Gripen - Red Flag

[Ths]

The technical problem for the gripen vs. F-35:

1. It is limited how many updates the Gripen has left: The current/planned Gripen might be modern; but will it be possible to update it significantly in 2030?? It is crucial as that is crucial. Choosing Gripen means You presupposes that requirements and opposition will not change in the next 40 years.

2. Political considerations: Experience show that Nordic defence does not work. Dr. Freud: It was attempeted to form a defensive pact between Denmark and Sweden in 1937; but the result was negative. In fact the defenceplan for Denmark did include a Swedish expeditionary corps at the eve of the invasion - everybody knew they were not coming; but it was probably the only way a credible defence could be formed. On that background the Prime Minister had no choise but to surrender on the best possible terms.
After WW2 the attempts were renewed; but stranded again, so Nato was the only option - much against the wishes of Prime Minister HC Hansen. It has consistently been Swedens opinion, that a defensive pact with the other Nordic countries did not suit their purpose - fair enough. The problem now is does it suit Nato's?
Finally we have tried buying Swedish fighters: The Draken F35X - a much modified ground attack/recce version of the interceptor Draken. It worked; but not as well as the F-100 - carried more but not so far. The main problem was however spares: A) They were hugely expensive - as spares normally are. B) We had to carry a large stock of them, as they would not be delivered in time of war. That is the reason Drakens are still flying: When they were phased out we had plenty of spares. The mere spares issue is against Gripen. On the other hand: Long experience with the USA as a supplier counts in their favour:

When the F-100 got long in tooth we could get replacement aircraft free of charge - we only had to pay freight and get them out of mothballing.
We have been able to buy replacement, pre used F-16 at a very modest price - where we had to spend just as much in updating them - it was a bargain.

Furthermore - and decisively - The F-35 has an engine with the future ahead of it - Gripen engine is at its relative peak performance in the life cycle.

Finally: The defining scenario is not defence of danish air territory any more.

 

[zeven]

Dr Freud.



----Some upgrades for jas 39 gripen NG ----

• Increased range
• Increased MTOW
• Added weapons stores
• Increased thrust
• NORA AESA (Active Electronic Scanning Array)
• MIDAS (Multifunction Defensive Avionics System)
• Enhanced EWS
• Advanced rear cockpit
• Enhanced NCW
• Full capability HMD
• GCAS
• Satellite Comms
• Jammer Pod Integration
• Improved LCC
• Overall increased basic performance
• More Internal Fuel, New Landing Gear
• Increased Payload
• Centerline pylon is complemented by two pylons for heavy stores
• New main landing gear (Increased take-off and landing masses)
• New Engine
• Communications
• Advanced data communication with FAC and other ground units
• Electronic Warfare
• Enhanced MAW
• JSM (NSM), SDB…
• Gripen D cockpit with some enhancements
•OTIS-IRS-T system
• Avionics Structure Rig Demo
• New computers
• Advanced internal communications

Increase overall capability:

• Better computer and bus performance
• Reduce time to integrate new systems and
functions (hours rather than months)
• More efficient distributed development
• Increase mission availability
• Meet new (unknown) operational requirements
• Easy Start-Up
• Common avionic development for all flying
• Awesome performance, Supercruise…
• Enhanced EWS and Comms suite
• New ”State of the Art” Avionics Structure

 

[zeven]

According to, JSF homepage, F-35 is unable to supercruise,
and the A/C abiltity in air 2 air combat is only secondary,

only reason they retired Viggen was, no reason to keep it going, because of Gripen, and you say the development takes longer for europe?? haha, look here, F-22 was supposed to be operational 96 one (projektplan 9 years) it toke them 20 years.. Gripen didn´t exeed the plan at all.

The technical problem for the gripen vs. F-35:

1. It is limited how many updates the Gripen has left: The current/planned Gripen might be modern; but will it be possible to update it significantly in 2030?? It is crucial as that is crucial. Choosing Gripen means You presupposes that requirements and opposition will not change in the next 40 years.

2. Political considerations: Experience show that Nordic defence does not work. Dr. Freud: It was attempeted to form a defensive pact between Denmark and Sweden in 1937; but the result was negative. In fact the defenceplan for Denmark did include a Swedish expeditionary corps at the eve of the invasion - everybody knew they were not coming; but it was probably the only way a credible defence could be formed. On that background the Prime Minister had no choise but to surrender on the best possible terms.
After WW2 the attempts were renewed; but stranded again, so Nato was the only option - much against the wishes of Prime Minister HC Hansen. It has consistently been Swedens opinion, that a defensive pact with the other Nordic countries did not suit their purpose - fair enough. The problem now is does it suit Nato's?
Finally we have tried buying Swedish fighters: The Draken F35X - a much modified ground attack/recce version of the interceptor Draken. It worked; but not as well as the F-100 - carried more but not so far. The main problem was however spares: A) They were hugely expensive - as spares normally are. B) We had to carry a large stock of them, as they would not be delivered in time of war. That is the reason Drakens are still flying: When they were phased out we had plenty of spares. The mere spares issue is against Gripen. On the other hand: Long experience with the USA as a supplier counts in their favour:

When the F-100 got long in tooth we could get replacement aircraft free of charge - we only had to pay freight and get them out of mothballing.
We have been able to buy replacement, pre used F-16 at a very modest price - where we had to spend just as much in updating them - it was a bargain.

Furthermore - and decisively - The F-35 has an engine with the future ahead of it - Gripen engine is at its relative peak performance in the life cycle.

Finally: The defining scenario is not defence of danish air territory any more.

Saab is launching its plans for a new Gripen Demonstrator programme in partnership with some of the world’s leading aerospace companies. "This programme will keep Gripen at the leading edge well beyond 2040"

// world defence

so please, this upgrade arguement doesn´t work. this was the first thing SAAB thought about..

your second statement, i don´t really know much about, so you´re probably right there.

about the engine, no no no, please give us some ref. that support that please.
and you can look at it this way, F-35s engine aint proven, who knows what problem it will have in the future, i do prefer an engine that is proven. especially when we talking about singel engine aircfrafts

what Denmark will use their airforce for, i don´t know either, but i´ve hard to believe national secerurity aint the primary assignment.

 

[gf0012-aust]

about the engine, no no no, please give us some ref. that support that please.

make the effort and look up the Gripens current engine - its at the end of its development curve.

and you can look at it this way, F-35s engine aint proven, who knows what problem it will have in the future, i do prefer an engine that is proven. especially when we talking about singel engine aircfrafts

look at the build run of the JSF - do you seriously think that an aircraft with a run of "nn" thousand platforms is not going to be exhaustively tested.

as for the Gripen, one of the future engine choices is the same engine as the Super Hornet - The F414 is no comparison to the JSF's engine options.

as for the comment about increasing range, this also starts to involve other impediments such as change of the area rule (flight characteristics), absolute loadout issues (centre barrel stress), RCS impact. A conformal tank will act as a signal transducer. Its not the best option unless you can actively manage your signals or you reprofile the aircraft again - not a cheap option. Conformal tanks will also degrade abso;ute engine performance. Look at fuel weight and how it will degrade handling, manouvre, tertiary performance issues etc....

 

[Dr Freud]

Thank you seven for the long list of Gripen NG.
But i'm still at a loss if that means a stretched version, wich i assume takes a whole s**tload of factors into account, like new software that compensate the longer body.
I'm primarily interested in if A and N version is basically the same plane, just sqeezed into a really impressive plane, especially in such a small package!

Finally: as Ths accurately put it: The defining scenario is not defence of danish air territory any more.
:
Denmark's need for fighter aircraft - a strategic analysis of the future need for Danish fighter aircraft

p.29f in particular.
Clearly states that "When deciding on replacement fighter aircraft it would thus be vital to ensure collaborations like EPAF/EEAW can continue."
(EPAF=European Participating Air Forces, ;Expeditionary Air Wing=EEAW)

vital as in overruling concern
It is in light of this, that i wrote that :
"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,"

Political support like loitering around for many hours above the hills in Afganistan, something that would require a LOT of effort from tankers
to keep the small Gripen loitering around. (I admit i dunno how long a Gripen can be loitering around, but i bet a big bottle of beer its less then f35).
btw Denmarks airforce isnt going to engage anything that can shoot back, so LO is irrelevant.

On a sidenote, allthough i havnt got a clue what the outcome would have been, i feel its sad scandinavia didnt combine their arm 100 years ago, and i guess Sweden, as the most powerful country, gets most of the blame.

In any case, as Clausewitz pointed out, military power is just a continuing of politic, wich means politics always overrule.

 

[zeven]

the performance and manouvrabiltiy will not decrease, because of the changes, SAAB have stated, that, it´s not an option to put this abilities at risk, for anything. and i believe they know what they doing.

about the engine, i don´t see this as an issue, for gripen F1414 with volvos modifications and upgrade will be awesome, they even say it will be possible to get 26400 of thrust from it. and the engine it self will be more than enough to keep Gripen going, and who knows what coming next.

ehm RCS will not change i think you overestimate the changes that will be done, they´re only gonna change the landing gear, the size will be the same.. btw all this changes are already done, and the aircraft will fly 23rd of march. build on an A/B frame of Gripen.

i think SAAB has done some genius things here that only will improve Gripen

 

[JohanGrön]

A conformal tank will act as a signal transducer. Its not the best option unless you can actively manage your signals or you reprofile the aircraft again - not a cheap option. Conformal tanks will also degrade abso;ute engine performance. Look at fuel weight and how it will degrade handling, manouvre, tertiary performance issues etc....

CFT was ruled out on Gripen NG due to deterioated performance thus the added internal fueltank.

[change hp to http]
hp://undstunden.blogspot.com/2006/05/tankebanor-kring-och-visualiseringar.html (In swedish but images gives a clue of alternatives)

 

[zeven]

DR. Freud.

the NG frame is build from an existing A/B frame, it´s no major changes we´re talking about here. so no, it is the SAME airframe as the A/B version

and according to the new avionics and computers, Gripen was build to go throw major upgrades here. this was the main thing SAAB had in mind when they developed Gripen in the firtst place..

this is the main thing ppl have hard to understand. actually, the changes are rather simple

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

DR. Freud.

the NG frame is build from an existing A/B frame, it´s no major changes we´re talking about here. so no, it is the SAME airframe as the A/B version

and according to the new avionics and computers, Gripen was build to go throw major upgrades here. this was the main thing SAAB had in mind when they developed Gripen in the firtst place..

this is the main thing ppl have hard to understand. actually, the changes are rather simple

So they're takeing a 4th gen airframe, puting in a new avionics suite, a new engine and some more fuel, and you guys seriously think it will be competitive with an F-35??? No airframe redesign? No comprehenseive RCS reduction? No comprehenseive IR reduction? An inferior avionics suite? An inferior EW suite? an inferior HUI? C'mon poeple!?! The only thing going for it will be the price and perhaps the basing footprint.

 

[zeven]

who said anything about inferior avionics?

please show me ONE link (neutral ofcaurse) that say everything gripen will have under the hood, will be inferior..

i´ve hard to believe you got so high knowledge about both airplanes so you can say something like that.

do you think SAAB, do this for fun?? do you think they would put so much money and efford into this, if it wasn´t competable?

strange that countries even look at gripen if the plane will be so bad, damn the entire world much be stupid

i guess you think EF will be inferior to F-35 too??

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

who said anything about inferior avionics?

please show me ONE link (neutral ofcaurse) that say everything gripen will have under the hood, will be inferior..

Link?

How about common sense? So weres the 3rd gen AESA? Or how about the Distributed Apature System? Or what about EOTS? How about a HMD that allows you to see IR imagry "through the floor"? Or what about the intergrated EW suite? Hmm...

You want a link spend 5 minets on google and have a look for yorself i think you'll find those systems are NOT going to go on your super gripen. They ARE however going to be intergrated on the F-35 however, which would make the avionics suite superior.

 

[SlyDog]

Dr Freud:

It should be possible to make a Gripen A to an Gripen N, but there are so many changes so I think its cheeper to build it "from scrash".

 

[zeven]

common sense? doesn´t help much when you cant back it up with facts. HMD is already in service, and for the other system yo mentioned gripen have similar systems as well,

and yes i´ve been looking for that link the past 3 months so please help me out. i will change my mind when i see it. that F-35 will be superior on all fronts. so please take your 5 min. and give it to me.

ps. about the radar. Gripen is behind for now. but with awacs:s it really doesnt matter... and Gripen aint build to bomb foreign countries.

i would love to see F-35 tries to get airsupiority over Sweden.
without help form other aircrafts. then we can see who´s the best aircraft for the roll they are build.

 

[Grand Danois]

Thank you seven for the long list of Gripen NG.
But i'm still at a loss if that means a stretched version, wich i assume takes a whole s**tload of factors into account, like new software that compensate the longer body.
I'm primarily interested in if A and N version is basically the same plane, just sqeezed into a really impressive plane, especially in such a small package!

Finally: as Ths accurately put it: The defining scenario is not defence of danish air territory any more.
:
Denmark's need for fighter aircraft - a strategic analysis of the future need for Danish fighter aircraft

p.29f in particular.
Clearly states that "When deciding on replacement fighter aircraft it would thus be vital to ensure collaborations like EPAF/EEAW can continue."
(EPAF=European Participating Air Forces, ;Expeditionary Air Wing=EEAW)

vital as in overruling concern
It is in light of this, that i wrote that :
"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,"

Political support like loitering around for many hours above the hills in Afganistan, something that would require a LOT of effort from tankers
to keep the small Gripen loitering around. (I admit i dunno how long a Gripen can be loitering around, but i bet a big bottle of beer its less then f35).
btw Denmarks airforce isnt going to engage anything that can shoot back, so LO is irrelevant.

On a sidenote, allthough i havnt got a clue what the outcome would have been, i feel its sad scandinavia didnt combine their arm 100 years ago, and i guess Sweden, as the most powerful country, gets most of the blame.

In any case, as Clausewitz pointed out, military power is just a continuing of politic, wich means politics always overrule.

I have commented in detail on this earlier - why not pick up from there, instead of iterate?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Saab is launching its plans for a new Gripen Demonstrator programme in partnership with some of the world’s leading aerospace companies. "This programme will keep Gripen at the leading edge well beyond 2040"

// world defence

so please, this upgrade arguement doesn´t work. this was the first thing SAAB thought about..

your second statement, i don´t really know much about, so you´re probably right there.

about the engine, no no no, please give us some ref. that support that please.
and you can look at it this way, F-35s engine aint proven, who knows what problem it will have in the future, i do prefer an engine that is proven. especially when we talking about singel engine aircfrafts

what Denmark will use their airforce for, i don´t know either, but i´ve hard to believe national secerurity aint the primary assignment.

Once again you've proven your lack of knowledge about these matters. The current Gripen variant uses the RM-12 which is a modifed variant of the General Electric F-404 engine. The same engine used in the F/A-18 Hornet. It is an old design and has limited growth available in it, and hence a new engine has had to be chosen.

The Gripen is to have a modified variant of the General Electric F-414 engine (as used by the F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornet and Growler). This engine ALSO has to undergo extensive testing before it will be declared operational.

So why exactly do you prefer one developmental engine over another?

 

[zeven]

Grand Danios

about the airframe it will be the same as A/B versions yes.
the airframe will not be longer, only the wings will be if something.

when i see the purpose for your airforce, i do agree with you on all points
so hands down there

yes i think its sad that so similar countries that we´re doesnt have combined our forces more so with other things. we already share to much, not to continue building on that.

 

[zeven]

i said, its will be enough for the aircraft and their duties.

and i really can´t see the problem with it, i trust SAAB, and i think they do the right choices, for the future.

they are not stupid and they are not newbees in this business,
they got a quite impressive record, or do you say that the other aircrafts before Gripen was bad and inferior to? (the aircfraft russia had most respect for was Viggen) for exampel, and Draken,Tunnan and Lansen was very good planes.

 

[Grand Danois]

Grand Danios

about the airframe it will be the same as A/B versions yes.
the airframe will not be longer, only the wings will be if something.

when i see the purpose for your airforce, i do agree with you on all points
so hands down there

yes i think its sad that so similar countries that we´re doesnt have combined our forces more so with other things. we already share to much, not to continue building on that.

I don't think it was me who posed that question.

Perhaps we need a hypothetical thread on what the combined might and power of the nordic countries would look like.

 

[Dr Freud]

I'm sorry slydog, i didnt see your post,(only 8 beer so i blush).
I'm very greatful to get the info, i was concerned about the development cost, but with this info, i know its no problem:cheers

btw just gimme all the A/B planes and i will convert them into Gripen N, sell them to nearly all the world and finally get RICH!!:dunce

seven: tunnan was the best fighter in its days, viggen can't convinsibly say the same.

 

[zeven]

gripen was desgined to protect sweden. and in this case as for other countries who want to use giprn for the same assignment its more than good enough. like i said, do you think F-35 could gain airsupiority over swedens airspace??