Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
gabo787 wrote:It's still current. "DC" stands for "District of Columbia".First of all Columbia is the former name of Washington DC.
johns624 wrote:gabo787 wrote:It's still current. "DC" stands for "District of Columbia".First of all Columbia is the former name of Washington DC.
mxaxai wrote:What "superior firepower" against drug cartels could the F35 provide that the Rafale can't?Wouldn't it make more sense to buy F-35? Colombia is fairly close with the US (politically speaking) and this would put them a step above their neighbors, as well as providing superior firepower against drug cartels.
johns624 wrote:mxaxai wrote:What "superior firepower" against drug cartels could the F35 provide that the Rafale can't?Wouldn't it make more sense to buy F-35? Colombia is fairly close with the US (politically speaking) and this would put them a step above their neighbors, as well as providing superior firepower against drug cartels.
I'm old enough to remember when Colombia was the "bad guy" and Venezuela was the "good guy" and we sold them F16s.
mxaxai wrote:Wouldn't it make more sense to buy F-35? Colombia is fairly close with the US (politically speaking) and this would put them a step above their neighbors, as well as providing superior firepower against drug cartels.
gabo787 wrote:Who really believe that Colombia needs to use its fighters against drug cartels? that's ridiculous, what kind of air power do drug cartels have that merit the use of jet fighters? in the best case scenario they use small prop planes to transport drugs and those planes are usually interdicted with turbo prop planes like the Supertucanos.....
aumaverick wrote:mxaxai wrote:Wouldn't it make more sense to buy F-35? Colombia is fairly close with the US (politically speaking) and this would put them a step above their neighbors, as well as providing superior firepower against drug cartels.
Firepower? Maybe not. But stealth? Surely you need stealth to sneak up on all those crazy cartels and their crafty hidden drug labs in the jungle.
Kiwirob wrote:aumaverick wrote:mxaxai wrote:Wouldn't it make more sense to buy F-35? Colombia is fairly close with the US (politically speaking) and this would put them a step above their neighbors, as well as providing superior firepower against drug cartels.
Firepower? Maybe not. But stealth? Surely you need stealth to sneak up on all those crazy cartels and their crafty hidden drug labs in the jungle.
How many drug cartels use manpads or any sophisticated air defences to defend there labs?
pipeafcr wrote:I still believe that ColOmbia will go with SAAB as they are offering tech transfer (which apparently is a must for Colombia) and they are the cheaper option.
LaunchDetected wrote:pipeafcr wrote:I still believe that ColOmbia will go with SAAB as they are offering tech transfer (which apparently is a must for Colombia) and they are the cheaper option.
Any proof/quote to substantiate the "cheaper Gripen" claim? This argument is often used but Gripen keep losing tenders despite its operational qualities.
This makes me think that the Gripen is, in fact, not the "cheap alternative".
All the news released the last days shows that Colombia made its choice:
https://www.infodefensa.com/texto-diario/mostrar/4119584/colombia-compra-caza-combate-rafale
...the initial contract will be for between three and four units for approximate values 678 million dollars.
This first agreement includes, in addition to aircraft, aspects such as the integration of systems and weapons, simulators for the training of crews, training of technical personnel...
This is the first phase of the project, expecting then the issuance of a new Conpes (as well as a new Confis) next year, where the figures (approximately 2,800 million dollars) for the acquisition of the remaining 13 units are detailed. The acquisition of these aircraft will be financed by the French Government for 20 years, with a grace period of five years.
pipeafcr wrote:I still believe that ColOmbia will go with SAAB as they are offering tech transfer (which apparently is a must for Colombia) and they are the cheaper option.
LaunchDetected wrote:pipeafcr wrote:I still believe that ColOmbia will go with SAAB as they are offering tech transfer (which apparently is a must for Colombia) and they are the cheaper option.
Any proof/quote to substantiate the "cheaper Gripen" claim? This argument is often used but Gripen keep losing tenders despite its operational qualities.
This makes me think that the Gripen is, in fact, not the "cheap alternative".
All the news released the last days shows that Colombia made its choice:
https://www.infodefensa.com/texto-diario/mostrar/4119584/colombia-compra-caza-combate-rafale
ThePointblank wrote:LaunchDetected wrote:pipeafcr wrote:I still believe that ColOmbia will go with SAAB as they are offering tech transfer (which apparently is a must for Colombia) and they are the cheaper option.
Any proof/quote to substantiate the "cheaper Gripen" claim? This argument is often used but Gripen keep losing tenders despite its operational qualities.
This makes me think that the Gripen is, in fact, not the "cheap alternative".
All the news released the last days shows that Colombia made its choice:
https://www.infodefensa.com/texto-diario/mostrar/4119584/colombia-compra-caza-combate-rafale
The constant claims that Gripen is cheap comes from old Jane's IIHS puff piece that placed the Gripen as being the cheapest to operate.
What the article didn't mention was that the Gripen was being operated by the Empire's Test Pilot School, and that a lot of the costs for operating the Gripen was actually borne by Saab, with the school only paying to lease the aircraft. It definitely wasn't representative of operational usage.
art wrote:You sure about the source? I was under the impression that the figure for Gripen came from Swedish air force and was disclosed in the Swedish parliament 10+ years ago.
Reference to Gripen being the cheapest western fighter to operate is made again today (same data as ca 10 years ago, I think)
https://stratpost.com/gripen-operationa ... ers-janes/
art wrote:ThePointblank wrote:LaunchDetected wrote:
Any proof/quote to substantiate the "cheaper Gripen" claim? This argument is often used but Gripen keep losing tenders despite its operational qualities.
This makes me think that the Gripen is, in fact, not the "cheap alternative".
All the news released the last days shows that Colombia made its choice:
https://www.infodefensa.com/texto-diario/mostrar/4119584/colombia-compra-caza-combate-rafale
The constant claims that Gripen is cheap comes from old Jane's IIHS puff piece that placed the Gripen as being the cheapest to operate.
What the article didn't mention was that the Gripen was being operated by the Empire's Test Pilot School, and that a lot of the costs for operating the Gripen was actually borne by Saab, with the school only paying to lease the aircraft. It definitely wasn't representative of operational usage.
You sure about the source? I was under the impression that the figure for Gripen came from Swedish air force and was disclosed in the Swedish parliament 10+ years ago.
Reference to Gripen being the cheapest western fighter to operate is made again today (same data as ca 10 years ago, I think)
https://stratpost.com/gripen-operationa ... ers-janes/
The price comparison for the 60 + 7 machines requested in the invitation to tender at the 1992 price level and with the desired equipment is as follows:
Plane / acquisition cost / lifetime (30 yrs) operating cost estimate
F-16 / FIM 8.670 billion / FIM 5.500 billion
F / A-18 / FIM 9.789 billion / FIM 6.200 billion
JAS FIM 39 / 10.653 billion / FIM 5.800 billion
M2000-5 / FIM 10.153 billion / FIM 6.7 billion
MiG-29 / FIM 11.040 billion / FIM 10.7 billion (15 yrs)
In addition, index costs will be payable during the delivery period, which will be fixed at around 2.5% / year for M2000-5, up to 7% / year for JAS 39 until 1996 and up to 10% / year thereafter. For the F-16 and F / A-18 aircraft, the U.S. government has given an estimate of index performance that ranges from about 3-5% / year. For the MiG-29, an estimate of 3% / year is used. In addition, half the life of Western machines must be taken into account
Director of the Value for Money Unit (SVK Ministry of Finance) Štefan Kišš confirmed that the bids were compared and evaluated by the Value for Money Unit, he said: “Our task along with the Minister of Defence was to put the bids on the same scales and the outcome is that if we compare the comparable, the entire life cycle of the American F16s is 8% cheaper [than the Gripens’].”
Aesma wrote:Good news ! I'm guessing 2 engines (also true for the Gripen) played a role for a country with plenty of places you can't hope to land on and don't want to eject over either ?
Aesma wrote:Good news ! I'm guessing 2 engines (also true for the Gripen) played a role for a country with plenty of places you can't hope to land on and don't want to eject over either ?
LaunchDetected wrote:Aesma wrote:Good news ! I'm guessing 2 engines (also true for the Gripen) played a role for a country with plenty of places you can't hope to land on and don't want to eject over either ?
The Gripen is designed to land on short landing strips. Sweden (and Brazil) are also full of land you don't want to eject over!
Kiwirob wrote:LaunchDetected wrote:Aesma wrote:Good news ! I'm guessing 2 engines (also true for the Gripen) played a role for a country with plenty of places you can't hope to land on and don't want to eject over either ?
The Gripen is designed to land on short landing strips. Sweden (and Brazil) are also full of land you don't want to eject over!
What’s wrong with ejecting over Sweden? I can understand the Amazon not being very hospitable, but Sweden???
744SPX wrote:I'll bet the Gripen C/D would be cheaper than Rafale or F-16V.
LHAM wrote:744SPX wrote:I'll bet the Gripen C/D would be cheaper than Rafale or F-16V.
I would expect so since the Rafale is a two engine aircraft and the F-16V has much more modern electronics and sensors than the Gripen C/D.
mxaxai wrote:Wouldn't it make more sense to buy F-35? Colombia is fairly close with the US (politically speaking) and this would put them a step above their neighbors, as well as providing superior firepower against drug cartels.
Rai678 wrote:mxaxai wrote:Wouldn't it make more sense to buy F-35? Colombia is fairly close with the US (politically speaking) and this would put them a step above their neighbors, as well as providing superior firepower against drug cartels.
Would the US sell the F-35 to a country like Colombia? They have no need for something that capable. Also I would be worried about some corrupt official giving access to the Chinese or Russians.