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
  • Halo
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Apr 2009
    • 212

    "2nd pilot in the rear?".... this would be Gripen D or Gripen Demo. The D is heavier and carries less fuel compared to C.

    Comment

    • Loke
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jun 2008
      • 3302

      Originally posted by Halo View Post
      "2nd pilot in the rear?".... this would be Gripen D or Gripen Demo. The D is heavier and carries less fuel compared to C.
      This would be the Gripen F not D... probably the F will not have the gun, however it would still be heavier and probably carry less fuel. Perhaps the F will be slightly longer than the E, just like the D is slightly longer than the C?

      Comment

      • Halo
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Apr 2009
        • 212

        In this case I was referring to the C vs D or NG in the Swiss experience in TooCool's post #576

        Comment

        • alexz
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Nov 2010
          • 325

          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
          And let me guess... The Swiss themselves proved it on a weekday during normal 9 to 5 working hours eh? LoL!!!

          I don't believe that for a country which its furthest border to border distance is merely 300kms, that a fighter such as the gripen could not intercept an airliner with only its internal fuel load. Do also note like during the ethiopian airlines flight 702 hijacking, the rouge aircraft would already overflown neighbouring countries such as France and Italy (and already been intercepted and identifed by fighters of those countries). That in itself an early warning luxury that most other countries don't have. If the Swiss airforce itself is not serious in having a 24/7 QRA capability so why are they trying to get an very high spec fighter that in itself is outside of their budget? It just doesn't make any sense.

          Comment

          • TooCool_12f
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Dec 2009
            • 3321

            it did not have only internal fuel, but the standard supersonic tank under its belly as well...

            in any case, if your airliner goes wrong, you go to intercept as you can. they put up a plausible scenario, the gripen did not have the legs to do it. The E may eventually have, but I guess they'll find out when the selection process will start

            Comment

            • Spyhawk
              Rank 42 Registered User
              • Dec 2011
              • 175

              Originally posted by alexz View Post
              And let me guess... The Swiss themselves proved it on a weekday during normal 9 to 5 working hours eh? LoL!!!

              I don't believe that for a country which its furthest border to border distance is merely 300kms, that a fighter such as the gripen could not intercept an airliner with only its internal fuel load. Do also note like during the ethiopian airlines flight 702 hijacking, the rouge aircraft would already overflown neighbouring countries such as France and Italy (and already been intercepted and identifed by fighters of those countries). That in itself an early warning luxury that most other countries don't have. If the Swiss airforce itself is not serious in having a 24/7 QRA capability so why are they trying to get an very high spec fighter that in itself is outside of their budget? It just doesn't make any sense.
              SAF wants 24/7 QRA (and will have it in a few years), but they'll need additional budget for it, as well as more pilots. Also, afaik the flown mission in 2008 was a worst case scenario and the objective was to reach the target airplane as fast as possible.

              Comment

              • Spyhawk
                Rank 42 Registered User
                • Dec 2011
                • 175

                Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post
                The E may eventually have, but I guess they'll find out when the selection process will start
                They should already have an idea about it, since the SAF flew the Gripen Demo in Sweden. The Gripen Demo also flew in Switzerland a bit later, but I am not sure what they tested there.
                Last edited by Spyhawk; 26th February 2016, 17:46.

                Comment

                • Sintra
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Aug 2007
                  • 3849

                  Originally posted by alexz View Post
                  And let me guess... The Swiss themselves proved it on a weekday during normal 9 to 5 working hours eh? LoL!!!

                  I don't believe that for a country which its furthest border to border distance is merely 300kms, that a fighter such as the gripen could not intercept an airliner with only its internal fuel load. Do also note like during the ethiopian airlines flight 702 hijacking, the rouge aircraft would already overflown neighbouring countries such as France and Italy (and already been intercepted and identifed by fighters of those countries). That in itself an early warning luxury that most other countries don't have. If the Swiss airforce itself is not serious in having a 24/7 QRA capability so why are they trying to get an very high spec fighter that in itself is outside of their budget? It just doesn't make any sense.
                  The fact that theres only 300 kms to cover is a disadvantage to the interceptor, not an advantage. The problem is that theres almost no time, or space, to climb and then try to intercept an airliner that its flying at 900 km/h at 10000 meters, on top of that a great big chunk of flight lines are blocked by three to four thousand meters mountains. If theres no external alert, a civilian aircraft coming from Germany will overshoot Zurich way before any fighter coming from Meiringen, Sion or Payern has any chances of getting near it, the chances of that Airbus or Boeing to overshoot the entire country and finding himself over Italy before the Swiss Air Force has a chance of getting near are high.
                  sigpic

                  Comment

                  • Spyhawk
                    Rank 42 Registered User
                    • Dec 2011
                    • 175

                    Originally posted by Sintra View Post
                    [...] the chances of that Airbus or Boeing to overshoot the entire country and finding himself over Italy before the Swiss Air Force has a chance of getting near are high.
                    This is correct. The only way to ensure interception, assuming an airliner starts being crazy just at the time it enters Swiss airspace, is to already have an aircraft in the air.

                    Comment

                    • Sintra
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Aug 2007
                      • 3849

                      Originally posted by Spyhawk View Post
                      This is correct. The only way to ensure interception, assuming an airliner starts being crazy just at the time it enter Swiss airspace, is to already have an aircraft in the air.
                      Yep, we have the same problem around here.
                      sigpic

                      Comment

                      • TomcatViP
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Nov 2011
                        • 6107

                        Originally posted by swerve View Post
                        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 did understood. But you failed to notice past my wording mistake that a Swiss F35B won't operate at maximum permissible weight in a typical mission. Either load-out will be restricted to A2A and few A2G at first day of war (yes, the buy is all about planing a war on their own ground at first), either the fuel will be restricted to gain that margin in Operation readiness that I am talking about.

                        For sure, if the SAF want to intercept airliners faster than its neighbors, a Typhoon or a Mig29 will do the trick better than anything else (Don't forget the SH that was designed for this also). If they want to bomb Paris or Berlin or the Gulf os Sirte, a Rafale will do the trick better. If they plan to join NATO without fully stepping in it, a Gripen will be the thing... [CaricaturingMode=OFF]

                        But then, if they want to have a resilient airforce able to support the attrition war on their own ground, then a stealth thing, able to operate hiddenly from a tinny inhabited plateau is the real deal.

                        Don't forget that it's all about answering a need. It's not because some have made a job of dragging their compagnies all over the world after any expensive competition open to choose an aircraft* that we have to stick here to that motto.

                        A two bases country that intend to defend itself valley after valley (if this is still the doctrine) does not need a Typhoon that will be pluck on the ground the first day of war. It needs resilience at first.
                        And then, I doubt that any of the modern design that are envisaged here won't be able to fulfill the airliner intercepting mission.
                        Last edited by TomcatViP; 26th February 2016, 21:27.

                        Comment

                        • Ozair
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Oct 2015
                          • 822

                          Originally posted by Loke View Post


                          So you see, the original Hornet engine did not meet Swiss requirements...
                          Nor anyone else. If you spoke with every Hornet pilot they will all tell you they want more thrust.
                          Last edited by Ozair; 26th February 2016, 20:50.

                          Comment

                          • Loke
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jun 2008
                            • 3302

                            Originally posted by Ozair View Post
                            Nor anyone else. If you spoke with every Hornet pilot they will all tell you they want more thrust.
                            You miss the point. "they want more thrust" is not the same as actually paying for getting that extra thrust. I hope you see the difference.

                            Comment

                            • Loke
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jun 2008
                              • 3302

                              Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
                              The only South American countries in the market for a fighter jet over the coming decade are Peru, Ecuador and Colombia, none of which have the budget for something like the Gripen E. They'll go either for a cheap type like the FA-50 or JF-17, or second-hand fighters (most likely retiring F-16s).
                              Wrong.

                              Smith said a second country in Latin America was in dialogue with them to acquire the Gripen but he declined to name the air force in question.

                              One possibility is Colombia; it has a requirement and a budget to acquire a combat jet.
                              http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...-may/80573874/

                              Comment

                              • Ozair
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Oct 2015
                                • 822

                                Originally posted by Loke View Post
                                You miss the point. "they want more thrust" is not the same as actually paying for getting that extra thrust. I hope you see the difference.
                                The difference is the Swiss F-18s, along with the Finnish aircraft, were the last off the line and had the uprated engines as an option. That was not available to earlier operators.

                                Comment

                                • Loke
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jun 2008
                                  • 3302

                                  Originally posted by Ozair View Post
                                  The difference is the Swiss F-18s, along with the Finnish aircraft, were the last off the line and had the uprated engines as an option. That was not available to earlier operators.
                                  So the Swiss got it for free because they were last off the line? Source please?

                                  Comment

                                  • Spyhawk
                                    Rank 42 Registered User
                                    • Dec 2011
                                    • 175

                                    Originally posted by Loke View Post
                                    So the Swiss got it for free because they were last off the line? Source please?
                                    Yep, Switzerland paid for it, as well as the 9G rated reinforced airframe. The bill might have been shared with Finland - I don't know if Finnish Hornets also have the improved engines.

                                    Comment

                                    • Ozair
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Oct 2015
                                      • 822

                                      Originally posted by Loke View Post
                                      So the Swiss got it for free because they were last off the line? Source please?
                                      I didn't say they got it for free. It was an option that wasn't available to previous operators when they ordered the airframe.

                                      Comment

                                      • swerve
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jun 2005
                                        • 13610

                                        Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
                                        I did understood. But you failed to notice past my wording mistake that a Swiss F35B won't operate at maximum permissible weight in a typical mission. Either load-out will be restricted to A2A and few A2G at first day of war (yes, the buy is all about planing a war on their own ground at first), either the fuel will be restricted to gain that margin in Operation readiness that I am talking about.
                                        It's not a question of operating with a reduced load-out. An F-35B can't take off vertically with weapons & enough fuel to fight. It'd get into the air & hit bingo fuel. Neither the manufacturer nor any of the forces which have ordered it suggest that it's possible to combine VTOL & fighting.

                                        Did you read what LM says about it? I provided a link to an appropriate LM web page.

                                        If you want to shoot at things at the distance from VTOL bases that an F-35B could shoot at or bomb, you might as well station artillery or SAMs there. No point in buying the aircraft at all.

                                        If you proposed a Swedish-style dispersed operations system using the STOVL abilities of the F-35B to operate from stretches of road, etc., you might be on to something. That model has been suggested for Israel & Singapore. But not VTOL. Absolutely not.
                                        Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                        Justinian

                                        Comment

                                        • TomcatViP
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Nov 2011
                                          • 6107

                                          I am mainly focusing on combined STOL and VTOL where needed, yes. This is why I speak about plateaus and not parking lots

                                          Can you please repost a link of the 35B perfs? I mean, the RAF plans to use it as well and they have among the most experience in this kind of operation.
                                          Last edited by TomcatViP; 26th February 2016, 22:40.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X