According to La Tribune, Columbia has pre-selected the Rafale for its Air Force and plans to acquire 16 Rafale for a cost of EUR 3 billion.

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-fi ... 45576.html

Although the translator says "pre-selected", I think "selected" is the correct English term.

First of all Columbia is the former name of Washington DC, the real name of the country is Colombia and in English it also is Colombia.

Second in the Colombian media they are also using the term preselection as they haven't still signed any agreement but it looks very likely that they will.

I was hoping for the Saab but was expecting the F-16 to be chosen so this is a big surprise, saying that the Rafale is a more than capable asset to protect the Colombian sky for many years to come.

gabo787 wrote:

First of all Columbia is the former name of Washington DC.

It's still current. "DC" stands for "District of Columbia".

My apologies for misspelling the name of Colombia.

johns624 wrote:

gabo787 wrote:

First of all Columbia is the former name of Washington DC.

It's still current. "DC" stands for "District of Columbia".

You are absolutely right, my bad.

Rafale's roll continues.
After S.Arabia expressing interest for up to 200 frames and the pending decision about further orders for the Indian Air Force and its navalised version for the Indian navy carriers Colombia would be its first user in the Americas.

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.

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.

What "superior firepower" against drug cartels could the F35 provide that the Rafale can't?
I'm old enough to remember when Colombia was the "bad guy" and Venezuela was the "good guy" and we sold them F16s.

johns624 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.

What "superior firepower" against drug cartels could the F35 provide that the Rafale can't?
I'm old enough to remember when Colombia was the "bad guy" and Venezuela was the "good guy" and we sold them F16s.

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.....

Colombia needs jet fighters to have proper defence capabilities against other air forces like the Venezuelan that has Su-30's

Apparently the main drive to select the Rafale is the fact that it will be capable to use all the Israeli missiles that Colombia already have among other things. This article has a lo tof information about it, sadly is only in spanish but there is always google translate.

https://www.pucara.org/post/las-razones ... e-colombia

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.

Congrats to the Rafale team. Perhaps the most beautiful fighter in production today. Having a dissimilar type vs. others is not always bad, certainly, and it might afford greater industrial participation than what is, at least in the Americas, a dying industrial base for production of F-16’s, moving forward. I think the Israeli’s could also provide support for weaponry on F-16’s, but again this is a very interesting/positive selection, imho.

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.....

These smuggling operations have been using older business jets from makeshift runways in the jungle for some time now. Catching them requires supersonic jets. A good sensor suite can also help with aerial reconnaisance of drug operations as well as detection of ilicit flights.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... unning-jet
https://jalopnik.com/there-is-a-quiet-n ... 1669712985

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?

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?

They don't, and the labs are expendable. Guerilla tactics are in play here. Make everything mobile and invest as little as possible into something that is essentially disposable. The challenge in Colombia is the fact the cartels moved their operations to the jungle and adopted jungle guerilla tactics to evade the crackdown and reduce the number of large raids in favor of a chimaera form of operation. As the post above mentioned, the cartels prefer to export product out of improvised airstrips with stolen bizjets. You don't need an F-35 to take on the cartels.

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.

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

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

It could be that the Gripen offer cannot compete with the extraordinary finance terms offered by France for the Rafale deal. From linked article:

...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.

So, pay $678 million for 3 initially with support infrastructure etc then 5 years later start paying a whopping $2.8 billion for 13 Rafale. I suspect that the overall cost of Rafale plus weapons will be much higher than for the same number of Gripen. Equally I think that the through life cost of Rafale will be much higher than for Gripen.

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.

What sort of tech transfer is Colombia interested in?
Do they have an aerospace industry that can actually make use of advance technologies? Avionics, engine, weaponry, sensors?
Color me skeptical.
I believe what they are actually interested in is getting the most bang for their buck. And it sounds like that's exactly what they are doing.

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.

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.

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:

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/

Even 10 years ago this operational costs comparison graph was to be taken with caution as this is not an apple to apple comparison.
US DoD gave different operating costs for the F-35 and F-16.

Regarding acquisition costs, Thailand Air Force commander-in-chief told us last year that the Gripen was now more expensive than the F-35.
https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2240091/air-force-eyes-f-35-stealth-jets
While this might sound a little bit optimistic regarding F-35 costs, it showed that the Gripen was no longer seen as a true cheap alternative. Even by countries that already use it.

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/

Very certain.

Also, note that the Swedish cost does not disclose the fact that Sweden has military conscription, and that the base pay for volunteers is also very low. As such, labour costs are extremely low.

Subsequent evaluations by multiple countries also indicate that the Gripen still is not as cheap as they claim; I saw a report from Finland back in 1992 when they evaluated the Gripen was the second most expensive fighter in the evaluation, after the MiG-29:

https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/201707022200238131

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

In short, the F-16 was going to be cheaper to purchase and operate, while the F/A-18 was going to be comparable in costs, but was far more capable.

A more recent evaluation by Slovakia found that the F-16V had a cheaper lifecycle cost than the Gripen by about 8%:

https://www.mosr.sk/42280-en/vlada-prij ... lami-f-16/

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’].”

Basically, 14 brand new F-16V's with all of the latest equipment (AESA radar, targeting pods, simulators, a weapons package, plus 3 years of training) was cheaper than the used Gripen C/D offering from Sweden, which didn't include some of these things. In short, the Slovaks got a newer, more capable fighter in the F-16V for cheaper than the used offering from Saab.

@ThePointBlank

Agreed, an apples to apples comparison was not possible in the Janes 'report'. And it may well be that F-16 has become cheaper relative to Gripen in the 10 years since the Janes 'report'.

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 ?

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!

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 ?

It looks like more like capability is a major factor; the Rafale is just a more capable multi-role fighter with a well developed ground attack capability. The Gripen in its variants doesn't have as well developed ground attack capability.

The Colombians have used their existing Kfir fleet in the ground attack role for years in their counter-insurgency campaign against FARC.

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???

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???

Sweden has loads of areas that are pretty cold, wet, rocky and remote.

I'll bet the Gripen C/D would be cheaper than Rafale or F-16V.

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.

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.

The Slovak evaulation between Gripen C/D and F-16V said that the F-16V was actually cheaper in the long run.

https://www.mosr.sk/42280-en/vlada-prij ... lami-f-16/

Basically, 14 brand new F-16V's with all of the latest equipment (AESA radar, targeting pods, simulators, a weapons package, plus 3 years of training) was cheaper than the used Gripen C/D offering from Sweden, which didn't include some of these things.

Delay - funds not there to finance a replacement for Kfir...

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/air- ... placement/

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.

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.

I don't see any chance of that happening, and you're right, they don't need it. Aside from the fact that the F-35 was originally billed as the Joint Strike Fighter intended as a unifying platform for NATO member states only, it's too new and modern of an aircraft to be sold to anyone who isn't a close ally. That isn't to say that Colombia isn't a close ally, but it goes back to the lesson the US learned with Iran and the F-14 in the late 70s — a change in government can land the newest American tech in the hands of an adversary. NATO countries have roughly zero chance of a significant shift in defense policy from one government to the next, but a country like Colombia is potentially prone to instability. The F-16 is a realistic possibility, but I wouldn't anticipate anything newer or more capable being sold to them (or frankly anyone outside of NATO).