SAAB Gripen and Gripen NG thread #4

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 3,280

Why is the capability (or lack thereof) to take off one minute earlier than the Gripen considered as fatal? Gripen is an unwritten champion in that parameter, I could imagine that pretty much every other fighter would have the same "problem"..

some further clarification (or confusion?) has been found:

Chinese pilots were very confused that China’s aircrafts were always one minute slower than foreign aircrafts in taking off, as the runway is the same and the aircrafts have similar performance.

After times of observation, contrast and analysis, the truth came out: Chinese fighter jets always take the outer lane in turning off, while foreign fighters always take the inner lane.

Chinese pilots felt wronged and shocked, as they were taught to turn off in that way, and thus took it as a standard. But such detail could determine success of failure of a war, and they were totally unaware of it.

http://www.china-arms.com/2015/12/chinese-air-force-finds-the-secret-of-aircrafts-one-minute-slower-in-taking-off/

So the Chinese were one minute late because they were making a wrong turn!

One should never do that, in particular not in times of war. Arriving one minute late to the dogfight may be fatal.

Edit: joking aside, the most interesting thing about the Vietnamese story linked to above, is that it is yet another story published in Vietnam that speaks highly about the Gripen... I wonder what that means?

Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 8,850

1. They want to diversify the sources for their aircraft
2. They need a MiG-21 replacement
3. They need a low part of the hi-low mix
4. Nothing Chinese, thus the FC-1 is out..

Not that many options left...

Member for

7 years 4 months

Posts: 3,156

Why is the capability (or lack thereof) to take off one minute earlier than the Gripen considered as fatal? Gripen is an unwritten champion in that parameter, I could imagine that pretty much every other fighter would have the same "problem"..

With your usual sourcing I see...

Profile picture for user Rii

Member for

9 years 1 month

Posts: 3,381

1. They want to diversify the sources for their aircraft
2. They need a MiG-21 replacement
3. They need a low part of the hi-low mix
4. Nothing Chinese, thus the FC-1 is out..

Not that many options left...

Gripen is an attractive prospect for Vietnam. The American engine is a potential stumbling block, but also a potential opportunity. Ties between the two nations have been warming, and this could be a meaningful next step in the relationship.

(And the American voters/pundits most likely to object are too dumb to know what's going on anyway. ;))

Tejas is another possibility, but too immature and unproven one would think, despite the low cost and attractive political angles.

Korean F/A-50? Though one would think that if Vietnam were inclined in that direction they would've opted for T-50 over Yak-130.

Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 8,850

With your usual sourcing I see...
Sourcing for what?

Member for

3 years 11 months

Posts: 1,081

Right, so I'll post here in stead; I found this link on https://twitter.com/gripennews, & though it might be worth linking here: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/

what the actual f is this :D oh my god , lol

L band and lower frequency radars can see stealthy aircraft over 100 miles away. So an Su-35 can see a F-35 well before the F-35 can detect it

Member for

3 years 11 months

Posts: 1,081

Yeah, I figured someone would bring that here sooner or later. A perfect example of "journalism" on the internet these days. Just make up whatever numbers you want and throw them on a chart, instant credibility.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]243426[/ATTACH]

So let me see if I have this right...

The F-15 has lower instantaneous turn performance than the F-35A... meanwhile the F/A-18 has higher sustained turn performance than the F-15. (huh?)

The Su-27 has worse instantaneous turn performance than an Su-35, but the same sustained (?)... the Su-35 meanwhile is crushed in both metrics by all Eurocanards and the F-22 (again??). The Gripen of course is the top performer in both instantaneous and sustained turn performance. :eagerness:

In fact, if this chart is to be believed the Gripen can sustain sustain just shy of a 30 degree per second turn, more than the F-15/16/18/35 or Su-27 can achieve in a max instantaneous turn.

If this chart were even slightly accurate the Gripen would be flying circles around everything else in the sky...

the chart doesnt fit any flight graph from flight manual ,there is no part of the envelope where F-16 can sustain 19 degree/second but F-15 can only sustain 13 degree/second

Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

7 years 11 months

Posts: 3,106

Most citizens couldn't care less.. they have zero clue about what the ties are nowadays, from cinemas and media a picture of Vietnam is a picture of an enemy.. Those few thousand tourists who have actually visited the country won't change a thing about that..

Few thousand.... like a half a million last year alone. Seriously, you and Rii need to stop forming your view of U.S. citizens based on popular media. The ignorance you display mirrors the perceived ignorance that you accuse U.S. nationals of possessing.

Member for

6 years 1 month

Posts: 2,014

Right, so I'll post here in stead; I found this link on https://twitter.com/gripennews, & though it might be worth linking here: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/

too many mistake to take serious
1) the L band on Su-35 wing isnt a radar but used for IFF function ,if it was a radar , it's accuracy will be too low for anything useful ( small aperture + low frequency = bad cell resolution )
2) author randomly made up detection range value
3) the sustain - instantaneous turn rate are wrong , and likely made up by the author himself too
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nRSaf017MXw/UZhXhp3WiPI/AAAAAAAACWk/6xBVahdCiQo/s1600/Sustained+G+and+T+to+W.jpg

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 3,280

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?

Profile picture for user frankvw

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 4,448

Please keep the US politics out of this, guys.

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 516

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.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 3,280

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.

Profile picture for user JakobS

Member for

4 years 4 months

Posts: 149

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.

Member for

8 years

Posts: 5,847

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.

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 226

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.

Member for

8 years

Posts: 5,847

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.

Profile picture for user JakobS

Member for

4 years 4 months

Posts: 149

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.

Member for

7 years 4 months

Posts: 3,156


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.

Profile picture for user TR1

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 9,579

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.