Gripen - Red Flag

[zeven]

THS,

ehm please check you facts before you make a statement..

gripen NG will be in the leading edge well beyond 2040.
// world defence

i´m tired of this "outdated" crap, what defines "a generation" anyway? the stealth frame on F-22/F-35 are 20 years old.

avionics is quite equal, Gripen doesn´t use 10 years old avionics, either do EF for that sake.



and it´s more than enough facts out there, that back up the fact, that gripens RCS are very very low, and now with an entire new Defence system soon inplace including new jams..

this generation thing, will be an outdated "word"

 

[Aussie Digger]

THS,

ehm please check you facts before you make a statement..

gripen NG will be in the leading edge well beyond 2040.
// world defence

i´m tired of this "outdated" crap, what defines "a generation" anyway? the stealth frame on F-22/F-35 are 20 years old.

avionics is quite equal, Gripen doesn´t use 10 years old avionics, either do EF for that sake.



and it´s more than enough facts out there, that back up the fact, that gripens RCS are very very low, and now with an entire new Defence system soon inplace including new jams..

this generation thing, will be an outdated "word"

For starters, your statement is relying upon the fact that the Gripen NG is going to be developed.

At present it's a possibility. So far only a concept demonstrator has been funded and if no orders emerge, ie: Norway and Denmark go with another solution, then it is unlikely that this variant will ever exist.

What is more likely in my opinion is that incremental upgrades to the aircraft, evolved from these concept demonstrators will see it's capability evolve over time, very much in the mold of the F-16's path.

Your comment about the "20 year old airframe" on the F-35 shows a distinct lack of knowledge about aircraft and this one in particular. Would you please state when the F-35C for instance successfully achieved it's critical design review?

You'll find out it wasn't 20 years ago. It was barely even 20 weeks ago... T

The F-22's critical design review was achieved in 1995.

I can't find the CDR date for Gripen, however first production aircraft were delivered in 1993.

What has the more "up to date" airframe again, exactly?

 

[zeven]

they were operational 97 in the swedish ariforce..


so you don´t say that F-35 frame comes from f-22???

and that f-22 was a project started in the mid, 80s? and was supposed to be operational 96 in usaf?

that makes the new F seres frames not much younger than EF/gripen/rafale
we are talking about a half dacede tops.

why i brought it up, is because i´m sick of the statement, that 4+ generations aircrafts are outdated..

and according to FMV, so will the new gripen be in production whatever Denmark/norway purchase it or not..

F-22/EF/gripen all mid 80s, F-35 eary 90s 92 to be correct.

not europeens fault that americans can´t keep the timeframe.

so you will call Gripen NG a 5th generation as well if/when it comes in production??? i certainly will NOT.. afterall the NG started 2007 so according to your calculations it will be a 5th generation. (everything is new even the frame)

btw the joint aventure of F-35 started 2001 but the project started 92, and the swedish government desided 82, to continue the domestic aircraft industry, after the rejection of F-16. this under a competion made late 82. so in 83/84 the Gripen project started for real. i don´t have the specific nr of EF but if i not mistaken it started 83.

so what exactly makes an aircraft a 4th or a 5th?
and if we are talking about avionics here, then its impossible because of all the uppgrades, that would make F-16 block 60 a 4th generation too..

i could have agreed with you that F-35 is an 5th generation if f-22 wasn´t afterall F-22 was supposed to be in active service before gripen.

 

[Grand Danois]

I'd say that CDR is a more relevant datum than project start - but that is just me.

 

[Ths]

I don't think I'll answer zeven, as I'll just be accused of hating Swedes - which may or may not be true; but irrelevant.

 

[zeven]

okey you guys might be right.. i might not have enough knowledge. about it.. but thats what forums is all about? talk ask, compare, learn. and so on. at least i can admit when i´m wrong, or lack of knowledge.

alot of guys in here, rather dabate with feelings, which one who is the best, and so on..

THS, hehe coz you can answer i will not hate you..

i try to read as much as i can about the subject before i make my claim. but is not always the facts are correct..

and i´m sorry..

anyway i still don´t like when ppl say 4 gen are outdated or that F-35 will be so superior when no one knows how it will do, because its not in service, or on the other hand, what special features the EF/gripen and Rafale will have in the near future..

 

[zeven]

another thing,

it wouldn´t been a debate if it was FACT that one specific aircraft or other military machines are the top dog in all aspects. right?

and that is the beauty with the whole topic,

 

[Dr Freud]

I havnt thought of this before, but it just came to my mind that Denmark and Norway buying Swedish Gripen would have some serious political merit, hopefully leading to defence cooperation.

Despite houndreds of years of peace, there might still be some quirks to overcome in unity and relations between the Scandinavians, wich is a reason in its own right.

As for defence against an aggressor, well, as we all know, Denmark surrendered after a couple of hours to nazi Germany.

I just wonder if Germany had went to war against Denmark, had Sweden and Denmark been allied.

 

[Grand Danois]

But Denmark and Norway are in a very intimate alliance already with Germany and UK and Iceland and Holland and Poland and Lithuania and Estonia and Latvia and USA and...

With jointly managed airspace on the operational level. With a deeply integrated command structure. With shared assets on multiple levels. With joint R&D, standardization.

If a war should break out on the existential level, Germany, Poland, Holland and UK would be the natural partners for Denmark in continental Europe.

A battle in Norway and the North Atlantic would be a Norwegian/UK/US/Dutch/German affair...

Defence cooperation doesn't follow the Gripen or the other way round. And the Swedes have explicitly expressed so to the Norwegians. Sweden trying to integrate its defence politics into Europe is running in a seperate track.

 

[SlyDog]

Dr Freud: There are not any problem in the relationship between the governments in scandinavia. But among "ordinary people" are there some how have made up there minds.

The biggest insentives for Denmark and Norway to buy Gripen might be lower life cycle cost and/or industrial cooperation (as a part of gripen project itself AND as an offset).

When it comes to defence cooperation between the scandinavian country - a purcase of airplane will not be a condition. Sweden, Finland and Norway procured helicopters together which saved some money. But there might be several kinds of cooperation and coordination to save money and improvement of security etc.

 

[Grand Danois]

As for defence against an aggressor, well, as we all know, Denmark surrendered after a couple of hours to nazi Germany.

Inside a day. That's the reality of being an isolated country right next to the most formidable air-land war machine at the time.

Narvik was critical. An alliance with Sweden would have meant that Germany had taken Sweden too, or more likely, that Scandinavia had been pressured to [effectively] fight on the axis side.

But this is not the thread for counterfactual history - just fleshing out this stray topic for those that do not know the details of our little corner of the world.

To wrap it up. No, Denmark is not going to buy the Gripen. We need a jet that is appropriate for offensive joint air ops with our allies. It has to be doctrinally employed similar to the way our allies do it - the ones that also do have an activist foreign policy.

This would mean either the EF or the JSF, and since the EF withdrew...

For the policy to change we would need a change og govt and that just ain't gonna happen before the final selection has been made.

If you wish to read more on that topic:

Denmark's need for fighter aircraft - a strategic analysis of the future need for Danish fighter aircraft

p.29f in particular.

 

[Dr Freud]

just a non-topic question, i'm new into chat and dont understand abbreviations all that much, i (think) i know OMG=Oh My God, but what about IMO and others ? can anyone help me out

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

just a non-topic question, i'm new into chat and dont understand abbreviations all that much, i (think) i know OMG=Oh My God, but what about IMO and others ? can anyone help me out

IMO= In My Opinion
IMHO= In My Humble Opinion
IIRC= If I Remember (Recall) Correctly
AFAIK= As Far As I Know
FYI= For Your Information

Any more your unclear on?

 

[Dr Freud]

thank you ozzy, the info was most welcome

 

[zeven]

it´s quite fun, that you ( GRAND DANIOS) always mention that. over and over again.

what on earth make you think, denmark are different from hungary? or chzechs?? you´re a a smaller country with less population and quite similiar BNP. Gripen work just fine in nato, and its more than enough is you look at the danish requirments. what make you think you know this better than you own government or other countries for that sake.

after what i read, i think you´re just jealous that sweden have the technology to build a great aicfraft. and it´s only feelings, that tells you NO, god, what have ever sweden done to you, is not hard to see you don´t like swedes? the swedes are you neighbours for god sake, don´t be an ignorant fool.. everyone knows F-35 have alot of qualities and far better than gripen in many aspects, but C´mon to say gripen is a bad aircraft, and it doesn´t good enough for Denmarks needs are BS.. it´s very STRANGE thar you know more than your own testpilots don´t you think??????

Danish test pilot tries out Gripen
he says: " its fantastic like 3 times and its a pilots dream"

[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=cJz-vca1AQE&feature=related"]YouTube - Danish testpilot fly JAS Gripen..."A pilot's dream"[/ame]

 

[SlyDog]

zeven: Grand Danois have just pointed out that he thinks that F-35 will fit denmarks need better and thinks for that reason (together with some political issues behaps), denmark will choose F-35.

NATO might have some demands for combat abroad - there some features as stealth (among other things) may be requiered.

 

[zeven]

slydog, didn´t thought i would hear that from you ..

sorry dude, that is so wrong. requirement for stealth.. no don´t think so. thats like saying, everyone who is in nato need to buy F-35 wonder what UK says their main fighter will be EF...
(gripen is one of the best out there, its more than capeble to bomb 3rd world countries, trust me )

nope, it is just Grand danish, who have something agianst swedes.

 

[Dr Freud]

If you read GD's link::

Denmark's need for fighter aircraft - a strategic analysis of the future need for Danish fighter aircraft

p.29f in particular.

You will find that in Denmarks case, the aircraft is not so much meant to defend Denmark, but rather to provide political support for USA, and get protection in return, quite clever actually, since Denmark has no ability do denfend itself. Aircraft capability is rather irrelevant, aircraft manufacturer however, is.

 

[zeven]

DR. Freud,

i do agree with you, "for political support"

but i still think it´s sad, they can´t recognize Gripen as an advanced weapon platform, that would be more than enough from the military/defence requirements point of veiw..

 

[Dr Freud]

But in Denmarks case, military/defence requirements means being protected by someone else (USA) and so the requirements is to maintain good relations with USA...