Switzerland without Gripen

[Brisse]

as Swedish domestic politics force the Swedish military to buy Swedish weapons, regardless of their quality. The only things they don't have to buy domestically are things that are simply too expensive to develop in country.

 

I'm not so sure that is true. Explain to us then why Patria won the contract instead of Hägglunds with their XA-203 built in Finland?

 

Then try to explain why the most expensive military units in the country, the submarines and warships of the Swedish Navy is still built and developed within our border?

 

Sorry for going off-topic.

[Scrim]

From what I can see, Calspan is a simulator that was used. The software is not American.

 

It's a large corporation dating back to WW2.

 

I'm not so sure that is true. Explain to us then why Patria won the contract instead of Hägglunds with their XA-203 built in Finland?

 

Then try to explain why the most expensive military units in the country, the submarines and warships of the Swedish Navy is still built and developed within our border?

 

Sorry for going off-topic.

 

Seriously? The Patria almost lost when a court ordered the purchasing process to be redone because Hägglund sued on the grounds that the Patria was better than their because it exceeded the standards set by the Swedish military, and that their vehicle should've been purchased because though of much lower quality, it lived up to the standards and was somewhat cheaper. And if Patria hadn't been from Finland, a country Swedish politicians want to cooperative with, you can bet your behind it wouldn't have been given a chance by the court.

 

As for the submarines and surface ships: Read what it is you respond to. Who says they're too expensive to develop domestically? They have to be somewhat suited to national requirements, which rather rules out American hunter-killer submarines from countries that build them for operating mainly in the Atlantic. The same goes for surface vessels. Not to mention, politics. Any idea how many people are employed because that's kept in country?

[Azrayen]

Eh, just go buy some F-4s from Germany, Israel, or Turkey. They'll work just fine.

 

Far too smokey birds for (clean) Switzerland skies! :D

[Bruce_D]

Hi,

 

Just a few points about the Gripen NG. Sweden bought only the Gripen E, for training they will use de D version. Switzerland, like Sweden, made an intention to buy only the E version.

 

Brazil is, until now, the only country interest in the F version. The development of this version will be made in Brazil.

 

For the Brazilian version of the Gripen E/F the software will be developed between SAAB and a Brazilian company (probably MECTRON, the same company that made the software integration for the F-5EM and the A-4M for the air force and the navy respectively).

 

ARMs: Brazil uses the MAR-1 (Brazilian made ARM missile - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAR-1) and the air force will integrate it to the Gripen E/F in the future.

 

Now, about the Switzerland decision, some people here in Brazil are saying that this will be good for Brazil because we will have more power to negotiate with SAAB. The Brazilian price is fixed (It was fixed before the Switzerland decision) so I believe that Sweden will pay the price if Switzerland doesn’t buy it.

 

For me, I don`t have a opinion about the subject because I don`t know which are the Switzerland necessities.

[brydling]

It's a large corporation dating back to WW2.

 

I saw that after searching some more. But still, the software is not American. That would be a lie. So maybe they got support from a company with a new state-of-the-art simulator to sort out some problems, but they still own the code. From what I've heard, there was a cooperation with the Americans, who were also very interested in fly-by-wire at the time but had not experienced this issue because of their larger aircraft. Saab fixed the problem and Saab has the patent regarding the solution to the issue. They have also written the code. What is remarkable that the other manufacturers have not done is to build a small aircraft with the same maneuvering performance as a large one. Contrary to what you might believe it is easier to make a larger aircraft perform well.

Edited May 20, 2014 by brydling

[Scrim]

Yeah, that's just not the case. Calspan ain't a simulator, nor was a simulator the only thing they helped out with. SAAB had botched the FCS to the extent where they could not fix it without going abroad for help. And if your FCS can't be relied on to not crash your plane without help from an outside party, you just can't claim it's your own software any longer.

[brydling]

SAAB had botched the FCS to the extent where they could not fix it without going abroad for help.

Do you have any proof for what you are saying? What I've heard is that there was a cooperation because the Americans was also developing their first fly-by-wire aircraft at the time. However they never got any problems because of the F-16's larger size.

 

Edit:

 

Kontrollagarna för styrsystemet har ändrats och undergått ytterligare utveckling. Det nya styrprogrammet har genomgått omfattande simulering och validering i marksimulatorer. Dessutom har flygprov genomförts vid CAlSPAN-laboratorierna i USA. En programmerbar T-33 har flugits med JAS 39 Gripens nya styrprogram av förare från såväl Saab som FMV:PROV.

 

Google translate:

 

Control laws for the control system has changed and undergone further development. The new control program has undergone extensive simulation and validation in ground simulators. Moreover, flight tests conducted at CAlSPAN laboratories in the United States. A programmable T-33 has flown with the JAS 39 Gripen new control software of drivers from both Saab and FMV TEST.

 

And if your FCS can't be relied on to not crash your plane without help from an outside party, you just can't claim it's your own software any longer.

Actually, yes you can. You are talking about export restrictions. America can't restrict the software from being exported in any way.

Edited May 20, 2014 by brydling

[aaron886]

Do you have any proof for what you are saying? What I've heard is that there was a cooperation because the Americans was also developing their first fly-by-wire aircraft at the time. However they never got any problems because of the F-16's larger size.

:megalol: F-16 and Gripen were not developed at the same time, at all. 1974 vs 1988. The F-16 was not the first fly-by-wire aircraft produced in the US anyway.

 

Contrary to what you might believe it is easier to make a larger aircraft perform well.

Also, this is largely bunk, at least at the scale you're talking about. The Gripen and the F-16 are 3 feet different in length. You keep making weird statements and then struggle to shift the subject. This isn't constructive, it's a lousy "measuring" competition with everyone supporting their country's aircraft.

Edited May 20, 2014 by aaron886

[brydling]

:megalol: F-16 and Gripen were not developed at the same time, at all. 1974 vs 1988. The F-16 was not the first fly-by-wire aircraft produced in the US anyway.

 

They weren't, sorry. Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that what I've heard is there was a cooperation that both parties were interested in. Maybe initiated by Saab because they had problems, but I don't know anything about that.

 

Also, this is largely bunk, at least at the scale you're talking about.

 

No, it's not. Larger hydraulics systems gives faster control surfaces.

Edited May 20, 2014 by brydling

[aaron886]

...the fact that...

 

...what I've heard...

 

Do you have any proof for what you are saying?

 

:noexpression:

 

No, it's not. Larger hydraulics systems gives faster control surfaces.

 

http://fsb.zedge.net/scale.php?img=OS85LzUvMi8xLTg3Njc5ODUtOTk1MjU0My5qcGc&ctype=1&v=4&q=81&xs=620&ys=383&sig=650e4b13d30cb3bb1e2137c7ac6024aa2e73a810

[Scrim]

Do you have any proof for what you are saying? What I've heard is that there was a cooperation because the Americans was also developing their first fly-by-wire aircraft at the time. However they never got any problems because of the F-16's larger size.

 

...

 

Actually, yes you can. You are talking about export restrictions. America can't restrict the software from being exported in any way.

 

Bulls. You don't seem to know what you're even on about. As aaron886 pointed out, there's about a decade and a half separating the F-16 and Gripen. The F-16 and F/A-18 were some of the American jets they studied when they looked at foreign aircraft during the research phase.

 

The moment they had to go to an American corporation (a corporation, they didn't consult a simulator) to keep the FCS from killing their planes like a crazed software serial killer, they lost the right to call it solely Swedish. And seriously, the Americans aren't allowed to restrict anything else than the sale of military hardware? Just on what planet do you live?

Edited May 20, 2014 by Scrim

[brydling]

:noexpression:

 

 

 

http://fsb.zedge.net/scale.php?img=OS85LzUvMi8xLTg3Njc5ODUtOTk1MjU0My5qcGc&ctype=1&v=4&q=81&xs=620&ys=383&sig=650e4b13d30cb3bb1e2137c7ac6024aa2e73a810

 

Words ripped from their context.

 

I am not claiming to have any proof, hence the words "what I've heard". But if you have proof I am interested in knowing.

[brydling]

The moment they had to go to an American corporation (a corporation, they didn't consult a simulator) to keep the FCS from killing their planes like a crazed software serial killer, they lost the right to call it solely Swedish. And seriously, the Americans aren't allowed to restrict anything else than the sale of military hardware? Just on what planet do you live?

 

Of course the Americans can restrict the sale of software as well, but this is not their software, so no I don't think so.

 

Edit: Anyway, it hardly matters since there is American hardware in the A/C as well. I was just responding to you saying that a large part of the aircraft's software is American. That is wrong. Of course, it depends on what you mean by "considerable".

 

Also, the view I've got of this is that the Americans mostly helped with the large problems after the first crash, making it possible to continue flight testing again in 1990. The problem was not solved however, since it crashed again in Stockholm in -93 (or -94?). Saab has a patent on the final fix that solved the root of the problem, not just made it smaller.

Edited May 20, 2014 by brydling

[brydling]

Just on what planet do you live?

 

Bring yourself to a higher level please.

[aaron886]

Bring yourself to a higher level please.

 

Yours? The one where you can say "the fact is that I've heard?" Triple post was not required, by the way.

[Scrim]

Of course the Americans can restrict the sale of software as well, but this is not their software, so no I don't think so.

 

Edit: Anyway, it hardly matters since there is American hardware in the A/C as well. I was just responding to you saying that a large part of the aircraft's software is American. That is wrong. Of course, it depends on what you mean by "considerable".

 

 

You really have no idea how export restrictions work, do you? The American government is obviously 100% allowed to put restrictions on what different companies export. The notion that they couldn't is ridiculous, and such laws would hardly be of much value, as most of the military technology that is developed in the US isn't developed by the government.

 

No, just no. The somewhat considerable importance of a vital part of your avionics not crashing your plane is a very large part.

[RagnarDa]

Brydling has probably read the same Swedish sources that I have, that refers to CALSPAN as a simulator (like this and this) hence the confusion. If you are going to say that CALSPAN rewrote the FLCS-code (the sources above states SAAB fixed the code) it does sound like you are using wrong part of your body to speak. I'm happy to be proved wrong because frankly I don't care about this, it is an extremely meaningless discussion.

[Brisse]

The Gripen accidents were caused by Pilot-Induced Oscillations (PIO).

It's a problem that were affecting both the Swedes and Americans with their YF-22.

 

A SAAB researcher, Dr. Lars Rundqvist came up with one solution called feedback-with-bypass

 

Two Americans came up with another solution called derivative switching.

 

The Swedish solution proved to be better.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a413992.pdf

[brydling]

Yours? The one where you can say "the fact is that I've heard?" Triple post was not required, by the way.

There is no need to be rude about it. I think I keep a pretty mature level in this discussion.

 

It is a fact that I have heard these things. I think it is a perfectly correct formulation.

 

You really have no idea how export restrictions work, do you?

Again, the maturity level of your language..

 

No, I do not know exactly how export restrictions work. Can you explain how America could put export restrictions on software that they do not own?

Edited May 20, 2014 by brydling

[Eddie]

ITAR - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations

[brydling]

ITAR - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations

 

Too long to read to get answer to a simple question. I still don't understand how the US could prevent Sweden from exporting their own software. Still, it doesn't matter since some of the hardware is American anyway.

[RagnarDa]

Switzerland without Gripen

 

ITAR - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations

 

 

I believe they are discussing whether the US can claim ownership of the FLCS-software or not. It is kind of irrelevant because the FLCS is probably one of the few things in the Gripen actually designed in Sweden (hence the crashes :) )...

[winz]

The moment they had to go to an American corporation (a corporation, they didn't consult a simulator) to keep the FCS from killing their planes like a crazed software serial killer, they lost the right to call it solely Swedish.

Did they from a legal stand point? If it was a regular outsourcing, then all ownership rights transfered to SAAB. We have several pieces of SW that was not developed in-house, yet we call it 'our SW', it's pretty standard in SW development.

And if this is the case, then US export restriction cannot apply, because it is not an US SW.

[brydling]

I believe they are discussing whether the US can claim ownership of the FLCS-software or not. It is kind of irrelevant because the FLCS is probably one of the few things in the Gripen actually designed in Sweden (hence the crashes :) )...

 

Ah, ok. Actually I think almost the whole aircraft is designed in Sweden, if you look at size of the parts involved. The airframe, all the major physical systems, the main part of the avionics and software for it. The only big thing designed outside Sweden is the engine. Then it is various sensors and weapons and some other small stuff. Important stuff of course, but no-one can claim that most of the aircraft is not Swedish.

[RagnarDa]

Ah, ok. Actually I think almost the whole aircraft is designed in Sweden, if you look at size of the parts involved. The airframe, all the major physical systems, the main part of the avionics and software for it. The only big thing designed outside Sweden is the engine. Then it is various sensors and weapons and some other small stuff. Important stuff of course, but no-one can claim that most of the aircraft is not Swedish.

 

 

Sorry, I was confabulating to make a point just because it sounded good in my head. Very easy to do that sometimes, especially on Internet forums ;)