Register Free

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

    #61
    Originally posted by MSphere View Post
    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.
    That is true of any modern fighter then. Gripen NG may be incrementally cheaper than the F-35, but not enough to matter in that scenario.

    If you want to talk about dispersed operations then the F-35 is at least as capable of that as the Gripen NG. Finland currently practices for such operations using its F-18s, and one would expect an F-35C or F-35B to be capable of stepping into such an operational concept easily.


    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...
    Already explained above. The F-35 can use similar (F-35C) or smaller (F-35B) bases than the Gripen so this is hardly an argument in favor of Gripen.


    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..
    Roughly the same number...

    Comment


      #62
      it takes $1b to prepare an airbase for F-35. Ask Norway and Australia. Finland is no position to spend such and certainly not in 10 years time when things going alot worse.

      Comment


        #63
        You do understand than being stealth right after T.O, turn the 35B as the sole asset able to politically survive under the S400 umbrella at an affordable cost?*
        To do the same, routinely (in order to deny any pressure from an aggressive Russia), the Grip would have to take off from the same roads with a credible Jam and SEAD suite, what is far more tricky and costly to achieve and could send the wrong message at the wrong time during cross-border tensions.
        Discarding the threat and to be meant to kill it are wide apart political messages.

        Obviously, nobody says that Ru will do acting so. But any Mil in charge have the duty to envision the worst tactical scenarios and find a way to cope with it at the least tactical cost in order to provide its chain of command with the potentiality of initiatives. Being stuck with an aggressive posture at day one of regional tension would be somewhat politically irresponsible and theorically the road to disaster.

        Cost-wise, it's hard to see such much vaunted cliff b/w the two types. The 35 is less expensive to buy and the vast amount of users will decrease any cost of fleet upgrades. When Fins bought the F18, they hardly made the easiest choice in term of cost and tech level. But in the end, there were the ones not forced through an expensive MLU.


        *And even more in country with high labor rate as was explained when we were dealing with Switzerland with a favorable impact on infra's.
        Last edited by TomcatViP; 31st January 2016, 23:26.

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
          If you want to talk about dispersed operations then the F-35 is at least as capable of that as the Gripen NG. Finland currently practices for such operations using its F-18s, and one would expect an F-35C or F-35B to be capable of stepping into such an operational concept easily.
          When and where has this been demonstrated?

          Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
          Roughly the same number...
          A good joke, really..

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by MSphere View Post
            When and where has this been demonstrated?

            A good joke, really..
            When did the Gripen NG fly again?

            The F-35B is designed to operate from distributed and unimproved airfields. This is a core part of what it is designed to do.

            See pages 37 and 38:

            https://marinecorpsconceptsandprogra...ion%20Plan.pdf

            The F-35C isn't intended for roadway operations but the same traits that make it a suitable aircraft for carrier operation would likely allow it to do so, just as is the case with the F-18s the Finns currently operate.

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
              You do understand than being stealth right after T.O, turn the 35B as the sole asset able to politically survive under the S400 umbrella at an affordable cost?*
              To do the same, routinely (in order to deny any pressure from an aggressive Russia), the Grip would have to take off from the same roads with a credible Jam and SEAD suite, what is far more tricky and costly to achieve and could send the wrong message at the wrong time during cross-border tensions.
              Discarding the threat and to be meant to kill it are wide apart political messages.

              Obviously, nobody says that Ru will do acting so. But any Mil in charge have the duty to envision the worst tactical scenarios and find a way to cope with it at the least tactical cost in order to provide its chain of command with the potentiality of initiatives. Being stuck with an aggressive posture at day one of regional tension would be somewhat politically irresponsible and theorically the road to disaster.

              Cost-wise, it's hard to see such much vaunted cliff b/w the two types. The 35 is less expensive to buy and the vast amount of users will decrease any cost of fleet upgrades. When Fins bought the F18, they hardly made the easiest choice in term of cost and tech level. But in the end, there were the ones not forced through an expensive MLU.


              *And even more in country with high labor rate as was explained when we were dealing with Switzerland with a favorable impact on infra's.
              Exactly... if you are going to go cheap you might as well not bother. If all you want to do is air policing during peacetime then a Gripen of FA-50 would work fine...but in wartime they would be running for their life as soon as they rose above the trees.

              If you want a fighter capable of presenting a credible threat then the F-35 is really your only choice.

              Comment


                #67
                Originally posted by Loke View Post

                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.
                If my cognitive synapses are not more slower than usual, the Sweden has been downsizing this Air Force since the 80's in high rate as: 349 AJ/JA 37, to 214 JAS 39A/B/C/D, to 100 JAS 39C/D and finally to 60 JAS 39E in 2029

                While the Finland Air Force had been replaced those 60 MiG 21/JA 35 Draken in the 80's for the 60 F/A 18C/D and it has been keeping almost the same number until today.

                The Saab company has published that Gripen C / D would be the same combat capabilities of the F/A 18 C/D, so if Finland should be chosen the Gripen E and it will following the same parameters of Sweden, then its Finland Air Force should get something like 16 Gripen E

                However, if the combat capability of the F/A 18 C/D is twice high than the Gripen C/D, then Finland should get something around 36 Gripen E by the Sweden standards.


                Anyway just 20 F 35 or 60 Gripen E for Finland has been replacing those 60 F/A 18 C/D for 2025, it has seems to me that your analysis could have been two meanings:
                • 01 F 35 has the combat capabilities from 03 Gripen E;
                • 01 F 35 has the equivalent cost from 03 Gripen E;



                As far I am Known the Finland would be limited to 60 fighters for a treaty, and by this it were prohibited to operate bombers or even fighter-bombers.

                Indeed those 60 F/A 18C/D could not employ weapons for ground or anti ship attack, only for air-air missions.

                I do not know if this treaty is still valid, however if it is this could be a great disadvantage for the fighters from 4.5 Generation than the 5 generation, once those fighters of 4.5 in Finland will not equipped with anti radiation missiles to defend against long range SAM .


                Due to these aspects I guess that would be unlikely that Finland will get something like 60 Gripen E or some other fighters from 4.5 generation in this proportion.

                So in my humble opinion Finland could get something like 24 fighters, however the main doubt would be between fighters of 4.5 or 5 Generation, and the budget has been available for this, since the contestants could be: Gripen E, Rafale, Typhoon, F/A 18 E/F, Su 35S, PAK FA, J 20, J 31 and others.


                Originally posted by Loke View Post
                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...
                Could you tell us what was the pizza?
                I think this would make me very well, since it would accelerate my cognitive synapses.

                About beer I'm sure it does not make this purpose because I have met them all in the past, even those that had been 'additivated' and I received it without to pay for this 'food supplement'.

                Comment


                  #68
                  The simple and obvious truth is that Finland would be better off without an air combat capability.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    This is getting tiresome, pls note that dispersed basing, fast turn around time, ease of maintenance are major design targets for Gripen family while the F35 is designed for your beloved "package Q" scenario.

                    We all know that a lot of countries are scared ****less about the expected difficulties and expenses that come with F35, just look at Norway for example, that has to concentrate into ONLY ONE completely new billion dollar facility. F35 for dispersed bases

                    In general I'm not impressed when somenpody claims anything regarding something that is faaar off the design targets, be it a car or an Aircraft. My phone is working pretty well as a can opener btw...

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                      When did the Gripen NG fly again?
                      First flight 27th of May 2008.

                      Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                      The F-35B is designed to operate from distributed and unimproved airfields. This is a core part of what it is designed to do.
                      Sure.. That is why I have written it before.. It would surely be a very good type in that regard, even better than Gripen NG, but I personally would worry about operating cost, maintenance and turnaround times.

                      Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                      The F-35C isn't intended for roadway operations but the same traits that make it a suitable aircraft for carrier operation would likely allow it to do so, just as is the case with the F-18s the Finns currently operate.
                      Exactly. So why claim something else? When they have demonstrated its suitability for roadway ops, then we can talk..
                      Last edited by MSphere; 1st February 2016, 10:47.

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Originally posted by Halo View Post
                        This is getting tiresome, pls note that dispersed basing, fast turn around time, ease of maintenance are major design targets for Gripen family while the F35 is designed for your beloved "package Q" scenario.

                        We all know that a lot of countries are scared ****less about the expected difficulties and expenses that come with F35, just look at Norway for example, that has to concentrate into ONLY ONE completely new billion dollar facility. F35 for dispersed bases

                        In general I'm not impressed when somenpody claims anything regarding something that is faaar off the design targets, be it a car or an Aircraft. My phone is working pretty well as a can opener btw...
                        That's exactly what I have had in mind. If Finns are considering Russia as their major adversary, then placing all their assets on a single base within the range of Iskanders, Backfires of whatever stuff the Russians can throw at them within minutes (think conventional warfare now) is pure madness and equals to having no air force, at all. It's logical that such base housing assets worth several billions would be a strategic target No.1..

                        Comment


                          #72
                          I think 2 question need to be looked at here firstly if F35b was to be used from road sites what equipment and logistics would be needed and how many people per airframe to turn it around and the second is if the Finns are limited to 60 airframes which are in turn limited to air 2 air only then is F35 for them?. Lets be clear here that F35 is not a good air to air platform

                          Comment


                            #73
                            The Finns can buy as many aircraft as they want & they are not limited to air to air. The limits referred were established by the Treaty of Paris in 1947. Finland declared in 1990 that the treaty restrictions were no longer valid. None of the other signatories responded, thus indicating that they accepted the nullification, so the relevant clauses no longer apply.
                            Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                            Justinian

                            Comment


                              #74
                              Originally posted by swerve View Post
                              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.
                              yes, same excuses, or do you mean to say ET team only phoned home to report F-117 sightings, entirely ignoring all those hundreds
                              of F-16 that would undoubtedly have been shot down once the hard part, the phone rang, was done ?

                              Comment


                                #75
                                Phoning home to report a dozen F-16s taking off didn't tell the air defences where & when they'd pass close to a SAM battery, since they weren't all flying to the same fairly small area by the same route. Also, since they would probably be accompanied by SEAD aircraft with HARM or ALARM, attempting such an ambush was dangerous for SAM operators. They played cat & mouse to survive.

                                The whole bloody point about the F-117 ambush is that it was only possible in the way it happened because the F-117 was entirely alone, relying solely on its stealthiness to protect it. Once it was identified & located for long enough to attack it, there wasn't anything it could do.

                                ALL the described conditions had to be true for the ambush to work, not just one, so picking on the spotters outside the bases is meaningless when the other conditions weren't met.

                                F-16s & the like were flying pretty much in plain sight, often in broad daylight, armed, equipped & organised to fight it out with anything the Serbs sent against them, & in numbers & with equipment which made that a one-sided fight. Utterly, utterly different.
                                Last edited by swerve; 2nd February 2016, 12:46.
                                Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                Justinian

                                Comment


                                  #76
                                  Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                                  First flight 27th of May 2008.
                                  Wrong again... the Gripen Demo is not a Gripen NG.

                                  https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...sembly-418908/

                                  Exactly. So why claim something else? When they have demonstrated its suitability for roadway ops, then we can talk..
                                  By that reasoning there is no need to discuss the Gripen NG until it has demonstrated the ability to fly...

                                  Comment


                                    #77
                                    Originally posted by hopsalot View Post
                                    Wrong again... the Gripen Demo is not a Gripen NG.

                                    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...sembly-418908/

                                    By that reasoning there is no need to discuss the Gripen NG until it has demonstrated the ability to fly...
                                    The Gripen Demo NG is an NG.. We can spend hours arguing about whether it's a true "prototype" or just a heavily reworked Gripen B under a private initiative financed by the industry but the fact is that it is an NG. It has a new airframe with additional fuel capacity, two rows of fuselage pylons, new landing gear, F414-GE engine, new satcom equipment, electro-optical RWR and MAWS by Avitronics, as well as the Vixen 1000E AESA radar. Whatever changes have been proposed for the final config prototype from your link, they will hardly be discernible..
                                    Last edited by MSphere; 2nd February 2016, 01:23.

                                    Comment


                                      #78
                                      Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                                      The Gripen Demo NG is an NG.. We can spend hours arguing about whether it's a true "prototype" or just a heavily reworked Gripen B under a private initiative financed by the industry but the fact is that it is an NG. It has a new airframe with additional fuel capacity, two rows of fuselage pylons, new landing gear, F414-GE engine, new satcom equipment, electro-optical RWR and MAWS by Avitronics, as well as the Vixen 1000E AESA radar. Whatever changes have been proposed for the final config prototype from your link, they will hardly be discernible..
                                      No, it isn't. .. and it didn't have production representative avionics, structure, or performance.

                                      Comment


                                        #79
                                        No prototype has production representative avionics... that's why it's a prototype..
                                        Care to enlighten us on the rest, please? How will the NG structure and performance differ from the Demo NG?

                                        Comment


                                          #80
                                          Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                                          How will the NG structure and performance differ from the Demo NG?
                                          For one, the weight is off by about 1000 kg.

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X