Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 45 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 1325

Thread: SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Broccoli View Post
    I doubt they are actually planning to operate two different fighters.
    Normally I would say yes, operating two different types does not make sense.

    However for Finland perhaps it may make sense! Consider the following:

    Finland (and Sweden) are both struggling to fund their defences. IMHO they have two options to maintain a (somewhat) credible defence:

    1. become NATO members.
    2. Make their own alliance.

    If Finland goes for option 1 then it would probably make the most sense to buy a small number of F-35; however if they go for option 2 (making a defence alliance with Sweden) they may consider to do the following:

    * Purchase a minimum (around 20) F-35. Build infrastructure and support organization for their F-35
    * Purchase around 40 Gripen E; leave the maintenance and support to Sweden.

    A combination of geographical proximity and alliance with Sweden would make this highly feasible. Today Sweden is supporting 100 Gripen C/D; in the future they plan to replace with 60 E's; if they take responsibility for supporting another 40 Finnish E, they can basically keep the size of their current support structure. The incremental cost of supporting 100 instead of 60 Gripen will be paid by Finland, and will be much smaller than if Finland should build a new Gripen support structure from scratch.

    The Finnish-Swedish alliance would then consist of:

    100 Gripen E (conducting all kinds of missions)
    20 F-35 (focusing exclusively on high-level threats; i.e. deteriorating double-digit SAMs to allow a 4.5 gen fighter like Gripen E to operate freely).


    Comments?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    6,287
    Please keep the US politics out of this, guys.
    Regards,

    Frank

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    Normally I would say yes, operating two different types does not make sense.

    However for Finland perhaps it may make sense! Consider the following:

    Finland (and Sweden) are both struggling to fund their defences. IMHO they have two options to maintain a (somewhat) credible defence:

    1. become NATO members.
    2. Make their own alliance.

    If Finland goes for option 1 then it would probably make the most sense to buy a small number of F-35; however if they go for option 2 (making a defence alliance with Sweden) they may consider to do the following:

    * Purchase a minimum (around 20) F-35. Build infrastructure and support organization for their F-35
    * Purchase around 40 Gripen E; leave the maintenance and support to Sweden.

    A combination of geographical proximity and alliance with Sweden would make this highly feasible. Today Sweden is supporting 100 Gripen C/D; in the future they plan to replace with 60 E's; if they take responsibility for supporting another 40 Finnish E, they can basically keep the size of their current support structure. The incremental cost of supporting 100 instead of 60 Gripen will be paid by Finland, and will be much smaller than if Finland should build a new Gripen support structure from scratch.

    The Finnish-Swedish alliance would then consist of:

    100 Gripen E (conducting all kinds of missions)
    20 F-35 (focusing exclusively on high-level threats; i.e. deteriorating double-digit SAMs to allow a 4.5 gen fighter like Gripen E to operate freely).


    Comments?
    May not only Finland, but Sweden also could acquires a small batch of F 35A/B for the Royal Sweden Air Force.

    After all in this your hypothesis has seems to me that Finland would get the greatest onus to acquire both 20 F 35 as well as 40 Gripen E.

    Anyway I guess that Finland will replace their F/A 18 C/D Hornet for a single fighter, in this case could be several possibilities as: Gripen E, F 35A/B, Typhoon, Rafale, PAK FA, J 20, J 31 among others.


    The people of Finland are quite discreet, however I guess they are very good in causing surprises.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,976
    I must confess that the post above was written after dinner (which consisted of pizza and beer). No doubt, the influence of the pizza has affected my cognitive processes...

    More realistically, considering the Finnish economy and the cost of modern a/c, a more likely scenario would be for Finland to buy 20 F-35 and 0 Gripen -- however I would maintain the importance of Finland either entering NATO or a close alliance with Sweden.

    If they choose the latter, the Swedish-FInnish defence will in the future consist of 60 Gripen E and 20 F-35, for a total of 80 a/c. To protect such a large area, full integration of the two air forces would probably be necessary.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    97
    Although a few of the politicians in Finland have spoken warmly of the F-35 they are still very pragmatic when it comes to selecting equipment for their military.

    Also it's not the 1990s anymore when the Russian threat had gone away and Finland could chose whatever fighter it wanted because there was no need to prioritize the defense spending towards other things. The situation today is very different, the Russian threat is back and there is a big need for investment in the whole military, not just the air force. Add to this that the Finnish economy is still going down the drain.

    For this reason I don't think they will buy any F-35's. They will realize the true cost of operating a 5th generation stealth aircraft and they will realize that they will have to cut their air force in half if they wishes too.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,172
    Why would someone buy a more expensive/less performing airframe? If you can get 35, you don't go in Sweden to make your shopping.

    The strong point of the Grip is its leasing offer. It allows a low budget nation to remain credible in its defense posture.
    So far, we haven't heard from Finland any requests for that kind of offer.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The American Midwest
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by JakobS View Post
    Although a few of the politicians in Finland have spoken warmly of the F-35 they are still very pragmatic when it comes to selecting equipment for their military.

    Also it's not the 1990s anymore when the Russian threat had gone away and Finland could chose whatever fighter it wanted because there was no need to prioritize the defense spending towards other things. The situation today is very different, the Russian threat is back and there is a big need for investment in the whole military, not just the air force. Add to this that the Finnish economy is still going down the drain.

    For this reason I don't think they will buy any F-35's. They will realize the true cost of operating a 5th generation stealth aircraft and they will realize that they will have to cut their air force in half if they wishes too.
    Is it really? Is there any threat that Russia would conduct hostile military action on Finnish territory? Finland seems to be concerned about genuine self-defense, as opposed to the far-flung "interests" that other countries concern themselves with.

    I agree that they would opt for something pragmatic, affordable, and more mature. The Gripen would provide a significant capability over Finnish territory even in the event of an unlikely altercation with Russia.
    Last edited by Cuito; 30th January 2016 at 19:50.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,172
    De-facto Fins will be operating sooner or later in a denied/deniable airspace over part of their own territory. The Grip is hardly a surviving airframe for that kind of daily exercise (I mean without going for a kill of the systems). They need Stealth and ideally dispersed basing. Not one or the other.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuito View Post
    Is it really? Is there any threat that Russia would conduct hostile military action on Finnish territory? Finland seems to be concerned about genuine self-defense, as opposed to the far-flung "interests" that other countries concern themselves with.
    Well threat was probably the wrong word to use. To counter the now much improved Russian capabilities is probably more accurate. Russia probably have no intention of being aggressive toward Finland, but if they wanted to they now have the capability again. That is what Finland is going to try and balance.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuito View Post
    I agree that they would opt for something pragmatic, affordable, and more mature.
    The original Gripen is going out of production and can't expect to be upgraded significantly from here on out.

    The Gripen NG hasn't even flown yet and most certainly isn't mature. (even the affordable part is very much in question given what Brazil is paying)

    The Gripen would provide a significant capability over Finnish territory even in the event of an unlikely altercation with Russia.
    As already noted above, if Finland were to find itself in conflict with Russia the Gripen would be operating within the threat radius of Russian SAMs from the moment its wheels retracted.

    Finland can buy Gripens for air policing, knowing that they will be essentially useless for actual defense, or they can buy F-35s if they are serious about maintaining a credible self defense capability.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,704
    Quote Originally Posted by JakobS View Post
    The situation today is very different, the Russian threat is back
    There is no Russian threat for Finland, get real. A basic overview of geopolitics and national interests and the nature of Finnish-Russian relations (hint, growing economic ties over past 15-20 years) will make that conclusion pretty obvious.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,336
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    The original Gripen is going out of production and can't expect to be upgraded significantly from here on out.
    There are significant radar upgrades waiting for someone to pay to implement them, & IIRC supposedly a road map for carrying over suitable upgrades from the NG - if anyone pays. That lot could be applied to the existing stock of Gripens, keeping them current. An MLU for the Gripen C/D.

    SAAB has an interest in getting work & money from its existing customers, & it's more likely to do that by getting the best from the aircraft it's already sold them than trying to persuade them to throw away what they've spent & buy new.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    6,971
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    De-facto Fins will be operating sooner or later in a denied/deniable airspace over part of their own territory. The Grip is hardly a surviving airframe for that kind of daily exercise (I mean without going for a kill of the systems). They need Stealth and ideally dispersed basing. Not one or the other.
    as Kosovo proved, russkies figured out long ago how to plink down 'stealth' a/c,
    in fact F-117 had one of the worst survival rates, if not THE worst survival rate, when sorties per type is accounted for.
    Additionally, Moscow no doubt picked up the american way of war, dispersed basing is not optional, its mandatory
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,336
    They figured out how to plink down stealthy aircraft when they knew where the stealthy aircraft was going to be (because it kept flying the same route so fleeting glimpses could be put together to build a picture of that route), so they could put a missile launcher in just the right place, & when it would arrive overhead (because they had spies logging the take-offs & they knew the route) so that a system which would normally need extraordinary luck to get a firing solution would be placed just right to have a good chance.

    I doubt the USAF will be quite so complacent & co-operative again.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    6,971
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    They figured out how to plink down stealthy aircraft when they knew where the stealthy aircraft was going to be (because it kept flying the same route so fleeting glimpses could be put together to build a picture of that route), so they could put a missile launcher in just the right place, & when it would arrive overhead (because they had spies logging the take-offs & they knew the route) so that a system which would normally need extraordinary luck to get a firing solution would be placed just right to have a good chance.

    I doubt the USAF will be quite so complacent & co-operative again.
    F-16 had those very same conditions, and flew by far more sorties
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    On the run.. Scandinavia & China
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    The original Gripen is going out of production and can't expect to be upgraded significantly from here on out.

    The Gripen NG hasn't even flown yet and most certainly isn't mature. (even the affordable part is very much in question given what Brazil is paying)



    As already noted above, if Finland were to find itself in conflict with Russia the Gripen would be operating within the threat radius of Russian SAMs from the moment its wheels retracted.

    Finland can buy Gripens for air policing, knowing that they will be essentially useless for actual defense, or they can buy F-35s if they are serious about maintaining a credible self defense capability.
    Finland is on average more than 250 km wide, that distance would provide a radar horizon of approx 12 000 feet. Even if the theoretical range of S400 largest missiles is well in excess of this the effectiveness will be very limited. Even if a F35 would have a 100 km(unlikely?) engangement range advantage I belive that it would be more than compensated by the superior survivability on the ground and what we can expect of a far superior availability & turnaround time for Gripen.

    Regarding Gripen C/D upgrades you have been here long enough so you know otherwise.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,655
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    F-16 had those very same conditions, and flew by far more sorties
    No they did not. The F-117 & B-2 were the only NATO aircraft that were cleared to strike downtown Belgrade for the first 60 days of the air operation. [And the same thing would perhaps not have worked against the B-2 which (unlike the F-117) was equipped with a RWR.]

    The F-16 had a better survival rate only because its strike missions were never as dangerous as the F-117's.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,655
    Quote Originally Posted by Halo View Post
    Finland is on average more than 250 km wide, that distance would provide a radar horizon of approx 12 000 feet. Even if the theoretical range of S400 largest missiles is well in excess of this the effectiveness will be very limited. Even if a F35 would have a 100 km(unlikely?) engangement range advantage I belive that it would be more than compensated by the superior survivability on the ground and what we can expect of a far superior availability & turnaround time for Gripen.
    Add in a Beriev A-100 to go with that S-400. These guerilla tactics with light cheap aircraft might have worked well back in the 70s & 80s. Not so much today.

    - Superior survivability on the ground - not logical. The only type that would provide a genuine advantage there is the F-35B.
    - Superior turnaround time & availability - by how much and how do we know this.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,655
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    There is no Russian threat for Finland, get real. A basic overview of geopolitics and national interests and the nature of Finnish-Russian relations (hint, growing economic ties over past 15-20 years) will make that conclusion pretty obvious.
    The ideal thing then would be to dissolve the Finnish Air Force (unless Sweden counts as a threat) and save billions. Unfortunately, from a military standpoint, Russia is very much a threat, even if actual conflict is highly unlikely.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,704
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    The ideal thing then would be to dissolve the Finnish Air Force (unless Sweden counts as a threat) and save billions. Unfortunately, from a military standpoint, Russia is very much a threat, even if actual conflict is highly unlikely.
    From a purely military standpoint, the imbalance of forces is so great that no few dozen of F-35s would make any difference for Finland. Gripen can patrol airspace just as well during peacetime.

    The only scenario where the F-35 would justify its cost and not be destroyed before even taking off is if Finland and Russia have some sort of aerial skirmishes around the border, without anyone fully committing. Finland is of course free to spend its money as best it sees fit, but IMO blowing billions for such an comically unlikely scenario is silly.
    Last edited by TR1; 31st January 2016 at 09:25.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  21. #51
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,655
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    From a purely military standpoint, the imbalance of forces is so great that no few dozen of F-35s would make any difference for Finland. Gripen can patrol airspace just as well during peacetime.

    The only scenario where the F-35 would justify its cost and not be destroyed before even taking off is if Finland and Russia have some sort of aerial skirmishes around the border, without anyone fully committing. Finland is of course free to spend its money as best it sees fit, but IMO blowing billions for such an comically unlikely scenario is silly.
    How's spending billions on an advanced fighter jet equipped with an AESA radar, GaN-based EW system, sensor fusion, supercruise & Meteor capability, for peacetime patrolling, any less silly?

    And if we accept that it is silly, why should we not also extend the same logic to Sweden and Norway, who too are wasting billions on utterly unsurvivable fighter fleets?

    .
    .

    You're assuming that NATO isn't going enter the picture while truth is, any hostility will almost certainly be preceded by a period of tensions. NATO accession could, if required, be pushed through in a matter of days.

    And the Finns (like the Swedes) have already been working to ensure interoperability with NATO forces. Operating the F-35 in this case, will almost certainly be an advantage, given the number of F-35s that NATO is forecast to operate (vis a vis the far more limited numbers of Gripens operated by Sweden, Czech R. & Hungary).
    Last edited by Vnomad; 31st January 2016 at 09:55.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8,704
    So now Russia is going to be fighting an offensive war against the entirety of NATO?

    Are we even trying to stay even remotely plausible at this point?
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  23. #53
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,655
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    So now Russia is going to be fighting an offensive war against the entirety of NATO?
    Okay. Let me ask you a question here - is there any country in world the Russia could actually go to war against? (Not counting non-threats like Ukraine & Georgia.)

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,336
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    F-16 had those very same conditions, and flew by far more sorties
    F-16s didn't fly one at a time (as in only one F-16 airborne at a time with no other aircraft accompanying it) along one route from one airfield towards the same target zone at the same time of day. So NOT the same conditions.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,976
    Yesterday left the FMV of the 204th Swedish Gripen aircraft to the Armed Forces. The last plane in the three-part series. The cost of the whole-part series of 64 aircraft was the entire 1.5 billion less than what was agreed.

    When the FMV Oscar Hull handed over the 204th Swedish JAS 39 Gripen aircraft to fly weapons inspector Anders Silwer it was a great milestone in the flight industry projects as decided by Parliament in 1982. Many milestones have been passed along the way and now part series three is delivered it on time, with the right technology and the right economics.
    Development projects have a tendency to pull more costs than estimated when the difficulties encountered along the way, but here Jasprojektet shown that it is possible to keep the economy even though the system is on the cutting edge of technology. The cost for the customer will be about ten percent lower than agreed, the entire 1.5 billion.
    Google translated from: http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/forsvar...ojektet-258602

    According to Signatory average unit cost was < 30 million USD.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,976
    The snow dominates the landscape, the thermometer shows zero temperatures and the sun sets just after three in the afternoon, after being born almost at nine in the morning. But the couple lived Lawrence and Marcelo Takase is happy to swap the Brazilian summer cold of Linkoping, a Swedish town with just over a hundred thousand inhabitants. The two are part of the first group of 46 professionals sent by companies from Brazil to participate in the Gripen NG project.

    "The aircraft development work together with them is starting and this step is essential for the exchange of knowledge, for the transfer of technology," says Vivian. Master in Mechanical Engineering from USP, she takes the luggage to 13 years of experience in Embraer, where he worked in the projects of the Super Tucano, the KC-390 cargo and E-170/190 jets, Phenom, Legacy and Lineage.
    By 2022, more than 350 Brazilians will work with the Gripen NG project in Sweden. In addition to Embraer, the AEL companies, Akaer, Atech, Inbra and Mectron will also send professionals to the headquarters of Saab in Linköping. They will act in the development of aircraft, project management, simulators and certification development, among other activities. With partner status in the Gripen NG project, Brazil will have starring role in the development of the version for two pilots and the first feasibility studies for the Gripen Sea, model with necessary adaptations to operate aboard the aircraft carrier.

    For 2016 the expectation of Saab is completing the assembly of the first prototype of the Gripen NG. Three years from now, in 2019, will leave the factory in Linköping the first aircraft to Brazil. Of the 36 units purchased, fifteen will be produced in Brazil, with the last scheduled for delivery in 2024. The Swedish Air Force has already ordered another 60 units of the model. In all there are 96 firm orders, and the expectation is to increase the numbers with new exports.
    Google translated from: http://www.fab.mil.br/noticias/mostr...%20Gripen%20NG

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,959
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    There are significant radar upgrades waiting for someone to pay to implement them, & IIRC supposedly a road map for carrying over suitable upgrades from the NG - if anyone pays. That lot could be applied to the existing stock of Gripens, keeping them current. An MLU for the Gripen C/D.

    SAAB has an interest in getting work & money from its existing customers, & it's more likely to do that by getting the best from the aircraft it's already sold them than trying to persuade them to throw away what they've spent & buy new.
    Any jet could be upgraded if someone can be found to pay for it. That is exactly the problem... the cost of operating and upgrading a small fleet of aircraft is uneconomical. The Gripen was never produced in significant quantities and buying the last few dozen examples to be produced would be disastrous decision for the Finns.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,959
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    From a purely military standpoint, the imbalance of forces is so great that no few dozen of F-35s would make any difference for Finland. Gripen can patrol airspace just as well during peacetime.

    The only scenario where the F-35 would justify its cost and not be destroyed before even taking off is if Finland and Russia have some sort of aerial skirmishes around the border, without anyone fully committing. Finland is of course free to spend its money as best it sees fit, but IMO blowing billions for such an comically unlikely scenario is silly.
    The point isn't to for Finland to defeat Russia 1 one 1 in a conventional war, that obviously isn't in the cards. The point is for Finland to have a sufficiently credible deterant capability to prevent Russians soldiers from taking their tanks and artillery and going on vacation in Finland.

    If a full-scale war develops Finland's only chance would be to seek aid from Sweden, Norway, and ultimately all of NATO.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,054
    sufficient and credible capability by buying 20 fighters where 2 or 4 will be barely operational on single airbase. its waste of money and manpower which will be already in short supply in next 10 years.

    its real time training to hit fighter planes on ground.
    http://sputniknews.com/videoclub/201...lls-video.html
    During the exercise in the Krasnodarsky Territory, troops were practicing the full range of tasks with the Iskander-M, including deploying it and firing missiles at targets at a distance of up to 500 km.
    The Iskander-M is a mobile short-range ballistic missile system designed to destroy a wide range of targets, including missiles, aircraft, and enemy ground facilities.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,497
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    As already noted above, if Finland were to find itself in conflict with Russia the Gripen would be operating within the threat radius of Russian SAMs from the moment its wheels retracted.
    Ballistic missiles are much more of a threat than SAMs. Imagine a target with say six billion dollars amassed on a relatively tiny area.. Russians would be silly to wait until the fighters get scrambled if they can turn them to smoke and ashes right on the ground.

    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    Finland can buy Gripens for air policing, knowing that they will be essentially useless for actual defense, or they can buy F-35s if they are serious about maintaining a credible self defense capability.
    Disagree. If they buy the F-35A, then it's only in order to get a ticket into a me-too-stealth-club. Fighters which require a large airbase within the range of ballistic missiles are paper tigers, they will never get a slightest chance to join the merge...

    If they are serious about a credible self-defense capability, then will buy Gripen-E which can be dispersed on small hidden airfields. Or the F-35B.. I just wonder how many of these Finns could afford..
    Last edited by MSphere; 31st January 2016 at 20:39.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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