Search results

Yes, and? Those aren't used exclusively for air shows like the Tutor is (and even that was originally our trainer plane before it became obsolete in that role). They're active duty aircraft seconded for demonstrations.

In other words, screw over their existing customers. Everything Saab has offered seems desperate.

Saab must really think we're idiots to suggest it could start deliveries in three years.

No. A Gen 4 fighter jet as a lead-in trainer is insane and wasteful. An actual trainer like the T-7 or T-50 is far more appropriate.

Which is also their combat plane, and each one can be returned to combat duty within 72 hours. Buying a plane  just for demonstration purposes would be pointless. Whatever we get for the new trainer to replace the Hawk should also replace the Tutor. I'm not sure I follow. If we want a light...

A Gripen is way overkill for a trainer and demonstration plane.

Gen 4 is obsolete. It's time to upgrade. It's not cheaper. Saab's claims are nonsense. That $8,000 per hour won't even fill the tank. If we want something cheap for low intensity, friendly skies COIN op missions, there are better options. We can add guns and bombs to trainers, like the AT-6...

They ordered it in 2014, and have had ten delivered since then, and that's with a domestic aerospace industry cooperating. Saab promised 14,000 jobs, about 200 have materialized. The costs keep rising because of the delays.

They told Brazil the same thing. How's that working out for them.

And Sweden's neighbour, Finland, now a NATO member, evaluated the Gripen and F-35 and picked the F-35, finding it was actually cheaper due to Saab massively underestimating the costs of the Gripen.

For comparison, Lockheed Martin builds more F-35s in a month than Saab has built Gripen Es in the past decade.

Which would require years to redesign and implement in production.

And the fact other Scandinavian countries picked the F-35 over the Gripen.

Maybe we could convince them to build T-7s instead.

Expired DLN courses.

It's Germany that will have one ready by 2035. Korea will have two by 2030.

It's also operated by Britain, Australia and Turkey. Also, the exact reason for NATO picking the GlobalEye isn't public, but it probably has to do with their expected patrol areas and mission times being shorter than what we can expect, which favours the shorter range GlobalEye. They're probably...

I'd prefer AW101s. It's probably because of Chretien that they picked the Seahawk.