Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • TomcatViP
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Nov 2011
    • 6058

    Originally posted by Loke View Post
    Are you sure? I think I have read in the F-35 thread that the experts over there believe F-35 to become as affordable as Gripen. I may be wrong of course.

    Spud and FBW where are you?
    It's even more substantiated than that. Pardon me for repeating myself but Switzerland with it's topographic particularities and population centers can benefits of reduced expenses and nuisances (what will appeal directly to voters) with a vstol stealth aircraft. The OP increases and the strongest deterrence will also lower in overall the cost associated with a credible defense. This is of utmost importance in the foreseeable future with what looks like a more difficult defense scenario and to help fulfill the needs of others forces (army) with the expected increase in their budgets (draft means voters that pay more attention to the material being at their disposal).

    Operating from plateaus instead of populated valley will alleviate many of the difficulties encountered today and reinforce the defense posture.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 25th February 2016, 16:04.

    Comment

    • FBW
      FBW
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Dec 2011
      • 3295

      Originally posted by Loke View Post
      Why? It is projected to keep falling in price, and should be at a quite affordable level by 2020-2022. Or are you thinking about the noise level and the noise tests?
      The F-35 would have a snowballs chance in **ll in Switzerland. Especially if the voters have a say. It would be viewed as an offensive weapon system, anathema to Swiss defense doctrine. Even IF the F-35 APUC by 2020 is comparable with the Gripen E/F, the operating cost won't be.

      I can just imagine the Swiss voters asking themselves why they need a LO strike fighter for DCA and air policing.

      Comment

      • Vnomad
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • May 2011
        • 2859

        Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post
        actually, there are those who consider the fighter replacement unnecessary, who have and will vote against, but they aren't numerous enough to win alone. There were also those who considered that the aircraft chosen was the one that was the worse of the contenders and they made the numbers needed to cancel the buy
        No they didn't. Not even close.

        There's a section that would prefer to retire/sell-off the existing fleet. Then there's the section of the population that would like nothing new bought. There's a section that would prefer something cheaper or to defer the buy to a later date. Then there are those who're happy with the Gripen E. And what's left over is a tiny delusional minority who actually thinks voting against a Gripen E purchase today, may result in a Rafale purchase tomorrow.

        Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post
        Strangely, that us the PoV of a few swiss guys I happen to see discussing on other boards... but YOU know better
        If they were discussing military weaponry on internet boards, then those 'few Swiss guys' have an level of interest in the technicalities of the subject that in no way reflects the awareness level of the general population.

        Comment

        • Spyhawk
          Rank 42 Registered User
          • Dec 2011
          • 175

          Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post
          Strangely, that us the PoV of a few swiss guys I happen to see discussing on other boards... but YOU know better
          You've only discussed with aviation fans, not real taxpayers that absolutely don't care about what the difference between two combat aircraft are. Does that make a difference, knowing that the very big majority of the voters only know that an aircraft flies? Have you even watched the public debate on Swiss television channels? If you really believe the Gripen was rejected because it was the Gripen and not the Rafale, you might need a serious reality check.

          Also, if you want to learn about Swiss politics, start by reading the basics about "initiative" and "referendum".

          Comment

          • TooCool_12f
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Dec 2009
            • 3318

            Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
            It's even more substantiated than that. Pardon me for repeating myself but Switzerland with it's topographic particularities and population centers can benefits of reduced expenses and nuisances (what will appeal directly to voters) with a vstol stealth aircraft. The OP increases and the strongest deterrence will also lower in overall the cost associated with a credible defense. This is of utmost importance in the foreseeable future with what looks like a more difficult defense scenario and to help fulfill the needs of others forces (army) with the expected increase in their budgets (draft means voters that pay more attention to the material being at their disposal).

            Operating from plateaus instead of populated valley will alleviate many of the difficulties encountered today and reinforce the defense posture.
            er, will it be able to take off from a plateau? what's more, what do you do about the shelters which are deep in the valleys?
            Last edited by TooCool_12f; 25th February 2016, 16:12.

            Comment

            • TooCool_12f
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Dec 2009
              • 3318

              Originally posted by Spyhawk View Post
              You've only discussed with aviation fans, not real taxpayers that absolutely don't care about what the difference between two combat aircraft are. Does that make a difference, knowing that the very big majority of the voters only know that an aircraft flies? Have you even watched the public debate on Swiss television channels? If you really believe the Gripen was rejected because it was the Gripen and not the Rafale, you might need a serious reality check.

              Also, if you want to learn about Swiss politics, start by reading the basics about "initiative" and "referendum".
              see you in 2020-2022

              Comment

              • Loke
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jun 2008
                • 3302

                Originally posted by FBW View Post
                The F-35 would have a snowballs chance in **ll in Switzerland. Especially if the voters have a say. It would be viewed as an offensive weapon system, anathema to Swiss defense doctrine. Even IF the F-35 APUC by 2020 is comparable with the Gripen E/F, the operating cost won't be.

                I can just imagine the Swiss voters asking themselves why they need a LO strike fighter for DCA and air policing.
                All good points.

                Gripen E it will be then.

                I wonder if we will see leaks also this time?

                Comment

                • Spyhawk
                  Rank 42 Registered User
                  • Dec 2011
                  • 175

                  Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post
                  see you in 2020-2022
                  If you work hard enough, you might even have time to educate yourself about Swiss politics!

                  Originally posted by Loke View Post
                  All good points.

                  Gripen E it will be then.

                  I wonder if we will see leaks also this time?
                  The leaks were done by dissatisfied military members, either to put pressure on the government to make it reconsider the aircraft choice, or to cancel it to invest money in other part of the military that greatly need it. What would be the point of a new leak when both the Tiger and Hornet should be replaced?

                  To be honest, I hardly see the point in a whole new evaluation from the ground up. From the official announcement of the Gripen choice to the vote (2011-2014), the Swiss Air Force and Armaswiss got a closer look at the Gripen E development, including additional test field of the Gripen Demo in Switzerland and Sweden. I don't believe it would be a fair competition, other contenders would only be invited to ensure Saab keeps a good price on its offer.

                  Comment

                  • Loke
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jun 2008
                    • 3302

                    Originally posted by Spyhawk View Post
                    The leaks were done by dissatisfied military members, either to put pressure on the government to make it reconsider the aircraft choice, or to cancel it to invest money in other part of the military that greatly need it. What would be the point of a new leak when both the Tiger and Hornet should be replaced?
                    One of the rumors I have heard was that one of the competitors had "facilitated" the leaks -- just a rumor of course.

                    Comment

                    • swerve
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jun 2005
                      • 13610

                      Originally posted by Loke View Post
                      Perhaps, but would they perhaps be more interested in Gripen E than C?
                      Budgets!
                      Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                      Justinian

                      Comment

                      • swerve
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jun 2005
                        • 13610

                        Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
                        It's even more substantiated than that. Pardon me for repeating myself but Switzerland with it's topographic particularities and population centers can benefits of reduced expenses and nuisances (what will appeal directly to voters) with a vstol stealth aircraft.
                        But first someone will have to design & build a VTOL stealth aircraft. Who will do that?
                        Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                        Justinian

                        Comment

                        • FBW
                          FBW
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Dec 2011
                          • 3295

                          Originally posted by swerve View Post
                          But first someone will have to design & build a VTOL stealth aircraft. Who will do that?
                          F-35B can take off vertically. The STOVL requirement was 550ft (10knt wod) now 600ft KPP with full fuel and 5,500lbs payload. Obviously, considering the VLBB requirements, it can take off vertically with some weapons and fuel (in an emergency)- obviously not enough to fly a significant distance.
                          Last edited by FBW; 25th February 2016, 18:08.

                          Comment

                          • maurobaggio
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jul 2008
                            • 521

                            Originally posted by Spyhawk View Post
                            If you work hard enough, you might even have time to educate yourself about Swiss politics!



                            The leaks were done by dissatisfied military members, either to put pressure on the government to make it reconsider the aircraft choice, or to cancel it to invest money in other part of the military that greatly need it. What would be the point of a new leak when both the Tiger and Hornet should be replaced?

                            To be honest, I hardly see the point in a whole new evaluation from the ground up. From the official announcement of the Gripen choice to the vote (2011-2014), the Swiss Air Force and Armaswiss got a closer look at the Gripen E development, including additional test field of the Gripen Demo in Switzerland and Sweden. I don't believe it would be a fair competition, other contenders would only be invited to ensure Saab keeps a good price on its offer.


                            In my humble opinion the same Swiss Government that had been chosen the Gripen NG, in fact it abandoned the Gripen NG during the referendum, which it made easy the work from opposition to convince the voters against the Gripen NG.

                            Like the old competition in which the Gripen NG it had become winner against the others, it were intended to replace the F 5E/F Tiger II, however the criteria to replace the F/A 18 C/D may not be the same.

                            Back in time when the F/A 18 C/D has been chosen by Switzerland since the decade of 80, in fact there were many comments that Switzerland did not need such an advanced fighter like the F/A 18 C/D even during the Cold War.

                            There was such referendum in the decade of 80 to purchase of the F/A 18C/D for Switzerland?

                            Comment

                            • Spyhawk
                              Rank 42 Registered User
                              • Dec 2011
                              • 175

                              Originally posted by Loke View Post
                              One of the rumors I have heard was that one of the competitors had "facilitated" the leaks -- just a rumor of course.
                              Just rumors, based on the sole fact that we're certain that Saab wouldn't have leaked the report if it could have done it. In short, not a single fact support that idea -- better kept it out of discussion imho. But we did have interview of Army members that thought Infantry/artillery troops needed that money more than the Air Force.

                              Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                              In my humble opinion the same Swiss Government that had been chosen the Gripen NG, in fact it abandoned the Gripen NG during the referendum, which it made easy the work from opposition to convince the voters against the Gripen NG.
                              I have no idea how one would reach that conclusion. In fact I'm not even sure about what you are trying to say here.

                              Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                              Like the old competition in which the Gripen NG it had become winner against the others, it were intended to replace the F 5E/F Tiger II, however the criteria to replace the F/A 18 C/D may not be the same.
                              The intermediary reports by the Security commission would disagree, and this didn't seem to be an issue. It had become apparent that the aircraft chosen for the Tiger replacement would become a favorite for the Hornet successor too. Also, price might also again be an issue. We'd just learned today that the Army budget won't be increased for sure until 2021, as all Federal departments are required to save money.

                              Originally posted by maurobaggio View Post
                              Back in time when the F/A 18 C/D has been chosen by Switzerland since the decade of 80, in fact there were many comments that Switzerland did not need such an advanced fighter like the F/A 18 C/D even during the Cold War.

                              There was such referendum in the decade of 80 to purchase of the F/A 18C/D for Switzerland?
                              Not a referendum, but a popular initiative against the Hornet. It was rejected by 57% of voters in 1992.
                              Last edited by Spyhawk; 25th February 2016, 19:08. Reason: typo

                              Comment

                              • TomcatViP
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Nov 2011
                                • 6058

                                Originally posted by FBW View Post
                                F-35B can take off vertically. The STOVL requirement was 550ft (10knt wod) now 600ft KPP with full fuel and 5,500lbs payload. Obviously, considering the VLBB requirements, it can take off vertically with some weapons and fuel (in an emergency)- obviously not enough to fly a significant distance.
                                OK guys, you've spotted it. STOVL: SHORT TAKE-OFF AND VERTICAL LANDING. The culprit will copies 50 lines of this.

                                Regarding range and Switzerland, believe me, you can spent more time climbing back to your own chalet after work than crossing the entire country!

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	KansasVsSwitzerland.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	42.4 KB
ID:	3666979

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	USVsSwitzerland.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	33.0 KB
ID:	3666980
                                Source:
                                http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/CH
                                Last edited by TomcatViP; 25th February 2016, 19:45.

                                Comment

                                • swerve
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jun 2005
                                  • 13610

                                  Originally posted by FBW View Post
                                  F-35B can take off vertically. The STOVL requirement was 550ft (10knt wod) now 600ft KPP with full fuel and 5,500lbs payload. Obviously, considering the VLBB requirements, it can take off vertically with some weapons and fuel (in an emergency)- obviously not enough to fly a significant distance.
                                  Lockheed Martin describes the VTOL ability as being not used in combat, but for repositioning an aircraft - with limited fuel. It's hard to think of circumstances where the very limited ability of F-35B to take off vertically would be useful directly in combat, especially if taking off at high altitude. To buy it with the aim of it taking off & vertically & then fighting is unthinkable, IMO. Not enough fuel to fly anywhere & fight. And that's what the manufacturer thinks!

                                  I like the F-35B as a STOVL aircraft, & I'm pleased that it can take off vertically & fly a short distance, even if unarmed. That's useful, e.g. for emergency recovery to any ship with a big enough flat area in an emergency at sea, then self-transfer to a carrier/LHA or whatever when that & the ship it's on can rendezvous. But I can't imagine anyone buying it to operate from VTOL only bases, which is what was mooted. It's just not practical. It's a STOVL aircraft with a limited non-combat VTO ability.
                                  Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                  Justinian

                                  Comment

                                  • TomcatViP
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Nov 2011
                                    • 6058

                                    So the Marines that plan to forward locate their 35 with STOVL and have built the logistical ressources to do just this are just dreaming?

                                    Also a plateau in CH is not the same as in the Himalaya. From my mem:
                                    Alt of a plateau around Geneva is 600m
                                    Alt around Interlaken: 900/1000m
                                    Alt around Neuchatel: 800m
                                    Last edited by TomcatViP; 25th February 2016, 19:46.

                                    Comment

                                    • Spyhawk
                                      Rank 42 Registered User
                                      • Dec 2011
                                      • 175

                                      Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
                                      So the Marines that plan to forward locate their 35 with STOVL and have built the logistical ressources to do just this are just dreaming?

                                      Also a plateau in CH is not the same as in the Himalaya. From my mem:
                                      Alt of a plateau around Geneva is 600m
                                      Alt around Interlaken: 900/1000m
                                      Alt around Neuchatel: 800m
                                      The "Swiss Plateau" is actually the most densely populated part of the country. It is the part we consider "flat", although it is made of many hill areas. Its height ranges from about ~400 to ~700m, with an average of ~550m.
                                      Surely, you're not referring to "plateau" as defined by Swiss standard, but of the Jura mountains and/or of the pre-Alps, which are the lower part of the Swiss Alps (which are indeed mountains).

                                      To illustrate:
                                      Click image for larger version

Name:	map_swiss_alps_jura_mittelland.gif
Views:	1
Size:	20.7 KB
ID:	3666981

                                      Plateau = Midlands.
                                      Last edited by Spyhawk; 25th February 2016, 20:46. Reason: added map

                                      Comment

                                      • TomcatViP
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Nov 2011
                                        • 6058

                                        It can leads someone into confusion but I am referring to some particular geographical location as mentioned to exemplify that all presumed tactical basing won't be in high altitude terrain.
                                        VToL or SToVL is doable in CH as much as it is in the California deserts or in Nevada. Dissemination of base location will be much more dense than with road basing, drastically increasing resilience at a given cost. Hence, F35B will be in overall much cheaper for the same effect.
                                        Last edited by TomcatViP; 25th February 2016, 22:33.

                                        Comment

                                        • alexz
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Nov 2010
                                          • 325

                                          The issue with the last Swiss fighter competition is the requirements are basically to have the best air superiority and multi role aircraft there is.

                                          If the Swiss air force could lower the requirements thus make the solution seem more palatable to the Swiss population, then I could see that it would work this time round. Basically Switzerland just needs an affordable fighter that could do QRA, air policing and point defence in the small Swiss airspace. Something similar to the requirements of say the Czech air force. It is also of no use if expensive highly capable fighters only does QRA from 9-5 on weekdays and not fly at all on weekends.

                                          That said even the basic gripen c/d should be adequate for Swiss needs. Other choices could be the FA-50 golden eagles or a version the upcoming northrop/bae/L3 T-X trainer which people say a derivative of the t-38/f-5 design.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X