Switzerland without Gripen

[brydling]

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 ;)

 

I agree :)

[Scrim]

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.

 

If TL;DR is going to be the way you respond to answers, I'll go ahead and follow suit: Takes Too Long to Explain; Won't Bother. TLE;WB.

 

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.

 

No, not from a legal point of view, but from a more practical point of view I suppose.

[RagnarDa]

If TL;DR is going to be the way you respond to answers, I'll go ahead and follow suit: Takes Too Long to Explain; Won't Bother. TLE;WB.

 

 

I read the wiki-article and yes it states that it is illegal for other countries to transfer US tech to embargoed countries. Still doesn't apply to tech that the US doesn't own, which is the point you keep ignoring.

[Scrim]

ITAR for example (there are plenty of other regulations and laws dictating these things) applies to all military technology. It doesn't matter if the government, military, etc. has ever even considered purchasing it. And as I said, several other laws dictate these matters. If you think that American companies are free to get involved in military projects with other nations, then you are incredibly mistaken.

[RagnarDa]

Switzerland without Gripen

 

It might help to take a little brake from the computer, take a walk outside and cool off your head for a few minutes or hours. Sometimes I put ice on my wrists, which helps somewhat. Some days it is just impossible because I have gotten too little sleep or are too stressed out, so it might help returning tomorrow or any other day.

Edited May 20, 2014 by RagnarDa

[Eddie]

IStill doesn't apply to tech that the US doesn't own, which is the point you keep ignoring.

 

Oh yes it does!

 

When it comes to US ITAR (and export control laws of other countries), who "owns" something is utterly irrelevant. What matters is where the item in question (or parts of it) originated. If a single part of a item is subject to ITAR, then the whole thing is.

 

And it's not just physical items that it applies to, software, technical information, and even verbal conversations can be subject to ITAR and other export controls.

 

So in the context of this discussion, even if the system in question was made on Sweden, from 100% Swedish components, and is loaded with software entirely made by Swedes, if those Swedes used any US technical data to develop the software, or even has some verbal advice from the US that involved subjects that are subject to ITAR then guess what, the software is subject to ITAR as well. The same could be true for UK export controls, or any other nation involved, however small the involvement was.

 

That said, I don't know anything about the Gripen or its development so I couldn't say for sure if any specific export controls would apply of not. But they certainly "could".

[RagnarDa]

Switzerland without Gripen

 

Oops! The more you know... :p

 

Edit: I am still puzzled by that. Any country could by that definition claim "ownership" on really anything because almost nothing has been developed solely in one country. I don't know, but maybe Sweden could stop US or any other country from exporting gear containing thermometers because of Celsius...

Edited May 20, 2014 by RagnarDa

[brydling]

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

 

This is the solution I have heard about. Didn't know the details existed on the Internet. That is also the patent that I was referring to. Saab came up with this solution.

[Scrim]

Oops! The more you know... :p

 

Edit: I am still puzzled by that. Any country could by that definition claim "ownership" on really anything because almost nothing has been developed solely in one country. I don't know, but maybe Sweden could stop US or any other country from exporting gear containing thermometers because of Celsius...

 

Maybe try not ignoring something next time, before getting up on a high chair and saying I ignored something?

 

It's simple. If an American company owns the patent, it's regulated by their laws.

 

 

Yes brydling, after years of being unable to fly the Gripen as they had constructed an FCS that was a larger danger to the plane and its pilot than anything on this Earth, and after going to an American corporation to figure out what they had done wrong.

 

And as I said, that's just one part that is difficult to say was developed domestically.

 

 

 

Now, I've had enough of this thread. EthereaIN, I'll try to respond to your latest post. Though we disagree, I can't help but admit that you do have some valid points, and informative.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Scrim

[brydling]

It's simple. If an American company owns the patent, it's regulated by their laws.

 

This specific patent is owned by Saab.

[Scrim]

Was that post directed at you, or anything you had said? No. Don't complain about aaron supposedly taking your statements out of context when you unabashedly do so yourself.

[brydling]

Was that post directed at you, or anything you had said? No. Don't complain about aaron supposedly taking your statements out of context when you unabashedly do so yourself.

 

I don't think that I do. Not with the intention of making a fool out of someone. Just with the intention of being able to clearly reply to just one bit of a post. The intent of that post was to make it look like I say that I had proof when I didn't, and make it look like I demand proof from others even though I can't prove things myself. Totally different from what I am doing when quoting only one fragment of a post. Now, bring the discussion up one step.

[RagnarDa]

Ok so if the US might possible be able to stop exports of the software in the Gripen because of a some consultation work done in the early 90's, how likely is this to happen and does it apply to the E/F variant too? Was this a known variable when Brazil decided on the Gripen?

[Brisse]

This is the solution I have heard about. Didn't know the details existed on the Internet. That is also the patent that I was referring to. Saab came up with this solution.

 

I thought so, thats why I posted this. I had that thesis as a bookmark for a long time just in case I stumbled on an argument just like this! :D

 

Seems you confused the F-16 with the YF-22 though.

 

Scrim? Does this not prove that the solution to the FCS-problem is of swedish origin?

[brydling]

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

 

Quoting this again, because I realize I forgot to reply to the link. Again with the intention of making a fool out of someone instead of using arguments, but I am going to ignore that for now.

 

What was the fun part anyway? Larger hydraulics systems enables faster control surfaces. Gripen's comparatively small and cheaper hydraulics system was the root of this problem, and the US had never had to handle a case like that because they just throw bigger hardware at the problems (not saying it's a bad thing, just expensive). The control surfaces in for example the F-16 move fast enough to not be subjected by this issue.

 

I thought so, thats why I posted this. I had that thesis as a bookmark for a long time just in case I stumbled on an argument just like this! :D

 

Seems you confused the F-16 with the YF-22 though.

 

Haha, finally it came to good use! ;)

 

Yes, I did confuse them. I knew the US also had an aircraft at the same time that they experienced difficulties with now that I read it, hence the cooperation. But if I remember correctly their problems was caused by something else. I believe they had a powerful enough hydraulics system to have control surfaces that doesn't lag behind the pilot input.

Edited May 20, 2014 by brydling

[winz]

Oh yes it does!

 

When it comes to US ITAR (and export control laws of other countries), who "owns" something is utterly irrelevant. What matters is where the item in question (or parts of it) originated. If a single part of a item is subject to ITAR, then the whole thing is.

 

And it's not just physical items that it applies to, software, technical information, and even verbal conversations can be subject to ITAR and other export controls.

 

So in the context of this discussion, even if the system in question was made on Sweden, from 100% Swedish components, and is loaded with software entirely made by Swedes, if those Swedes used any US technical data to develop the software, or even has some verbal advice from the US that involved subjects that are subject to ITAR then guess what, the software is subject to ITAR as well. The same could be true for UK export controls, or any other nation involved, however small the involvement was.

 

That said, I don't know anything about the Gripen or its development so I couldn't say for sure if any specific export controls would apply of not. But they certainly "could".

 

I'm kinda curious how this could be enforced. Let have an imaginary Gripen that is 100% manufactured in sweden, and only parts of its SW suite were outsourced to some companies in the US (so legally SAAB has the ownership). Let's say Sweden would like to sell Gripen to Iran. Swedish companies are not bound by US law, nor have the US courts any way to legally punish them (fine them, prosecute the owners) companies.

 

From my personall experience: Company I work in (based in Germany) had a contract with a country heavily sanctioned by the US. And delivering our SW, created using american made SW (visual studio) was not a problem. The problem was delivering 3rd party sw sold by US companies (like MS Windows, or Oracle). And our legal department was very carefull with this one, because you don't want to end on some US goverment black list ;)

[EtherealN]

There's another thing I don't quite understand here:

 

Let's assume the US gets angry with sweden and blacklisting it and there are components affected. Does this not simply mean that exports to sweden are prohibeted? How would Switzerland be affected? Wouldn't it have to be switzerland that is embargoed for this to hit them? (Especially considering that nowadays, a lot of the Gripen stuff is british.)

 

And of course, if Switzerland were to be embargoed by the US, they'd be even more boned if they had an exclusively american fleet of aircraft.

 

But really, the risks of either Switzerland or Sweden getting placed under a US arms embargo is... remote. If you worry about that, then the only real solution for anyone is to do 100% of their advanced arms development and manufacture domestically.

[RagnarDa]

Maybe try not ignoring something next time, before getting up on a high chair and saying I ignored something?

 

It's simple. If an American company owns the patent, it's regulated by their laws.

 

 

Yes brydling, after years of being unable to fly the Gripen as they had constructed an FCS that was a larger danger to the plane and its pilot than anything on this Earth, and after going to an American corporation to figure out what they had done wrong.

 

And as I said, that's just one part that is difficult to say was developed domestically.

 

 

 

Now, I've had enough of this thread. EthereaIN, I'll try to respond to your latest post. Though we disagree, I can't help but admit that you do have some valid points, and informative.

 

The thing is, you might not be aware of it and it might not be your intention, but you come of as quite aggressive and angry in your posts. What you might have meant is that even consultative work can fall under export laws but I didn't pick that up from reading your posts, neither did other people I think. It would help if you more clearly showed how this event would legally stop Switzerland from getting upgrades of their software if they would come under US-only-embargo (which is unlikely in the first place).

 

Also, the Gripen crashed again because of PIO after the American help, so I am not entirely sure what we are discussing here.

[Brisse]

Gripen FCS-software is programmed using ADA. Not sure if that could be a reason for embargoing, but i'd say it's unlikely. Pretty sure there are some american hardware electronics in the FCS-computer. CPU is probably TI or Motorola. I think that's as close you get when trying to call it an american system.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Brisse
Spelling error

[Eddie]

All entirely hypothetical now, but in that kind of situation an embargo is highly, highly unlikely. To my knowledge there has never been such a penalty involved with an export control violation.

 

Bare in mind that ITAR and similar are primarily for commercial transactions my private companies, not an entire country/government.

 

The likely penalties are fines (highest I've heard of is USD100 million), and/or loss of ITAR access/export licence. Both are potentially company killers.

[Eddie]

Gripen FCS-software is programmed using ADA. Not sure if that could be a reason for embargoing, but i'd say it's unlikely. Pretty sure there are some american hardware electronics in the FCS-computer. CPU is probably TI or Motorola. I think that's as close you get when trying to call it an american system.

 

And that is exactly the kind of thing that most often makes items subject to export control. There are numerous examples of Typhoon equipment that is subject to ITAR because it contains a single computer chip from the US.

 

The simple fact is, if you want all the new shiney toys you need to play the game.

[Scrim]

I'm kinda curious how this could be enforced. Let have an imaginary Gripen that is 100% manufactured in sweden, and only parts of its SW suite were outsourced to some companies in the US (so legally SAAB has the ownership). Let's say Sweden would like to sell Gripen to Iran. Swedish companies are not bound by US law, nor have the US courts any way to legally punish them (fine them, prosecute the owners) companies.

 

A few years back, a Spanish company made a considerable multi million dollar loss when the US government refused a sale of a helicopter or plane to Venezuela IIRC, citing the fact that ITAR regulated some hardware I believe that was in the airframe. When they were allowed to include that in the first place, they placed their product under not only Spanish but also American "jurisdiction" so to speak. Venezuela in turn, in their never ending "USA-trolling" even tried to sell F-16s to Iran in '06, which was for somewhat obvious reasons stopped by ITAR.

 

Let's assume the US gets angry with sweden and blacklisting it and there are components affected. Does this not simply mean that exports to sweden are prohibeted? How would Switzerland be affected? Wouldn't it have to be switzerland that is embargoed for this to hit them? (Especially considering that nowadays, a lot of the Gripen stuff is british.)

 

It would definitely make a mess out of exporting Gripen to literally speaking any Western country, since even those that are not part of NATO are very keen to cooperate extensively with NATO as we all know. At best, Swedish sales would be incredibly hurt, because even if the customers still buy Gripens, they will only do so if:

 

A, There is a large decrease in the purchase price and likely other economical bones in it.

 

B, If the US decides that instead of pressuring Gripen customers into buying American, they will go in and fix the missing parts, features, etc. for the Gripens for the customers after they've bought them, effectively giving every single Gripen country apart from the country that developed them modern Gripens. Imagine how Israeli and American companies have upgraded Migs, T-72s, etc. with Western technology. The Gripen would of course in such a situation be better suited for those upgrades, since it's designed to accommodate them to start with.

But that is rather unlikely, as it would mean that Gripen survives, though Sweden makes enormous losses selling them. I suppose they might do it if the Gripen customers are adamant, and to keep Sweden from drifting a bit Eastwards.

 

At least that's my 2 cents worth of amateur geopolitics ;)

 

 

The issue regarding this that I did a poor job at pointing out is that as Switzerland would rely on American-Swedish politics, there would be a risk of a less modern Gripen as times go on, not because there are Iran sized embargoes looming over Sweden, but because the US government has been well known to push Gripen out of the market, as the low price tag means it can compete to a certain, uncomfortable degree with American fighter jets. Other Western fighters do it too, but not with the same low prices, and they also come from NATO members. It's not at all hard to imagine an American company backing out of a Gripen upgrade deal one day if the Gripen is in direct competition with American jets in any Western country or one of many 3rd world nations.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Scrim

[winz]

The likely penalties are fines (highest I've heard of is USD100 million), and/or loss of ITAR access/export licence. Both are potentially company killers.

Yes, but those can only affect US based companies, and those operating in the US. You cannot fine a swedish based company, that isn't operating in the US, because they broke some US law.

 

A few years back, a Spanish company made a considerable multi million dollar loss when the US government refused a sale of a helicopter or plane to Venezuela IIRC, citing the fact that ITAR regulated some hardware I believe that was in the airframe. When they were allowed to include that in the first place, they placed their product under not only Spanish but also American "jurisdiction" so to speak. Venezuela in turn, in their never ending "USA-trolling" even tried to sell F-16s to Iran in '06, which was for somewhat obvious reasons stopped by ITAR.

Wasn't this more the case of the spanish having a US based sub-contractor that produced parts for the heli? And if they went on to sell the heli to Venezuela the US authorities could ban the US based subcontractor to export the part? If they (theoreticaly, because I cannot see that to be feasible) switched the sub-contractor for a spannish based, they should be imho ok.

Edited May 20, 2014 by winz

[Eddie]

Yes, but those can only affect US based companies, and those operating in the US. You cannot fine a swedish based company, that isn't operating in the US, because they broke some US law.

 

True, you'd struggle to fine them if they weren't also registered in the US. But they can have any licences they hold removed and be prevented from being allowed any access in the future. And that's going to be a really big problem for a company which wants to sell a product as they won't be able to guarantee support in the future.

[EtherealN]

It would definitely make a mess out of exporting Gripen to literally speaking any Western country

 

Well, that's not what I'm talking about though. I'm talking about this situation:

 

1) The Swiss voted yes instead of no

2) The plane gets developed (including their specifications), and delivered

3) A decade in the future, sweden comes under a US embargo

 

What is the problem for the swiss then? The key american component is the engine (in the E/F, that is), but that can be purchased from the british company that made them anyhow - or, indeed, from the americans themselves. Weapons can be purchased from the brits, euros, americans and brazilians still, etcetera etcetera. (If I recall correctly, the brazilians will include the capability to use some of their current and upcoming domestic A2A weapons. The Swiss might not have opted to have that installed in their planes, ofc, but given the commonality they could in future do that; especially considering that the Brazilians are expecting to have a fully capable Gripen production line of their own!)

 

A, There is a large decrease in the purchase price and likely other economical bones in it.

 

Not strictly relevant - they would already have purchased it since, as you know, Sweden is not under embargo at this point, nor are there any indications that it would be in the future. (I would, indeed, rate swedish accession to NATO as more likely than that. The yankees have great use of the swedes as well, for example through renting that sat relay for their UCAV's and UAV's up at Esrange.) But yeah, not applicable since the swiss would already have it, and the price decrease would affect Sweden (and the UK), not Switzerland.

 

B, If the US decides that instead of pressuring Gripen customers into buying American, they will go in and fix the missing parts, features, etc. for the Gripens for the customers after they've bought them, effectively giving every single Gripen country apart from the country that developed them modern Gripens.

 

Still not what I asked though. I asked what would be the effect on Switzerland if they had purchased Gripens today, and in future Sweden comes under embargo? Remember, you are the one that said that the risk of a future embargo on Sweden is one of the reasons it's a good idea for Switzerland to not purchase Gripen. THAT is what I am asking about.

 

And, btw, they wouldn't need Americans anyway, they probably could use the brits that already control large parts of the Gripen manufacturing chain.

 

The issue regarding this that I did a poor job at pointing out is that as Switzerland would rely on American-Swedish politics, there would be a risk of a less modern Gripen as times go on, not because there are Iran sized embargoes looming over Sweden, but because the US government has been well known to push Gripen out of the market, as the low price tag means it can compete to a certain, uncomfortable degree with American fighter jets.

 

Couple issues there though: such a limited embargo could easily lead to the americans seeing themselves, in turn, blocked from continuing a lot of license production and other purchases that they already are making from swedish industry. (Though, obviously, swedish law already technically prohibits those sales and always did since the US in engaged in wars, but you know how it goes. :P )

 

More relevantly though: the swiss doesn't really need the swedes if push really comes to shove, excepting possibly the radar and some other things. As mentioned: compatible weapons come from three continents, engine already is american/british. I don't know whether the radar would even fall under such an embargo anyhow, if I remember right the one slated for the E/F is "all Ericsson", so to speak. The one in the older ones is Swedish/British. (A collab between Ericsson and BAE, based on a previous british design - a cousing to the Eurofighter radar.)