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
  • JakobS
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Aug 2015
    • 155

    Originally posted by swerve View Post
    Weeeellll . . . to keep C flying after buying 60 E would mean increasing the size of the air force.
    No, keeping the C/D to fly after 2025 would mean maintaining the size of the air force and stop this ridiculous waste of planes that we have seen for the last two decades.

    Also I'm not sure Thailand's will be allowed to buy more planes since the military took power, there is a lot of discussion on that subject here.

    Comment

    • obligatory
      Senior Member
      • Oct 2008
      • 7043

      Originally posted by alexz View Post
      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.
      disagree, it was proven none of them has the high-speed range to intercept in a timely manner

      Comment

      • alexz
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Nov 2010
        • 325

        Originally posted by obligatory View Post
        disagree, it was proven none of them has the high-speed range to intercept in a timely manner
        And proven by whom actually? The 3rd plane I mentioned is not even built yet.

        From the centre of Switzerland, it is only 100-150km distance to any point of its borders. Even something with the performance of its current f-5e is adequate for any QRA and air policing tasks, not to mention the advantage of early warning of any rouge aircraft flying towards Switzerland by neighbouring countries.

        Comment

        • Loke
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jun 2008
          • 3302

          Originally posted by alexz View Post
          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.
          The Swiss air force disagrees with you. For air policing Gripen C was found to not meet the requirements; Gripen E was found to barely meet the air policing requirement. Anything less than Gripen E would therefore not be acceptable for the air policing role in Switzerland.

          I believe their Hornets are not quite "standard" either... and they use the afterburners a lot.

          Comment

          • alexz
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Nov 2010
            • 325

            Originally posted by Loke View Post
            The Swiss air force disagrees with you. For air policing Gripen C was found to not meet the requirements; Gripen E was found to barely meet the air policing requirement. Anything less than Gripen E would therefore not be acceptable for the air policing role in Switzerland.

            I believe their Hornets are not quite "standard" either... and they use the afterburners a lot.
            Of course captain obvious. If you can comprehend english that is what I am saying in my first paragraph.

            The Swiss airforce wants the highest performance fighter they could get, which is out of sync with the country's budget and minimum capability required for air policing missions in Swiss airspace. They wanted a fighter that could outperform the hornet in every area, even for strike, EW, recce capability. Why do they need all that capability for? In reality even the hornets are overkill for air policing missions inside Swiss borders.

            Imo even the f-6e was adequate for the QRA and air policing missions around Switzerland. Thats why I said IF, the swiss airforce could lower their requirements probably then the Swiss people would agree to fund its new fighters.

            If they really insist on high performance air superiority fighters, get those cheap used tranche 1 typhoons from Germany or Italy and be done with it.

            Comment

            • Loke
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jun 2008
              • 3302

              Originally posted by alexz View Post
              Of course captain obvious. If you can comprehend english that is what I am saying in my first paragraph.
              I read the first sentence you wrote, but also the sentences below about air policing. What I said was that Gripen C did not meet the air policing requirement of the Swiss air force (not talking about strike, recce, OCA, DCA). Actually it did not meet the specific QRA requirement either (which was part of air policing it seems)

              Presumably there are reasons for why they have such high requirements for air policing and QRA roles. If you don't understand those reasons and find a way to address them, your proposal of going for a lower-performance is not relevant.

              Comment

              • alexz
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Nov 2010
                • 325

                For each Swiss requirement, it is compared to the hornet as a baseline. Of course in that case the gripen c performance came out lower than the hornet. But in reality is such high requirement essential for the QRA mission in the first place?

                If you compare the f-5 performance to the gripen c, you could see that its kinematic performance is almost similar. Why does Swiss airforce insists on requirements superficial to the basic QRA requirements?

                Now the program would include the hornets replacement too. Insisting on high end capabilities would increase the possibility of Switzerland having no fighter aircraft at all in the future.

                Comment

                • Vnomad
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • May 2011
                  • 2859

                  Originally posted by Loke View Post
                  I read the first sentence you wrote, but also the sentences below about air policing. What I said was that Gripen C did not meet the air policing requirement of the Swiss air force (not talking about strike, recce, OCA, DCA). Actually it did not meet the specific QRA requirement either (which was part of air policing it seems)

                  Presumably there are reasons for why they have such high requirements for air policing and QRA roles. If you don't understand those reasons and find a way to address them, your proposal of going for a lower-performance is not relevant.
                  The Swiss requirements vis a vis QRA always seemed rather dubious to me. I mean, how does Sweden police its airspace given that it has only Gripen C/Ds available?

                  One could have argued that the Swiss hold themselves to a higher standard, if not for the rather embarrassing fact that QRA in Switzerland is only available during business hours on weekdays (until recently, not even during lunchtime). Plans to provide 24x7 QRA came about much later, and will still only fructify by 2020.

                  Comment

                  • OPIT
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Aug 2005
                    • 901

                    Originally posted by alexz View Post
                    But in reality is such high requirement essential for the QRA mission in the first place?
                    Is the QRA mission against liners the only thing they'll need to be able to do in the next decades ?
                    Obviously they don't think so.

                    Comment

                    • Loke
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jun 2008
                      • 3302

                      Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
                      The Swiss requirements vis a vis QRA always seemed rather dubious to me. I mean, how does Sweden police its airspace given that it has only Gripen C/Ds available?

                      One could have argued that the Swiss hold themselves to a higher standard, if not for the rather embarrassing fact that QRA in Switzerland is only available during business hours on weekdays (until recently, not even during lunchtime). Plans to provide 24x7 QRA came about much later, and will still only fructify by 2020.
                      Good point about the office hours...

                      I wonder if Switzerland has such high requirements compared to e.g. Sweden because of shorter warning times?

                      In Norway there is normally plenty of warning time; we have strong radars in Northern Norway that spots un-identified a/c in international air space coming from Russia without a flight plan long before they start approaching Norway. I believe it is quite seldom the Norwegian fighters need to go supersonic when doing QRA (although it does happen from time to time).

                      However as I said previously I have read that the Swiss use their afterburners a lot! (I think it was Bill Sweetman who wrote this in one of his articles). Of course this does not mean they go supersonic all the time but at least it seems to indicate the need for rapid acceleration which will drink a lot of fuel, and if you have small tanks it can become an issue.

                      Perhaps they could install stronger radars that look further into the neighbouring countries, to increase warning times?

                      Comment

                      • MSphere
                        Senior Member
                        • Feb 2010
                        • 8983

                        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.
                        STOVL might look like a solid argument but it isn't. Swiss have no history in operating such fighters and have never placed such requirement, to my knowledge.
                        OTOH, the terrain profile in Switzerland does not allow long detection ranges, for them stealth is a secondary issue..
                        Last edited by MSphere; 26th February 2016, 12:32.

                        Comment

                        • swerve
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jun 2005
                          • 13610

                          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?
                          STOVL, not VTOL. They're not the same thing. That is exactly my point. I went on about it at some length, & you've just ignored it completely.

                          I like the F-35B as a STOVL aircraft .... But I can't imagine anyone buying it to operate from VTOL only bases
                          Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                          Justinian

                          Comment

                          • Spitfire9
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jul 2008
                            • 2823

                            Originally posted by alexz View Post
                            The Swiss airforce wants the highest performance fighter they could get, which is out of sync with the country's budget and minimum capability required for air policing missions in Swiss airspace. They wanted a fighter that could outperform the hornet in every area, even for strike, EW, recce capability. Why do they need all that capability for? In reality even the hornets are overkill for air policing missions inside Swiss borders.

                            Imo even the f-6e was adequate for the QRA and air policing missions around Switzerland. Thats why I said IF, the swiss airforce could lower their requirements probably then the Swiss people would agree to fund its new fighters.

                            If they really insist on high performance air superiority fighters, get those cheap used tranche 1 typhoons from Germany or Italy and be done with it.
                            Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
                            The Swiss requirements vis a vis QRA always seemed rather dubious to me. I mean, how does Sweden police its airspace given that it has only Gripen C/Ds available?

                            One could have argued that the Swiss hold themselves to a higher standard, if not for the rather embarrassing fact that QRA in Switzerland is only available during business hours on weekdays (until recently, not even during lunchtime). Plans to provide 24x7 QRA came about much later, and will still only fructify by 2020.
                            I was baffled by Switzerland considering Rafale and Typhoon as a replacement for F-5. I could understand if the Swiss air force had spent years complaining that F-5 was inadequate but I have never read that anywhere. However I see a logic in looking forward to F-18 retirement and ordering a type that can become the one fighter used post F-18 retirement. Again I see little need for Switzerland to place much value on fighter's A2G capabilities. I think an aircraft with performance above that of F-5 but close to that of F-18 would be the sensible choice for Switzerland (and would stand a better chance of not being vetoed by the Swiss public in a referendum).
                            Sum ergo cogito

                            Comment

                            • MSphere
                              Senior Member
                              • Feb 2010
                              • 8983

                              Originally posted by Loke View Post
                              The Swiss air force disagrees with you. For air policing Gripen C was found to not meet the requirements; Gripen E was found to barely meet the air policing requirement. Anything less than Gripen E would therefore not be acceptable for the air policing role in Switzerland.

                              I believe their Hornets are not quite "standard" either... and they use the afterburners a lot.
                              Standard C/D models undergone the Upgrade 21 and 25.

                              Upgrade 21 - AIM-9X, JHCMS, Link 16
                              Upgrade 25 - ALR-67(V)3 ECM, new LCDs, ASQ-228 ATFLIR pods, upgraded GPS and digital recorder, upgrades to armament computer and JMPS mission data system

                              Comment

                              • Spyhawk
                                Rank 42 Registered User
                                • Dec 2011
                                • 175

                                Originally posted by Spitfire9 View Post
                                I could understand if the Swiss air force had spent years complaining that F-5 was inadequate but I have never read that anywhere.
                                It does. The F-5 can do air policing, but only at day time and when the weather is good. But the primary complaint of the Swiss Air Force is that it currently doesn't have enough fighters to keep 4 of them constantly in the air for more than 2 weeks and a half. Now that some of the Tiger have been retired, it's most probably 2 weeks or even less. It's barely enough in peacetime when two international events occur in Switzerland (such as the WEF and Syria II in Geneva last year).

                                More than everything else, the SAF needs number and must avoid hangar queens. Which aircraft could fulfill this need the best?

                                Comment

                                • TooCool_12f
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Dec 2009
                                  • 3319

                                  Originally posted by alexz View Post
                                  And proven by whom actually? The 3rd plane I mentioned is not even built yet.

                                  From the centre of Switzerland, it is only 100-150km distance to any point of its borders. Even something with the performance of its current f-5e is adequate for any QRA and air policing tasks, not to mention the advantage of early warning of any rouge aircraft flying towards Switzerland by neighbouring countries.
                                  Proven by the Swiss themselves in a simple and undisputable way:

                                  an F-18 simulated an airliner that had to be intercepted (cruising at altitude at subsonic speed), the interceptor had to scramble, climb and intercept it before ut leaves swiss airspace. Rafale and Typhoon did it with no problems, the Gripen scrambled, climbed and ran for all it was worth, and was bingo fuel before completing the intercept, having to interrupt the interception and go back to land. And before you come and say something along the lines of "the swiss did it wrong" or "they can't fly", in the rear seat was a saab pilot to monitor what was going on.. and couldn't say anything wrong about what was done. The aircraft simply couldn't do it

                                  Comment

                                  • TooCool_12f
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Dec 2009
                                    • 3319

                                    Originally posted by alexz View Post
                                    For each Swiss requirement, it is compared to the hornet as a baseline. Of course in that case the gripen c performance came out lower than the hornet. But in reality is such high requirement essential for the QRA mission in the first place?

                                    If you compare the f-5 performance to the gripen c, you could see that its kinematic performance is almost similar. Why does Swiss airforce insists on requirements superficial to the basic QRA requirements?

                                    Now the program would include the hornets replacement too. Insisting on high end capabilities would increase the possibility of Switzerland having no fighter aircraft at all in the future.
                                    You can compare the "new fighter" with the f-5 all you want, at some point the replacement is supposed to be a step forward, Should it be replacing by the same thing, or we'd still be flying Fokkers DVII and S.E. 5 or Sopwith Camels today

                                    What's mire, as underlined before, even if the aircraft was to replace the F-5s to be retired, in a decade ir so, the F-18s would need replacement as well... and that leans that looking fir a fighter that could be a satisfying replacement fir both was a sensible thing to do (and that pushed the Gripen even further outside the picture)

                                    Comment

                                    • Loke
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jun 2008
                                      • 3302

                                      Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                                      Standard C/D models undergone the Upgrade 21 and 25.

                                      Upgrade 21 - AIM-9X, JHCMS, Link 16
                                      Upgrade 25 - ALR-67(V)3 ECM, new LCDs, ASQ-228 ATFLIR pods, upgraded GPS and digital recorder, upgrades to armament computer and JMPS mission data system
                                      improved engines (F404-GE-402) and a reinforced main wing spar.
                                      http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luft...raft/fa18.html

                                      Perhaps it was the improved engine BS was referring to; I did not find the original article.

                                      Edit:
                                      GE developed the F404-GE-402 in response to a Swiss requirement for more power in its F/A-18 version[5].
                                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...F404-GE-402.29


                                      So you see, the original Hornet engine did not meet Swiss requirements...
                                      Last edited by Loke; 26th February 2016, 13:08.

                                      Comment

                                      • Loke
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jun 2008
                                        • 3302

                                        Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post
                                        Proven by the Swiss themselves in a simple and undisputable way:

                                        an F-18 simulated an airliner that had to be intercepted (cruising at altitude at subsonic speed), the interceptor had to scramble, climb and intercept it before ut leaves swiss airspace. Rafale and Typhoon did it with no problems, the Gripen scrambled, climbed and ran for all it was worth, and was bingo fuel before completing the intercept, having to interrupt the interception and go back to land. And before you come and say something along the lines of "the swiss did it wrong" or "they can't fly", in the rear seat was a saab pilot to monitor what was going on.. and couldn't say anything wrong about what was done. The aircraft simply couldn't do it
                                        That's why the should go for Gripen E not Gripen C. Gripen E should have enough fuel to do this.

                                        (or they could scramble earlier, which was the point I was making above)

                                        Comment

                                        • Loke
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jun 2008
                                          • 3302

                                          Finnish blogger Korporal Frisk has written up his thoughts on Gripen E/F for Finland after his visit to Saab earlier this year:

                                          With the Russian army fielding long range precision strike capability in the form of e.g. the Iskander short-/medium range ballistic missile, the importance of dispersing the air assets have grown further, and any aircraft vying for the HX-contract need to show that it can handle operations from rugged road bases in harsh winter conditions.
                                          The mission of suppression/destruction of enemy air defences (SEAD/DEAD) got a surprising amount of focus in the preliminary report. This is obviously something Saab is looking into, and a so-called Wild Weasel version of the two-seater 39F is in the cards. However, unlike the Boeing EA-18G Growler which is a different version based on the F/A-18F Super Hornet, Saab believes that the baseline 39F should be able to handle the mission with only modifications to the software and by carrying appropriate pods and weapons.
                                          Read more: https://corporalfrisk.wordpress.com/...t-the-program/

                                          The "wild weasel" comment is interesting. The F-16 is used as wild weasel by USAF; however unlike the Growler it's single-seated and I believe it has no hardware modifications?

                                          My guess would be that the Growler is more capable than a F-16 wild weasel, however perhaps a Gripen F Wild Weasel can meet the requirements of the Finnish air force? Maybe "Growler level" capabilities are not needed?

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X