Saab and Tata form joint venture to build... a fighter jet?!
The Swedish Airplane Company, or Saab AB, has been building aircraft since 1937. To diversify its business, the company started making cars in the late 1940s. Whether we cringe or not, Saab Automobile (the car division) has always reminded the public that its cars have fighter jet DNA (e.g., "Born from Jets"). Now comes word that the Swedish aeronautics manufacturer is partnering with India's Tata Group to build a variant of the Gripen fighter designed to go head-to-head with the some of the world's top military aircraft for some billion-dollar contracts.
Tata brings quite a bit to the relationship. India's largest business group not only builds a vast amount of vehicles, but it has steel manufacturing divisions, electric companies, and IT businesses. Tata also brings cash to the table. Whether the new bedfellows can get it together and knock such heavy-hitters as the F-16, F-18, and MiG-29 out of the sky has yet to be determined, but it should be an interesting battle.
[Source: Google/AFP]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Sea Urchin 5:06PM (2/10/2009)
So the rule of thumb is, if the company can say that it's car is "Born from Jets"-----It sucks.
Reply
Harribert 5:08PM (2/10/2009)
Remember SAAB fighters are powered by Volvo engines =D
Reply
Mobius_1 6:38PM (2/10/2009)
At least they are safe.
Big Rocket 10:15PM (2/10/2009)
@Harribert, Mobius_1: That Volvo engine is basically a U.S. engine in disguise. Say what you will about our automobile industry, but the rest of the world has a very long way to go before catching up with the U.S. aerospace industry.
Current Engine:
"The Gripen is powered by a Volvo Aero 'RM-12' bypass turbojet engine with afterburner. The RM-12 was developed in cooperation with General Electric and is derived from the GE F404J turbofan used on the Boeing F/A-18 Hornet."
http://www.vectorsite.net/avgripen.html
Future Engine:
"GE Aviation and Volvo Aero Corporation will be working collaboratively on the new F414G fighter engine. The F414G uses a similar architecture to the ... engine powering the F/A-18 Super Hornet, with minor changes to the alternator ... and modified ... software ..."
http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2007/070702_GEengine.htm
Harribert 12:31AM (2/11/2009)
I am well aware that the US harbors some of the most awesome aerospace stuffs in the world, and it has some of the richest aeronautic heritage in the world, but i don't see the point of this post; I was pointing out the humorous irony of a volvo-powered saab. this licensing of engineering designs is common practice in the military and heavy industry world, where Boeing and Airbus SAS involve thousands of companies all around the world to design components for their aircraft. Mitsubishi in japan and the IAF building and modifying F-15/16 fighters.
The US does this as well with the IAV Stryker, based on a Canadian design, which is itself based on the Swiss MOWAG Piranha
Also, I didn't say anything about the US auto industry on my post, just keep in mind that national pride is only a marketing strategy used by car companies and little else. *shrug*
/moot argument.
Big Rocket 5:33PM (2/11/2009)
The phrase that came to my mind was, "Give credit where credit is due." I was also referring to Mobius' comment, which implied non-Volvo engines (or cars) are unsafe.
notYou 5:17PM (2/10/2009)
AB: "...and knock such heavy-hitters as the F-16, F-18, and MiG-29 out of the sky..."
Fortunately, we've got the F22 which is 2 generations beyond any of those.
And no, SAAB + Tata aren't going to get anywhere near that for a decade plus. Unless Obama keeps his campaign promise to ""slow our development of every future combat system" (hmmm, methinks that's one he might actually keep...)
Reply
J.E. 5:33PM (2/10/2009)
No, not really, I was hearing in NPR the other day that the F22 wasn't actually offering too much bang for the buck, and that it's performance wasn't that far away from that of the plane it is originally designed to replace: The F-15. Although still better than those planes, it is not that far away into the future as some of the planes that are coming out. It does have an advantage: it does have much better range than it's competition, but some of the latest experimental planes from Russia and the Grippen and Eurofighter have better maneuverability, besides the fact that they are cheaper to deploy in larger amounts. Current budget restraints will mean that we will be deploying a loooot less of F22's as originally expected (I think less than a 150). Sweden alone has deployed more than a 200 Grippens, and they keep updating them because it's a viable business for them, which means that their tech is advancing faster than the F22, and I think it won't be too far into the future before they reach us and pass ahead... just a personal opinion, but they are selling them good. F22 is great, Grippen may not be on that level.... yet. But for sure they are advancing at greater strides than us. It took them a loooot less money and time to develop their plane than what it is taking us to finish the F-22.
refugee7 5:40PM (2/10/2009)
Planes are not universal. They have specialty roles. Although the F-22 is leaps and bounds ahead in the air-superiority category, it is plainly too expense to use for multi-role support.
refugee7 5:40PM (2/10/2009)
expensive**
Michael Harley 5:54PM (2/10/2009)
I hear you... but the article clearly said F-18 and F-16.
Maybe they are setting their sights low?
- Mike
BigMcLargeHuge 5:46PM (2/10/2009)
@ J.E.
I too have criticized our 'next-generation' technologies for being far too expensive to have any sustainable impact on the global balance of power.
We're still focusing on platforms. Platforms that are costing FAR too much, so that we end up having to cut the size of the force. The real future of aerial warfare is in avionics and electronics. The Brits, the French and the Swedes have that figured out. Stick with a versatile platform, and build crazy-good computers for them, and you'll be able to deploy and upgrade quicker and for longer into the future.
Like you said, the F22 is a far more 'awesome' airplane than the F15. But is it 'better?'
Well, considering we had over 650 F-15s of various sorts, and we'll have less than 200 F22s, its hard to say 'better.'
True, 1 F22 can do more than 1 F15, maybe even 2. But our forces are already having trouble being stretched thin. Does each theatre of operations deserve only 10-20 aircraft protecting our troops? I think not. They might be more capable, but they cannot be in all places at all times, like the airforce we used to have.
Same thing for the V-22. Its so impressive... that it took the better part of 2 decades to get into a semi-functional deployment.
Bottom line is, the Pentagon are acting like a bunch of 8th graders. They want the coolest thing on the block! Even though Sweden currently has the most practical.
In WWII, the Allies beat the Axis not because their equipment was better, but because they could out-produce them. We no longer have that capability.
I'm not worried about Sweden, but every piece of military hardware has its price. I'm worried about who's buying?
notYou 6:08PM (2/10/2009)
J.E.: "I was hearing in NPR the other day that the F22 wasn't actually offering too much bang for the buck..."
There's where you went wrong, you were listening to NPR....
They're expensive to purchase, but you don't need them in as great a # as traditional fighters:
from wiki*: "During Exercise Northern Edge in Alaska in June 2006, 12 F-22s of the 94th FS downed 108 adversaries with no losses in simulated combat exercises.[11] In two weeks of exercises, the Raptor-led Blue Force amassed 241 kills against two losses in air-to-air combat, and neither Blue Force loss was an F-22."
12:108 and 0:241sound like excellent "bang for the buck" ratios.
*there are many, many more interviews with pilots that demonstrate the fully integrated multi-targetting ability combined with stealth + performance regularly allows them to win 1:6, 1:8, and 1:12 engagements - even against FA18 Hornets flown by other F22 pilots.
notYou 6:08PM (2/10/2009)
refugee7: "Planes are not universal. They have specialty roles. Although the F-22 is leaps and bounds ahead in the air-superiority category, it is plainly too expense to use for multi-role support."
Agreed, but the F22 is so superior with such a reach of capabilities that virtually guarantee total air superiority, that it will enable us to get away with less expensive options for other roles.
refugee7 6:03PM (2/10/2009)
Both the F-15 and F-22 are made for the wrong role. There is not much of a need for an air superiority plane. The F-22 is made because the development was already done 40% by the time the Soviet Union disintegrated. Yes the F-22 is much better. Remember reading where the F-15s didn't even see the F-22 on radar or any method before they were tagged.
I did not know that the F/A - 18 was also for export. mmm. Well, the F-16 isn't even being bought by the US government so Lookheed Martin as to make money some how on a still quite capable chassis. Russia is still prostituting itself military might so I can't see the Grippen being much competition to the Su-27 or Mig-29.
No wants to pay to develop tech for the military. It's like the era of colonialism. You research and get better guns and sell your old ones to any one because you don't care about how it ravages the local population. If the country has to use its might to conquer someone they sold weaponry to, its still gonna be a cakewalk.
notYou 6:10PM (2/10/2009)
BiogMcLargeHuge: "True, 1 F22 can do more than 1 F15, maybe even 2"
Real world wargames demonstrate a single F22 can perform brilliantly against 4, 8, even 10+ 4thgen or earlier opponents.
wiki: "This was followed from 13 April to 19 April 2008 by an Operational Readiness Inspection (ORI) of the integrated wing in which it received an "excellent" rating in all categories while scoring a simulated kill-ratio of 221-0"
The only thing it can't do that 2 F-whatevers could is be in more than one place at the same time. Fortunately, it's reach and virtual undetectability allows it to almost do that within legitimate distances.
And the fact that it can take on so many, and do so virtually unopposed, is a game changer. 50 F22s can decimate and eliminate any other air force's fighter regimen on the planet.
That's why Saab+Tata building F16 killers for third world trash countries isn't worrisome, Iran getting nukes is.
refugee7 6:19PM (2/10/2009)
-notYou
Agreed, so the US government is unfortunately putting efficiency over effectiveness which can pose a problem when the F-22 isn't world dominate.
RealityCheck 7:52PM (2/10/2009)
Just so you know the F22 is invisible to radar so you can not shoot it down unless you can see it. The whole idea of these jets is to shoot a missile from 50 miles away and go home! You do not need to out fly your competition if they can not shot at you. This jet is so advanced that the kill ratio is yet to be determined, in other words they think that only a lucky missile shot will take one down in the first place. The USA also has two other airplanes that are also almost impossile to shht down so you can tell Saab to save their cash and not waste the effort.
Conundrum 9:13PM (2/10/2009)
@refugee7...
You underestimate the F22. The F-22 is a multirole fighter with amazing new capabilities. They clear the air like stealthy air superiority fighters. After clearing the air, they attack ground targets with a classified bombload. They can also help older generation aircraft do thier job more efectively by overseeing the fight and providing data the older jets can't get or see.
F22s can get data from other sensor systems... land based radar, AWACS planes (flying radar), other aircraft in the area... then act upon that data.
F22s could potentially be the "ring leader" for a squadron of unmanned drone aircraft. Feeding them commands and targets to jam or destroy.
F22s are capable of flying in supercruise (non afterburner supersonic flight) while maintaining stealthy characteristics. This multiplies the "hard to kill" issue for enemies.
The electronics of the F22 are upgradable like uploading the latest version of windows on your computer... This will allow the aircraft to be upgraded simply by plugging it in and upgrading the software. No hardware upgrades like 70s generation F-jets.
The F22s fly by wire allows the pilot to fly the aircraft as hard as he wants without fear of overstressing the airframe like in F-15s or F16s.
refugee7 9:33PM (2/10/2009)
-Conundrum
Never underestimated, read what I wrote, it's just too expensive to risk it on low altitude missions. Period.