Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 49 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 1446

Thread: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,611

    SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

    Last thread reached over 100 pages so I thought it would be a idea to start a new one.
    Sum ergo cogito

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,611
    Slovakia's Defense Ministry is planning to sign a deal to lease Saab JAS-39 Gripen fighter jets from the aircraft manufacturer following the parliamentary election which is scheduled for March 2016, the ministry's spokesman told local business daily E15.

    http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...tion/78307514/
    Sum ergo cogito

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,611
    Swedish-Finn Alliance May Influence Fighter Choice

    The deepening in bilateral defense collaboration between non-aligned Nordic states Sweden and Finland is expected to include the establishment of joint units and the sharing of naval and Air Force infrastructure.

    Moreover, Sweden remains interested in selling the JAS Gripen-E to Finland, which has begun the process of replacing the Air Force’s F/A-18 C/D Hornet aircraft, which are scheduled to be retired between 2025 and 2030.

    Although government officials remain tight lipped, the increasingly closer military cooperation between Finland and Sweden advances the possibility that Finland may opt to pursue a replacement strategy that includes two different NATO-compatible fighter types, one of which could be the Gripen E.
    http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...oice/78801218/

    Operate 2 types? Why?
    Sum ergo cogito

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    162
    For reference and quick access, old thread is there: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #3.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    Swedish-Finn Alliance May Influence Fighter Choice



    http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...oice/78801218/

    Operate 2 types? Why?
    Because foreign political relations and closer military ties often trump fiscal sanity. Does this point then to an equal buy of F-35s and Gripen Es?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    Swedish-Finn Alliance May Influence Fighter Choice



    http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...oice/78801218/

    Operate 2 types? Why?
    Operating 2 types has its benefits in case of one type should, for what ever reason, be grounded. With two types you always have a peacetime air-patrol capacity. Finland used to operate MiG-21 and Draken.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    271
    I doubt they are actually planning to operate two different fighters.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozair View Post
    Because foreign political relations and closer military ties often trump fiscal sanity.
    No, more likely Finland is realizing it's economy is going down the drain and they won't be able to afford F-35s.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by JakobS View Post
    No, more likely Finland is realizing it's economy is going down the drain and they won't be able to afford F-35s.
    Well the article never mentions economic issues associated with possibly acquiring two types. What is does state is that Sweden is keen for Finland to operate the Gripen and have a two type fleet, ceding half the fleet to another airframe...

    "There has been some speculative noise in Sweden that Saab would do a deal with Finland even in a theoretical contract situation where Finland chose to acquire two different aircraft types. Finland’s fighter replacement process has just commenced, so it is much too early to predict an outcome here," said Kehl.
    The rumours aren't coming from Finland... If Finland does chose to operate two types it will be for political reasons as operating two types is a waste of resources. The canadian capability assessment I posted in another thread is pretty clear that operating two similar types is a waste of money and limits the number of available aircraft.

    Based on reasonable assumptions, the RCAF can maintain anticipated domestic and international commitments using a single fleet of 65 fighter aircraft and 90 pilots.
    A mixed fighter fleet can provide the same or equivalent capability, but not without significantly more aircraft and pilots.
    Mixed fighter fleets comparable in size to the single fighter fleet will likely result in lower overall capability, at a higher cost.
    http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-rep...-fleet-en.page

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    23
    Right, so I'll post here in stead; I found this link on https://twitter.com/gripennews, & though it might be worth linking here: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/am...-35-nightmare/

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by velociraptor View Post
    Right, so I'll post here in stead; I found this link on https://twitter.com/gripennews, & though it might be worth linking here: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/am...-35-nightmare/
    Yeah, I figured someone would bring that here sooner or later. A perfect example of "journalism" on the internet these days. Just make up whatever numbers you want and throw them on a chart, instant credibility.

    Name:  Screen-Shot-2016-01-22-at-5.09.51-PM-620x396.png
Views: 6395
Size:  94.3 KB

    So let me see if I have this right...

    The F-15 has lower instantaneous turn performance than the F-35A... meanwhile the F/A-18 has higher sustained turn performance than the F-15. (huh?)

    The Su-27 has worse instantaneous turn performance than an Su-35, but the same sustained (?)... the Su-35 meanwhile is crushed in both metrics by all Eurocanards and the F-22 (again??). The Gripen of course is the top performer in both instantaneous and sustained turn performance.

    In fact, if this chart is to be believed the Gripen can sustain sustain just shy of a 30 degree per second turn, more than the F-15/16/18/35 or Su-27 can achieve in a max instantaneous turn.

    If this chart were even slightly accurate the Gripen would be flying circles around everything else in the sky...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    If this chart were even slightly accurate the Gripen would be flying circles around everything else in the sky...
    Yes, these values are ridiculous. Here's another source that I found in 3 seconds with Google (for Gripen C):

    • Maximum instantaneous turn rate: 30 degrees/second
    • Maximum sustained turn rate: 20 degrees/second


    Now this seems a little bit more realistic...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,054
    i recall the pilot of the demonstrator saying gripen NG could easily be touted as a 10G fighter
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,611
    Bulgaria to acquire new fighters

    The minister said the government is likely to sign a deal to acquire new multirole fighter jets by the end of this year. According to earlier reports, to date, the Bulgarian Defense Ministry has shortlisted three offers. These include the US F-16s, which were withdrawn from service; Sweden's Gripen and the Eurofighter Typhoon.
    http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...2019/79174700/

    SAAB is in with the best chance IMO (unless politics favour buying from US). Typhoon too expensive to procure+operate; second hand US F-16's very costly to upgrade.
    Sum ergo cogito

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    Bulgaria to acquire new fighters



    http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...2019/79174700/

    SAAB is in with the best chance IMO (unless politics favour buying from US). Typhoon too expensive to procure+operate; second hand US F-16's very costly to upgrade.
    Depends how much they want to upgrade them. If all they are doing is air policing then I am sure they will be sufficient.

    We agree on the Typhoon though. In a contest along with Gripen and used F-16s it does look a little odd.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,358
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    We agree on the Typhoon though. In a contest along with Gripen and used F-16s it does look a little odd.
    There was some talk of second hand Italian airframes... Even then, by comparison the maintenance costs will almost certainly be too much for the Bulgarian budget.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    119
    Wasn't Bulgaria gonna buy F-16s from Holland?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,714
    Quote Originally Posted by JakobS View Post
    Wasn't Bulgaria gonna buy F-16s from Holland?
    Sold to Jordan I believe. Some of them passed on Pakistan later.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    121
    "Operate 2 types? Why?"

    They might be thinking of cost and numbers of aircraft's. If they choose an expensive type of aircraft they could only get 30 and maybe they need other Hangars and landing strips etc . I know they have a lot of road bases, they might wanna use in i war scenario for example.Maybe they choose a smaller number say f-35 and a bigger number say Gripen. Since Gripen are very different to f-35, Gripen are proven/mature for road bases and used to cold and a fast interceptor/dog fighter/surveillance and the other a stealth expert better used as preemptive strike or silent surveillance. Gripen is much cheaper to fly around with in peace time and all things regarding gripen can be backed up in Sweden, weapons, repairs, advanced simulator training etc (they could even hide a few aircraft's in Sweden or just as to borrow some in case of need)

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,109
    From 12 - 11.30.2015, Air China and Thailand have held exercises at a base on Thai soil, the Chinese side bring J-11 to attend the host country also use this type of fight its most advanced engine is JAS-39C / D Gripen .

    In addition, the PLA also sent both tumbling Bat squadron equipped with the most famous fighter J-10 next to perform.

    The exercises showed fatal weakness of the J-11 fighter compared to the West, it is the Chinese aircraft always have time to take off later than the Gripen C / D to 1 minute when using the same road ice.

    Besides the unreasonable is shown in the training, can not deny that the domestic engine performance equip J-11 is not as advertised, leading to losses in combat trousers round.

    Thus, we can see that the most advanced fighters of the Chinese Air Force is still a certain gap when compared with the European aircraft manufacturer.
    Significantly, JAS-39 Gripen is being seen as a bright candidate to replace the role of the MiG-21, new "retired" in the Air Force Vietnam.

    With great expression in the field, clear Gripen fighter scored in the eyes of observers, prospects are Vietnam choices and thus become very much clearer.
    Google translated from: http://soha.vn/quan-su/ap-dao-hoan-t...2814462281.htm

    One better keep the combat trousers on!

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,633
    Why is the capability (or lack thereof) to take off one minute earlier than the Gripen considered as fatal? Gripen is an unwritten champion in that parameter, I could imagine that pretty much every other fighter would have the same "problem"..

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,109
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Why is the capability (or lack thereof) to take off one minute earlier than the Gripen considered as fatal? Gripen is an unwritten champion in that parameter, I could imagine that pretty much every other fighter would have the same "problem"..
    some further clarification (or confusion?) has been found:

    Chinese pilots were very confused that China’s aircrafts were always one minute slower than foreign aircrafts in taking off, as the runway is the same and the aircrafts have similar performance.

    After times of observation, contrast and analysis, the truth came out: Chinese fighter jets always take the outer lane in turning off, while foreign fighters always take the inner lane.

    Chinese pilots felt wronged and shocked, as they were taught to turn off in that way, and thus took it as a standard. But such detail could determine success of failure of a war, and they were totally unaware of it.
    http://www.china-arms.com/2015/12/ch...in-taking-off/

    So the Chinese were one minute late because they were making a wrong turn!

    One should never do that, in particular not in times of war. Arriving one minute late to the dogfight may be fatal.

    Edit: joking aside, the most interesting thing about the Vietnamese story linked to above, is that it is yet another story published in Vietnam that speaks highly about the Gripen... I wonder what that means?
    Last edited by Loke; 28th January 2016 at 23:43.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,633
    1. They want to diversify the sources for their aircraft
    2. They need a MiG-21 replacement
    3. They need a low part of the hi-low mix
    4. Nothing Chinese, thus the FC-1 is out..

    Not that many options left...

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,030
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Why is the capability (or lack thereof) to take off one minute earlier than the Gripen considered as fatal? Gripen is an unwritten champion in that parameter, I could imagine that pretty much every other fighter would have the same "problem"..
    With your usual sourcing I see...

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,441
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    1. They want to diversify the sources for their aircraft
    2. They need a MiG-21 replacement
    3. They need a low part of the hi-low mix
    4. Nothing Chinese, thus the FC-1 is out..

    Not that many options left...
    Gripen is an attractive prospect for Vietnam. The American engine is a potential stumbling block, but also a potential opportunity. Ties between the two nations have been warming, and this could be a meaningful next step in the relationship.

    (And the American voters/pundits most likely to object are too dumb to know what's going on anyway. )

    Tejas is another possibility, but too immature and unproven one would think, despite the low cost and attractive political angles.

    Korean F/A-50? Though one would think that if Vietnam were inclined in that direction they would've opted for T-50 over Yak-130.
    Last edited by Rii; 29th January 2016 at 01:23.
    Brief and powerless is Man's life; on him and all his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,633
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    With your usual sourcing I see...
    Sourcing for what?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by velociraptor View Post
    Right, so I'll post here in stead; I found this link on https://twitter.com/gripennews, & though it might be worth linking here: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/am...-35-nightmare/
    what the actual f is this oh my god , lol
    L band and lower frequency radars can see stealthy aircraft over 100 miles away. So an Su-35 can see a F-35 well before the F-35 can detect it

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    Yeah, I figured someone would bring that here sooner or later. A perfect example of "journalism" on the internet these days. Just make up whatever numbers you want and throw them on a chart, instant credibility.

    Name:  Screen-Shot-2016-01-22-at-5.09.51-PM-620x396.png
Views: 6395
Size:  94.3 KB

    So let me see if I have this right...

    The F-15 has lower instantaneous turn performance than the F-35A... meanwhile the F/A-18 has higher sustained turn performance than the F-15. (huh?)

    The Su-27 has worse instantaneous turn performance than an Su-35, but the same sustained (?)... the Su-35 meanwhile is crushed in both metrics by all Eurocanards and the F-22 (again??). The Gripen of course is the top performer in both instantaneous and sustained turn performance.

    In fact, if this chart is to be believed the Gripen can sustain sustain just shy of a 30 degree per second turn, more than the F-15/16/18/35 or Su-27 can achieve in a max instantaneous turn.

    If this chart were even slightly accurate the Gripen would be flying circles around everything else in the sky...
    the chart doesnt fit any flight graph from flight manual ,there is no part of the envelope where F-16 can sustain 19 degree/second but F-15 can only sustain 13 degree/second

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Most citizens couldn't care less.. they have zero clue about what the ties are nowadays, from cinemas and media a picture of Vietnam is a picture of an enemy.. Those few thousand tourists who have actually visited the country won't change a thing about that..
    Few thousand.... like a half a million last year alone. Seriously, you and Rii need to stop forming your view of U.S. citizens based on popular media. The ignorance you display mirrors the perceived ignorance that you accuse U.S. nationals of possessing.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by velociraptor View Post
    Right, so I'll post here in stead; I found this link on https://twitter.com/gripennews, & though it might be worth linking here: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/am...-35-nightmare/
    too many mistake to take serious
    1) the L band on Su-35 wing isnt a radar but used for IFF function ,if it was a radar , it's accuracy will be too low for anything useful ( small aperture + low frequency = bad cell resolution )
    2) author randomly made up detection range value
    3) the sustain - instantaneous turn rate are wrong , and likely made up by the author himself too

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 8 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES