constantly selling ourself short.
              So when Sweden calls our pilots ping-pong players , i just smile and say :
              Point taken .
              Last edited by 1979; 16 Apr 10,, 16:27.
              J'ai en marre.

              Comment


              • #8
                Like you say,the bribes aren't the real problem.The fact that nothing gets done is the real issue.However I'm curious how the beloved sons of the Motherland will vote.If they vote for Grippen I might think 1% better of them.If they vote for F16,then I'll think fondly of Pinochet.Because it is obvious that our AF won't go to war anywhere,anytime,without massive assistance.American planes or not,our security deals with US are paid with blood and geopolitical risks(like the ABM deal fallout).So our leaders could think twice before kissing some butts too much.Our national interests don't really require such efforts from their excellencies.
                As a coincidence the PNL supported the Grippen from the start.No idea why,but at least they had it right.The Orange mobsters went F16(either American SH or Israeli junks)from the start.That could be a fine conspiracy theory
                Those who know don't speak
                He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                Comment


                • #9
                  Supreme Defense Council's decision to buy second hand F16 fighting jets for the army bothered other competitors. After Sweden's Saab cheapened Gripen planes for Romania, the manufacturers insist that their offer was 1.5 billion dollars cheaper than the US offer, over the next ten years. With new jets, which need not be replaced at the end of the period, as opposed to the F16s. Richard Smith, Saab marketing director, believes his company has not yet lost the fight. He asks that offers received by the Defense Ministry be declassified so that Parliament, the decision-maker in the jet acquisition process, can make the right judgment with all required information, according to Realitatea FM.

                  "As far as I understand, a first selection was made and now, this proposal must go to Parliament... So that the decision is a fair one, lawmakers have to be informed of all the offers: besides the F16 offer, they should learn what our offer consists of and the one made by Eurofighter," Smith told the radio station.

                  He said the Defense Ministry should make public what offers it received, because there is contradictory information. "For instance, when the F16 selection announcement was made, the idea that emerged was that the jets came for free. Now I gather they actually cost 1.3 billion dollars. Over the next ten years, for example, the Gripen offer, with NEW jets, would mean up to one and a half billion dollars smaller costs. One billion and a half. It's a significant figure."

                  The Saab official said he was surprised that "after all the statements made by politicians and not only, that they need new, performing equipment for the army, Romanian troops will get old, second-hand jets the United States no longer want to use."

                  As for replacing the F16 jets Romania is preparing to buy, Smith says "they could last for ten more years. And then a new acquisition will be needed. And another significant issue. In time of economic crisis, Americans offer no compensation with their jets. No employment opportunities, no possibilities of collaborating with Romanian aeronautics industry, no investment. Moreover, the money has to be paid on the spot."
                  Saab strikes back: New Gripen jets are 1.5 bn dollars cheaper than old F16 US wants to get rid of
                  J'ai en marre.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'd say buy the new jets. Gripen is a fantastic light fighter. Falcon is probably a better bomb truck. Which one will suit Romania's defense needs better over the next 20 years? What does Romania foresee over the next 20 years?
                    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Romania isn't going to be getting f-35's in the next 2 decades. With the way the costs are rising on the planes and the buy-in program works for a country not in on that at this point you are looking at around 100 mil per airframe, Does anyone see Romania paying close to that for planes anytime in the foreseeable future?

                      The USAF isn't planning on huge updates to the f-16 platform any time but with Lockheed support and the fact that Turkey has an extensive fleet of them with manufacturing capability and plans to use them for the next 25+ years as well as the new purchase from UAE of block 60's there will be updates and upgrades available for decades to come.

                      For the people wondering about second hand fighters,this isn't a case of getting worn out mig's after the russians have abused them with new paint. This is far more equivalent of someone taking a classic car down to the frame, replacing anything broken or worn, installing modern upgrades, then putting it back together.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Maxor View Post
                        Romania isn't going to be getting f-35's in the next 2 decades. With the way the costs are rising on the planes and the buy-in program works for a country not in on that at this point you are looking at around 100 mil per airframe, Does anyone see Romania paying close to that for planes anytime in the foreseeable future?
                        .
                        Sir, you give us to much credit , we are going to pay 54 mil per airframe , and that's a preserved airframe.
                        J'ai en marre.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                          Which one will suit Romania's defense needs better over the next 20 years? What does Romania foresee over the next 20 years?
                          Unfortunately, no politician is asking himself this question...
                          They ask how much they cost now and who's selling them...
                          J'ai en marre.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                            I'd say buy the new jets. Gripen is a fantastic light fighter. Falcon is probably a better bomb truck. Which one will suit Romania's defense needs better over the next 20 years? What does Romania foresee over the next 20 years?
                            Air police.No real war.If the Ivans or the Martians come(the probabilities are about the same),the AF is expected to hold enough for the rest of NATO to come.That has to happen fast.If there will be any outside expeditions they'll be alongside US vs whoever bothers you at the time.That can happen with any jet that's NATO compatible.What bothers us is the fact that dirty politicians make a deal that's not in our favor.Not the AF and not in economy's interests.
                            Those who know don't speak
                            He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                              Sir, you give us to much credit , we are going to pay 54 mil per airframe , and that's a preserved airframe.
                              Sorry I wasn't clear, I was saying that the F-35's cost will be well over 100 mil per airframe and that is why Romania isn't going to get them.

                              The Gripen NG is a very nice plane, I just don't see it being supported as widely nor as cheaply as the F-16 for the next 20 years, which to me makes the 16' a better choice for romania.

                              The carrot of mentioning the F-35 in the original article is meaningless. In 15 years when Romania starts looking for new fighters there should be a mature 5th gen competitor to the F-35 from either China, Russia, Saab-BAe, or Whatever grouping of french companies is in existence at that time.
                              Last edited by Maxor; 16 Apr 10,, 19:06.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X