Gripen - Red Flag

[SlyDog]

Dr Freud: I'dont share you opinion. After have read 5-6 pages, I'am not wiser than before , there are hints which going in all possible direction :nonsense

 

[zeven]

Dr. Freud,

in their doctortrin it doesnt say so.. strange??? national defence,airsupiority, garding the costline/sea. are the prime duties for the Danish airforce, nato is only second after national assignments.

btw, what is the purpose with nato??? not agresive warfare thats for sure!!! so defence is no.1

ps.
read GDs link, it doesnt say Nato are more important than national assignments..

 

[Grand Danois]

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...

That is wrong and implies vassalage. We are talking collective security here, which means EU/NATO/UN. I suspect you are pushing buttons.

Mind you, the two instances where Danish air power has been used offensively is the Kosovo air war and Afghanistan. Both times in collaboration with the Dutch and the Norwegians.

The Kosovo air war was an European project on the political level - the US only went along because EU pressures got too strong. Afghanistan because we're allied with the US. And pretty much every man and his dog are in Afghanistan.

I note that SWAFRAP is created along the lines of the EPAF concept. I note that they have toured the world (Red Flag/Gripen/this thread), for the purpose of demonstrating "deployability". I note that a Swedish NBG has been created to make assets available to supernational institutions (EU/UN/(NATO)). I note that Sweden is touring the other Nordic countries in the search for formalized assured mutual assistance in case of attack.

Sweden is moving toward a collective security concept - just what Denmark is already part of and is investing in. To fulfill that, Denmark needs the right jet. Not because it is American.

 

[Grand Danois]

Dr. Freud,

in their doctortrin it doesnt say so.. strange??? national defence,airsupiority, garding the costline/sea. are the prime duties for the Danish airforce, nato is only second after national assignments.

btw, what is the purpose with nato??? not agresive warfare thats for sure!!! so defence is no.1

ps.
read GDs link, it doesnt say Nato are more important than national assignments..

If you read page 35 of the document, you will see that three models are proposed.

The night watch model - which is what the Czechs and Hungarians have.

The air support model - where a slightly larger number of jets is supplemented with attack helos.

The air warrior model - which is what Denmark is currently employing.

The Gripen NG/DK fits into the two first, but not the last.

The current govt is probably going to favour the last option; thus requirement is based on perceived political need. If the opposition Social Democrats had been in power, they had probably also officially chosen the air warrior model, but would have chosen the Gripen in order to neuter the capability and make it unviable in high intensity environments. This would have made the socialist peoples party and the red-green alliance happy. :

 

[zeven]

you say, Gripen aint good enough for airsupiority??

if you do, i´ll refresh your memory, what do you think it was designed for in the first place??

or have i missunderstood you or something??

 

[Grand Danois]

you say, Gripen aint good enough for airsupiority??

if you do, i´ll refresh your memory, what do you think it was designed for in the first place??

or have i missunderstood you or something??

No. I' m not saying jets like Gripen are obsolete or not good enough.

What I am saying is that the jet a nation choses has to fit the tasks that nation intends it to do.

The Gripen is fine for the environment and job it was designed for.

 

[zeven]

oh okay, then we understand eachother..

i wish you a nice weekend..

 

[Dr Freud]

sometimes can't help it :rosie

 

[Grand Danois]

sometimes can't help it :rosie

I do it myself sometimes; rarely, but it happens.

 

[Dr Freud]

You got what it takes to be a shrink:lol3 :cheers :denmark

 

[Aussie Digger]

they were operational 97 in the swedish ariforce..

Operational? Meaning what? Initial operational capability or full operational capability?

I can support my claim that initial production Gripens were delivered to the Swedish air force in the early 90's, roughly 10 years before the F-22 had even achieved it's in-service date and likely 20 years before the F-35 will achieve it's in-service date.

So I ask once again. Which aircraft types have the newer airframe?

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

I do say this. Would you care to support your claim with a link or referrence of some legitimate kind?

Lockheed Martin builds both aircraft, the F-35 has an engine and radar that are development's of same within the F-22. Otherwise, they are almost completely different...

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

Actually the F-22 started out as the "Advanced Tactical Fighter" in the very early 80's, not mid 80's, just as the Gripen did, however I hope you acknowledge that the F-22 was a vastly superior technological achievement, over the Gripen?

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

No. Significantly longer than that actually. Critical design review is when the design of the aircraft STOPS evolving and develops into the package we see. Be it F-22A, JAS-39A/B etc.

The F-35C only achieved this in 2007. Which makes the airframe less than 1 year old, according to my math.

Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon all reached this point, more than a decade ago...

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

From a particular point of view, that statement is fair enough. The "Euro-Canards" don't offer a whole lot of additional capability over the US "teen" series fighters, right now. They all offer some capability improvements in a lot of areas, however some will only achieve capability enhancements when various developments are worked through.

Take beyond visual range combat for instance. Can you honestly state the Gripen in a 1 v 1 scenario, with everything else being equal, is a better BVR combat aircraft than an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as of right now?

It uses inferior weapons than the Super Hornet (AIM-120C-7 isn't used by Sweden or any of the other Gripen users and Meteor is not yet operational) and it's radar is nowhere near the class of the APG-79 AESA radar from all reports.

The F-22 and F-35 however are designed from the outset to be superior to existing teen fighters they are designed to replace in virtually every aspect...

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

For who? Who has placed an order for it? Do you expect Saab will start producing airframes without a customer, let alone do the development work?

Even Sweden has just downsized it's airforce by over 120 aircraft and has just funded upgrades to bring it's Gripen fleet up to a common standard. I don't really see a likelyhood of them ordering new build "NG" models any time soon...

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

Rubbish. I've already pointed out numerous times that the final F-35 variant (F-35C) only had it's airframe design "locked in" in 2007. That's what critical design review means. It's the manufacturer and customer stating, "that's the design configuration we want. Lock it in thanks"...

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

Worthless, unsupported and "throw away" comments aren't even worth the time to respond...

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)

No I won't. The year of development has nothing to do with the aircraft term "generation". The specification of the aircraft has more to do with it. If an aircraft doesn't feature "full" LO features, amongst other things, then it is NOT a 5th generation combat aircraft in mine and apparently others description of such things.

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?

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..

F-16 IS a 4th generation combat aircraft. It is capabilities that matter, not when it is produced... The JF-17 is undergoing development right now. No slight is intended, but it is a HELLUVA long way from being a 5th generation aircraft.

In my opinion as already stated, unless low observability is built into the aircraft, in terms of radar cross section "reduction" shaping, radar absorbent materials, Infra-red emission - suppression measures and electronic emissions control measures, than it is not a 5th generation aircraft.

The only 2 "fifth generation" aircraft in-service or in-development are the F-22 and F-35 because of the inclusion of LO measures as a major design requirement.

Russia has talked extensively about the PAK-FA aircraft, which if true, could also be considered 5th generation. Nothing else meets these requirements however.

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.

I don't really care. Gripen even the NG model is not 5th Generation by design or by definition. If it needs a "catch phrase" then it is 4.5generation at best.

Look at it's design features. It's going to have an AESA radar. It's going to use a variant of the GE F-414 engine. It's going to feature additional range and payload capabiliy and advanced avionics.

I guess the Block II Super Hornet, which already HAS all these things is a 5th generation aircraft too, then?

 

[SlyDog]

zeven: I dont think Gripen are obsolete. But the answer on the question, if Gripen are capable enough, are context - i think.

And dont belive anything else then that I love "the little one" :love

 

[Dr Freud]

I would say spot on in every case AD, Gripens strength is net-centric, relative low cost, and low operational cost, - a cost effective defence fighter.
It can also to a lesser extent be used in Attack and Recon mission.

The trade-off (wich has to be done for any country with finite economy i.e all countries, save the f22) is mainly limited range and endurance.

It should be noted that f35 export version is NOT VLO, its LO, at best.
It is many gray shades here, from f22, f35 us, f35 export, EF, gripen/f18 e, etc.
I for one trade LO for range endurance and supercruise any day.

 

[Grand Danois]

It should be noted that f35 export version is NOT VLO, its LO.

It is VLO in the partner version; this is one of the myths that is becoming ubiquitous on the internet. There was a change in terminology - not actual performance wrt VLO.

In the case of the F-35, its huge internal fuel load, internalized weapons and mission systems - because you need that to be VLO - is part of the design concept. This translate to range and more fuel for loiter and tactical maneuvering.

So if you're looking for range, endurance and supercruise, well, VLO would give a better overall performance.

 

[Dr Freud]

A huge internal fuel load is always a good thing:love
Do you know when supercruise capabilities will be demonstrated ?

 

[Grand Danois]

Do you know when supercruise capabilities will be demonstrated ?

No. But if the Gripen can Supercruise in the academic sense, then most certainly will the F-35 be able to do it as well.

There really isn't any jet that can really use supercruise under operational conditions, perhaps not even the F-22, as its fuel fraction is too low.

However, the VLO flies clean from the onset - which would favour supercruise.

If you read my prev reply, it was obvious I was making comment on a conceptual level and did not relate it directly to the F-35 - so don't pull a strawman.

 

[Dr Freud]

If you read my prev reply, it was obvious I was making comment on a conceptual level and did not relate it directly to the F-35 - so don't pull a strawman.

I wouldn't dream about it it was demonstrated you wouldnt take the bate anyway.
Anyway huge internal fuel load is what trip my trigger.

 

[Grand Danois]

internal fuel:

F-35A - 18,500 lbs
Gripen NG - 6,500-7,000 lbs

 

[swerve]

internal fuel:

F-35A - 18,500 lbs
Gripen NG - 6,500-7,000 lbs

Bloody hell, you know better than that! Give the fuel fraction. Still well in the F-35s favour, but several orders of magnitude more informative.

 

[Grand Danois]

Bloody hell, you know better than that! Give the fuel fraction. Still well in the F-35s favour, but several orders of magnitude more informative.

Yes, I am a Kopp imposter.

Actually I don't know the Gripen NGs fuel fraction from top of mind. But the F-35A empty weight is something like 50% more than the the JAS-39C.

Fuel fraction F-35A .39
Guess on NG .33

Assumptions on the Gripen: 600 lbs more to empty weight; 7000 lbs internal fuel. Btw, is the empty weight of the F-35A 26k lbs or 29k lbs? I have used 29k lbs.

Let's try and add 2 x 2k lbs munitions; 2 x a2a missiles; gun ammo. Roughly 5k lbs. (Not to antagonize; just a little experiment.)

Fuel fraction

F-35A .36
Gripen NG .27

Internal fuel load does matter; F-35A takes advantage from being a bigger jet.

Feel free to correct. This is back of an envelope calculations.