Gripen is Ideal Choice for Ukraine

[Pukovnik7]

Private Site

Note: it is recommended to read the “Lessons of Air War in Ukraine” prior to reading this article.

Ukraine, no matter how well it may be doing against Russia, is losing aircraft. And it will need replacement, be it during the war or afterwards. Currently, Ukraine is still using old Soviet Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters – somewhat updated, but still badly outdated.

Some places still have old Su-27s and MiG-29s available, and that is what is currently being sent. But sending MiG-29s does not help with the issues Ukraine is facing with the Russian technological advantage. It might help if MiG-29s were completely retooled – equipped with modern Western radar, IRST, EW suite, weapons and engines – but at that point, one might just send a completely new aircraft. Numbers of available old Soviet aircraft in NATO countries are also quite limited, and most have been updated with sensitive NATO technology which makes them unsuitable for Ukraine.

One of options for Ukraine to replace aircraft losses is F-16. But neither F-16 nor other USAF aircraft – F-15, F-35 – would make much sense, or be a good solution for Ukraine. Ukraine cannot match Russian Air Force fighter for fighter, no matter the help it is provided, so all the concepts previously described still apply: fighter would have to be good at operating from badly maintained runways and road bases, and have relatively small logistical footprint.

As discussed in the “Lessons of Air War in Ukraine” however, Gripen may well be the best fighter aircraft for Ukraine – at least if one ignores politics and availability, both which would likely mean no deliveries before the end of the war.

This document points out following requirements:

• equipped with a missile capable of offering the greatest possible effective range under low-altitude, subsonic launch conditions
• significant electronic warfare capabilities
• jamming-resistant radar
• capable of operating from dispersed, relatively basic airbases to prevent them being located and rapidly destroyed by Russian long-range missile strikes
• ability to be serviced with limited personnel and heavy equipment, and to operate from relatively rough and short runway surfaces
• anti-shipping capabilities
• able to generate high sortie rates from both an availability and affordability perspective

Private Site

 

[swerve]

Ideal if it was available. You say "if one ignores politics and availability", but politics don't really matter if there aren't any available to give. The Swedes reckon they need theirs to defend themselves.

 

[Feanor]

Ideal if it was available. You say "if one ignores politics and availability", but politics don't really matter if there aren't any available to give. The Swedes reckon they need theirs to defend themselves.

Presumably he's advocating post-war production of the type for Ukraine. But of course even ignoring politics and availability, one has to consider price. Used F-16s from storage can be very cheap. Newly manufactured Gripens would be very expensive. And considering how many other NATO members operate the former vs the latter, this matters too for interoperability, spare parts, etc.

 

[ADMk2]

Private Site

Note: it is recommended to read the “Lessons of Air War in Ukraine” prior to reading this article.

Ukraine, no matter how well it may be doing against Russia, is losing aircraft. And it will need replacement, be it during the war or afterwards. Currently, Ukraine is still using old Soviet Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters – somewhat updated, but still badly outdated.

Some places still have old Su-27s and MiG-29s available, and that is what is currently being sent. But sending MiG-29s does not help with the issues Ukraine is facing with the Russian technological advantage. It might help if MiG-29s were completely retooled – equipped with modern Western radar, IRST, EW suite, weapons and engines – but at that point, one might just send a completely new aircraft. Numbers of available old Soviet aircraft in NATO countries are also quite limited, and most have been updated with sensitive NATO technology which makes them unsuitable for Ukraine.

One of options for Ukraine to replace aircraft losses is F-16. But neither F-16 nor other USAF aircraft – F-15, F-35 – would make much sense, or be a good solution for Ukraine. Ukraine cannot match Russian Air Force fighter for fighter, no matter the help it is provided, so all the concepts previously described still apply: fighter would have to be good at operating from badly maintained runways and road bases, and have relatively small logistical footprint.

As discussed in the “Lessons of Air War in Ukraine” however, Gripen may well be the best fighter aircraft for Ukraine – at least if one ignores politics and availability, both which would likely mean no deliveries before the end of the war.

This document points out following requirements:

• equipped with a missile capable of offering the greatest possible effective range under low-altitude, subsonic launch conditions
• significant electronic warfare capabilities
• jamming-resistant radar
• capable of operating from dispersed, relatively basic airbases to prevent them being located and rapidly destroyed by Russian long-range missile strikes
• ability to be serviced with limited personnel and heavy equipment, and to operate from relatively rough and short runway surfaces
• anti-shipping capabilities
• able to generate high sortie rates from both an availability and affordability perspective

Private Site

Ah yes, the Gripen. The problem to EVERY solution... Just ask your local SAAB salesman...

So apart from no political will to transfer it and the minor problem of no aircraft available to transfer, what 'other' issues could there be?

The "missile". One assumes the "missile" is Meteor, rather than AMRAAM. As with the base platform itself, where are the stores of this missile that are available to quickly transfer to Ukraine and would doing so, actually be a good idea? Would putting Europe's latest and greatest air to air missile into Russian hands (misfires, captured weapons etc) actually be a good idea?

EW, radar? Hmmm. Not so sure Gripen would be the "best" aircraft from those POV's. Certainly they were not Gripen's strong-points when Switzerland assessed the aircraft. In fact they found it inferior to their existing Classic Hornet aircraft in both of these categories and certainly inferior to both Rafale and Eurofighter in these roles.

Dispersed, basic airbases. Hmmm. Not sure all that many aircraft struggle to 'disperse' but 'operate is an interesting topic. If you assume 'operate' means anything more than 'refuel, rearm and conduct basic external inspections' then this claim requires a little more examination I'd suggest. Where are your mission planning systems held? Your engine test cells? Does the Gripen's F404 / F414 based engines not require this sort of support? It would be magical if that were true. Alas, it is not.

Anti-shipping. A very important capability. Hence why every modern fighter jet has them. Again this begs the question of weapons stores, where are they coming from and which weapon should Ukraine actually get?

Able to generate high sorties. Hmm. Compared to what? Does anyone accuse an F-16 or a Rafale of lacking such capability? I'd be amazed if they did...

One might further want to ask where these would be Gripen pilots are being trained? Sweden I imagine, but there might be some other possibilities... What is the availability of Swedish training systems and can they handle a rapid influx of Ukrainian pilots seeking to type convert and then learn weapons, systems and tactics on this new aircraft?

Certainly US training systems will be capable of type converting Ukrainian pilots onto F-16, but even those regular courses will take roughly 6 months to produce a qualified F-16 pilot. That's a minimum training standard, certainly not a collectively trained and equipped force. Does Swden have this capability?

Those are the questions that need answering...

 

[Pukovnik7]

Ideal if it was available. You say "if one ignores politics and availability", but politics don't really matter if there aren't any available to give. The Swedes reckon they need theirs to defend themselves.

both which would likely mean no deliveries before the end of the war.

Dispersed, basic airbases. Hmmm. Not sure all that many aircraft struggle to 'disperse' but 'operate is an interesting topic. If you assume 'operate' means anything more than 'refuel, rearm and conduct basic external inspections' then this claim requires a little more examination I'd suggest. Where are your mission planning systems held? Your engine test cells? Does the Gripen's F404 / F414 based engines not require this sort of support? It would be magical if that were true. Alas, it is not.

Gripen's engine swap can be done in field conditions. How they maintain the actual engine beyond that I do not know, but yes, doing it in the field would likely require magic.

Still, if you look at what Ukrainians have actually been doing since the start of the war with Su-27 and MiG-29... yeah, pretty much how Gripen is intended to operate in the Swedish Cold War doctrine.

Able to generate high sorties. Hmm. Compared to what? Does anyone accuse an F-16 or a Rafale of lacking such capability? I'd be amazed if they did...

Compared to Ukrainian ancient Su-27 and MiG-29 certainly. And also I assume compared to F-16. Not sure about how Rafale compares.

One might further want to ask where these would be Gripen pilots are being trained? Sweden I imagine, but there might be some other possibilities... What is the availability of Swedish training systems and can they handle a rapid influx of Ukrainian pilots seeking to type convert and then learn weapons, systems and tactics on this new aircraft?

Certainly US training systems will be capable of type converting Ukrainian pilots onto F-16, but even those regular courses will take roughly 6 months to produce a qualified F-16 pilot. That's a minimum training standard, certainly not a collectively trained and equipped force. Does Swden have this capability?

Why only Sweden? It is hardly the only European country to utilize Gripen. And again, nobody mentioned buying Gripen during the war - for now, Su-27 and MiG-29 are the best option, considering Ukraine already operates them.

 

[Terran]

Perfect being the enemy of good enough in this situation.
Right now there seems to be three schools of thought on what Air power could go to Ukraine.
School 0) Nothing Schools out for Summer leave it as it is. This best serves Russian forces.
School 1) The Cold War back fill.
The Polish Mig 29s Romanian Mig 21 and more basically transfers of the Soviet era satellite Airforce of Eastern Europe.
May best this gives Ukraine spar parts and a few more airframes but the Age of the technology come in as a problem. At a glance Russia and Ukraine are using the same families of aircraft but the Russians are more modern with better radar and air to air missiles. If the aim is to give Ukraine weapons to push Russia out then this would not work. It at best maintains the status quo anti of the thin Russian advantage in the air. It leaves a situation similar to the Iran Iraq war. This prolongs the war and I am not sure it’s doing Ukraine any favors. Though on paper some of those aircraft could get retrofit the sources are Russian affiliates.
School 2) Mirage 2000 and other very vintage European and NATO fighters. I have seen Tornadoes pointed to and this basically has the Same issues as School 1 without even being able to share parts.
School 3) Modern fighters. Grippen has a base pushing it clearly but not the production base. The same for the French Rafael. Unless Sweden Hungry (questionable at best), the Czechs or France start culling their own Airforces it’s a no go.
The Most realistic fighter option is the Viper. F16 is the west’s most numerous fighter. It’s large support system and upgrade options as well as the platform flexibility are all major factors in its favor.
The next most realistic is the Typhoon. The Air forces of the UK, Germany and Spain already have plans to retire first tranche Typhoons well those aircraft still have plenty of service life. Unlike later versions these are air to air only. I like to think of the Typhoon as the European F15. Tranche 1 is the A-D versions well Tranche 2 on is the European Strike eagle. The Tranche 1 Eurofighter would obviously be less suited to CAS but as a Air superiority fighter would probably do very well vs the Russian fighters and start opening air for the Ukrainian military to take back control of it’s sky.

Optimally I think a combination of F16s and Typhoons could be a game changer for Ukraine and a nightmare for Russia. A relationship The two would fit as F16 was designed to complement F15. The Tranche 1 Typhoon use AMRAAMs as Do F16 and those are already in Ukraine’s arms packages.

 

[Redlands18]

The big question though, is how long will it take to convert Air and Gound crew from operating Soviet era Migs to modern Western Fighters*. To turn out competent personnel that makes both pilot and aircraft survivable?
*Including older designs like, the F-16 and Mirage 2000 that have been updated with more modern systems.

 

[Pukovnik7]

Optimally I think a combination of F16s and Typhoons could be a game changer for Ukraine and a nightmare for Russia. A relationship The two would fit as F16 was designed to complement F15. The Tranche 1 Typhoon use AMRAAMs as Do F16 and those are already in Ukraine’s arms packages.

Issue with that is, how long would they survive? Does Ukraine have the capability to protect its air bases from potential missile attacks?

 

[OPSSG]

Issue with that is, how long would they survive?

1. Depends on the capability of the Ukrainians and how they are trained. I would suspect, if they do train properly on the aircraft type transferred (eg. F-16s or Typhoons) and have the correct systems in place, a long, long, long time.

2. Below is a video of Exercise Torrent with F-15SGs & F-16s landing & taking off from Lim Chu Kang Road. There are some road stretches in Singapore that are designed as alternate runways — as we expect all our 4 military air bases & 2 commercial airports to be attacked, at a time of conflict.

​

(a) Lim Chu Kang Road measures 2500m in length and 24m in width. The conversion of into a runway takes about 48 hours and involves 110 RSAF personnel. An alternate runway is NOT just another road, as it is engineered to take multiple aircraft landings.​

​

(b) The capability of fighters to operate from roads is not platform centric but tied to systems, including investing in FOD killers, featured at the start of the video and these roads are built to different engineering spec. The FMC Vanguard V7000 FOD Killer is a single-seat vehicle that not only sucks up the debris, but it has a front magnetic hood that picks up metal objects such as nut and bolts.​

(c) An airpower capability resides in the people who operate the aircraft — it is not hardware that provides capability. An aircraft, of whatever type, does not grant a capability unless it is flown by capable and trained individuals, competently maintained, and adequately supported.​

Does Ukraine have the capability to protect its air bases from potential missile attacks?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1625040558920966144

3. Part of the solution is not just more air defence missiles but dispersals, as part of a shell game (that was played during the Cold War era). It is also in the war plans of Sweden, Taiwan and Singapore to name a few, who train for it.

 

[Terran]

This far they seem to have. Farther the Ukrainian government has already announced that they are upgrading a number of airfields for just the possibility.
Because Ukraine is in a war they need solutions in the near term. Viper/Typhoon are available now. Grippen isn’t. The numbers in Europe are maybe 130 between the three users with a couple dozen between the Czech and Hungarian Airforces then the hundred of the Swedes. With Sweden on the Front Lines and Russia making rhetoric against them, they are not in a position to make transfers to Ukraine.
Hungary’s president doesn’t seem like he is likely to offer and it’s questionable on that. Unless they got backfilled with more modern fighters themselves.
the Czechs would probably be happy to if they got a backfill.
So no matter how you do it at some point F16 at the very least get transferred around. Might as well just direct to the front. Again Perfect often being the enemy of good enough. Next there is already work starting on Potential transfers of both Vipers and Typhoons.

Netherlands considering Ukraine’s request for F-16 jets, despite obstacles

The Netherlands has received an official request from Ukraine for the supply of F-16 fighter jets, Dutch publication NOS reported on Feb. 10.

news.yahoo.com

A direct request was made. It seems like the politics is going in the Direction of Vipers for Ukraine.
No immediate sending of jets to Ukraine - Wallace - BBC News here we have reporting and the UK are even training Pilots on NATO aircraft. It’s a little more rocky but given potential availability of older models in the future it seems much more like the political gulf for Ukrainian Typhoons is close to being bridged.
Grippen? I don’t see where they would come from or why they would actually be justified as more advantageous vs more numberous Vipers.

 

[swerve]

...The next most realistic is the Typhoon. The Air forces of the UK, Germany and Spain already have plans to retire first tranche Typhoons well those aircraft still have plenty of service life. Unlike later versions these are air to air only. .

Spain's Typhoons are currently being upgraded to operate until at least 2035. The UK has changed from keeping Tranche 1 in service long-term, to retiring them early (2010), upgrading & operating them until the 2030s (2015), & retiring them by about 2025 (2021, IIRC). Tomorrow, we may be upgrading & keeping them again. Who knows? BAe has told the government there's no technical barrier to upgrading them.

The UK's Typhoon Tranche 1s have been able to use some air to ground PGMs since 2007, though I think they haven't trained to do that recently.

Dead right about plenty of service life, though. Under current plans RAF Tranche 1 Typhoons will be retired with, on average, about 57% of their airframe life left. What a waste, eh?

Oh, & you forgot Austria, which has been toying with the idea of getting rid of its 15 Typhoons (all Tranche 1, I think) for a while.

 

[seaspear]

Or you could deploy tranche 1 Eurofighters for air to air combat cover and some Warthogs for anti tank roles working in tandem with Eurofighter providing protection for warthog

 

[Feanor]

Perfect being the enemy of good enough in this situation.
Right now there seems to be three schools of thought on what Air power could go to Ukraine.
School 0) Nothing Schools out for Summer leave it as it is. This best serves Russian forces.
School 1) The Cold War back fill.
The Polish Mig 29s Romanian Mig 21 and more basically transfers of the Soviet era satellite Airforce of Eastern Europe.
May best this gives Ukraine spar parts and a few more airframes but the Age of the technology come in as a problem. At a glance Russia and Ukraine are using the same families of aircraft but the Russians are more modern with better radar and air to air missiles. If the aim is to give Ukraine weapons to push Russia out then this would not work. It at best maintains the status quo anti of the thin Russian advantage in the air. It leaves a situation similar to the Iran Iraq war. This prolongs the war and I am not sure it’s doing Ukraine any favors. Though on paper some of those aircraft could get retrofit the sources are Russian affiliates.
School 2) Mirage 2000 and other very vintage European and NATO fighters. I have seen Tornadoes pointed to and this basically has the Same issues as School 1 without even being able to share parts.
School 3) Modern fighters. Grippen has a base pushing it clearly but not the production base. The same for the French Rafael. Unless Sweden Hungry (questionable at best), the Czechs or France start culling their own Airforces it’s a no go.
The Most realistic fighter option is the Viper. F16 is the west’s most numerous fighter. It’s large support system and upgrade options as well as the platform flexibility are all major factors in its favor.
The next most realistic is the Typhoon. The Air forces of the UK, Germany and Spain already have plans to retire first tranche Typhoons well those aircraft still have plenty of service life. Unlike later versions these are air to air only. I like to think of the Typhoon as the European F15. Tranche 1 is the A-D versions well Tranche 2 on is the European Strike eagle. The Tranche 1 Eurofighter would obviously be less suited to CAS but as a Air superiority fighter would probably do very well vs the Russian fighters and start opening air for the Ukrainian military to take back control of it’s sky.

Optimally I think a combination of F16s and Typhoons could be a game changer for Ukraine and a nightmare for Russia. A relationship The two would fit as F16 was designed to complement F15. The Tranche 1 Typhoon use AMRAAMs as Do F16 and those are already in Ukraine’s arms packages.

School 0 is only the wrong option if we assume independent variables in military aid to Ukraine. If the question is provide jets or don't provide jets, but this simply a question of increasing total aid then yes. It best serves Russia. But if there are total resource constraints and the question is what best serves Ukraine, some of those resources provided in the form of fighter jets, or more UAVs, or more artillery, etc. then School 0 might have something to say in its favor.

Issue with that is, how long would they survive? Does Ukraine have the capability to protect its air bases from potential missile attacks?

1. Depends on the capability of the Ukrainians and how they are trained. I would suspect, if they do train properly on the aircraft type transferred (eg. F-16s or Typhoons) and have the correct systems in place, a long, long, long time.

2. Below is a video of Exercise Torrent with F-15SGs & F-16s landing & taking off from Lim Chu Kang Road. There are some road stretches in Singapore that are designed as alternate runways — as we expect all our 4 military air bases & 2 commercial airports to be attacked, at a time of conflict.

(a) Lim Chu Kang Road measures 2500m in length and 24m in width. The conversion of into a runway takes about 48 hours and involves 110 RSAF personnel. An alternate runway is NOT just another road, as it is engineered to take multiple aircraft landings.​

​

(b) The capability of fighters to operate from roads is not platform centric but tied to systems, including investing in FOD killers, featured at the start of the video and these roads are built to different engineering spec. The FMC Vanguard V7000 FOD Killer is a single-seat vehicle that not only sucks up the debris, but it has a front magnetic hood that picks up metal objects such as nut and bolts.​

​

(c) An airpower capability resides in the people who operate the aircraft — it is not hardware that provides capability. An aircraft, of whatever type, does not grant a capability unless it is flown by capable and trained individuals, competently maintained, and adequately supported.
​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1625040558920966144

3. Part of the solution is not just more air defence missiles but dispersals, as part of a shell game (that was played during the Cold War era). It is also in the war plans of Sweden, Taiwan and Singapore to name a few, who train for it.

Sorry, but what? Dispersion? Operating from roadways? Ukraine has been flying Su-27s out of Mirgorod for almost a year now. What Russian missile attacks do they have to protect it from? If Russia keeps this up, Typhoons could just be based at any old Ukrainian airbase, a reasonable distance away from the front, and not worry about it. Maybe dedicate a SAM battery to it just in case.

 

[Terran]

Spain's Typhoons are currently being upgraded to operate until at least 2035. The UK has changed from keeping Tranche 1 in service long-term, to retiring them early (2010), upgrading & operating them until the 2030s (2015), & retiring them by about 2025 (2021, IIRC). Tomorrow, we may be upgrading & keeping them again. Who knows? BAe has told the government there's no technical barrier to upgrading them.

The UK's Typhoon Tranche 1s have been able to use some air to ground PGMs since 2007, though I think they haven't trained to do that recently.

Dead right about plenty of service life, though. Under current plans RAF Tranche 1 Typhoons will be retired with, on average, about 57% of their airframe life left. What a waste, eh?

Oh, & you forgot Austria, which has been toying with the idea of getting rid of its 15 Typhoons (all Tranche 1, I think) for a while.

I stand corrected on Spain. Yet you see the point. They are a realistic option. As to upgrade its a question of juice vs the Squeeze? How much would such cost. Would it be cheaper just to buy new ones or make the investment?

Or you could deploy tranche 1 Eurofighters for air to air combat cover and some Warthogs for anti tank roles working in tandem with Eurofighter providing protection for warthog

A10 is probably the greatest COIN aircraft in existence. But this isn’t a COIN op. Without SEAD Russian SHORAD will chew up A10s. F16 can do CAS. It can also if properly outfitted do SEAD. Hence why I think the best option would be a combination of Typhoons and Vipers .

 

[OPSSG]

Dispersion? Operating from roadways? Ukraine has been flying Su-27s out of Mirgorod for almost a year now. What Russian missile attacks do they have to protect it from? If Russia keeps this up, Typhoons could just be based at any old Ukrainian airbase, a reasonable distance away from the front, and not worry about it. Maybe dedicate a SAM battery to it just in case.

Thanks for the reply. It is really surprising that the Russians have left Mirgorod unmolested.

 

[Pukovnik7]

1. Depends on the capability of the Ukrainians and how they are trained. I would suspect, if they do train properly on the aircraft type transferred (eg. F-16s or Typhoons) and have the correct systems in place, a long, long, long time.

That is not the only issue however. One of the things war in Ukraine has confirmed is that air bases are vulnerable to attacks. I covered that issue in few previous posts as well:

Private Site

Private Site

Private Site

2. Below is a video of Exercise Torrent with F-15SGs & F-16s landing & taking off from Lim Chu Kang Road. There are some road stretches in Singapore that are designed as alternate runways — as we expect all our 4 military air bases & 2 commercial airports to be attacked, at a time of conflict.

​

(a) Lim Chu Kang Road measures 2500m in length and 24m in width. The conversion of into a runway takes about 48 hours and involves 110 RSAF personnel. An alternate runway is NOT just another road, as it is engineered to take multiple aircraft landings.​

​

(b) The capability of fighters to operate from roads is not platform centric but tied to systems, including investing in FOD killers, featured at the start of the video and these roads are built to different engineering spec. The FMC Vanguard V7000 FOD Killer is a single-seat vehicle that not only sucks up the debris, but it has a front magnetic hood that picks up metal objects such as nut and bolts.​

(c) An airpower capability resides in the people who operate the aircraft — it is not hardware that provides capability. An aircraft, of whatever type, does not grant a capability unless it is flown by capable and trained individuals, competently maintained, and adequately supported.​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1625040558920966144

3. Part of the solution is not just more air defence missiles but dispersals, as part of a shell game (that was played during the Cold War era). It is also in the war plans of Sweden, Taiwan and Singapore to name a few, who train for it.

That is actually my point. Yes, technically you can use dispersed bases with any fighter aircraft in existence, but doing so will involve sacrifices in effectiveness. And aircraft designed for such operations (Gripen, basically all Soviet-design aircraft) will suffer far less from it than aircraft that are not designed to do so.

Sorry, but what? Dispersion? Operating from roadways? Ukraine has been flying Su-27s out of Mirgorod for almost a year now. What Russian missile attacks do they have to protect it from? If Russia keeps this up, Typhoons could just be based at any old Ukrainian airbase, a reasonable distance away from the front, and not worry about it. Maybe dedicate a SAM battery to it just in case.

Have they?

“Of course, we use that during our training: low-altitude flights, using alternative airfields, etc.” Above all, the training since 2014 has emphasized flexible tactics and keeping aircraft on the move, reducing the chance of the enemy catching them on the ground as part of their air interdiction efforts.

While hopping frequently from one airfield to another is now a regular part of air force operations, Juice said that, so far, these distributed operations have been limited to runways and airstrips rather than highways. Although the air force has practiced operations from roads in the past, there are currently sufficient alternative airbases to remove this particular requirement.

Drive: Ukrainian MiG-29 Pilot’s Front-Line Account Of The Air War Against Russia

If we go by opening hours of the invasion, Ukraine will have had no aircraft left had they kept operating them from normal air bases:

New Footage Shows One Fifth of Ukraine’s MiG-29 Fleet Destroyed in One Russian Missile Strike

Within 48 hours of the initiation of a Russian military campaign in neighbouring Ukraine, footage emerged of a Ukrainian airfield showing six MiG-29 fighters seriously

militarywatchmagazine.com

And Russians have in fact hit Myrhorod back in April, destroying two aircraft (MiG-29 fighter jet and a Mi-8 helicopter) and an ammunition depot:

Russia strikes Ukrainian airbase, destroying aircraft and an ammunition depot, say reports

Ukrainian authorities announced that the air base depot had been demolished on Telegram, saying two people were injured.

www.businessinsider.com

Russian forces destroy ammunition depot at Ukrainian air base, Interfax reports

Russian forces have destroyed an ammunition depot at the Myrhorod Air Base in central-eastern Ukraine, Interfax news agency reported on Saturday, quoting Russia's Defence Ministry.

www.reuters.com

Of course, this is Russia we are talking about, so what you are saying may indeed be possible... nevertheless, it would serve to invite unnecessary losses.

 

[Feanor]

That is not the only issue however. One of the things war in Ukraine has confirmed is that air bases are vulnerable to attacks. I covered that issue in few previous posts as well:

Private Site

Private Site

Private Site

That is actually my point. Yes, technically you can use dispersed bases with any fighter aircraft in existence, but doing so will involve sacrifices in effectiveness. And aircraft designed for such operations (Gripen, basically all Soviet-design aircraft) will suffer far less from it than aircraft that are not designed to do so.



Have they?


If we go by opening hours of the invasion, Ukraine will have had no aircraft left had they kept operating them from normal air bases:

New Footage Shows One Fifth of Ukraine’s MiG-29 Fleet Destroyed in One Russian Missile Strike

Within 48 hours of the initiation of a Russian military campaign in neighbouring Ukraine, footage emerged of a Ukrainian airfield showing six MiG-29 fighters seriously

militarywatchmagazine.com

And Russians have in fact hit Myrhorod back in April, destroying two aircraft (MiG-29 fighter jet and a Mi-8 helicopter) and an ammunition depot:

Russia strikes Ukrainian airbase, destroying aircraft and an ammunition depot, say reports

Ukrainian authorities announced that the air base depot had been demolished on Telegram, saying two people were injured.

www.businessinsider.com

Russian forces destroy ammunition depot at Ukrainian air base, Interfax reports

Russian forces have destroyed an ammunition depot at the Myrhorod Air Base in central-eastern Ukraine, Interfax news agency reported on Saturday, quoting Russia's Defence Ministry.

www.reuters.com

Of course, this is Russia we are talking about, so what you are saying may indeed be possible... nevertheless, it would serve to invite unnecessary losses.

Russia did attempt a strike against Ukrainian jets at the opening and I'm aware of a lonely strike against Mirgorod since, but it's the exception that proves the rule. Russia has been shockingly incapable of taking out Ukrainian jets on the ground. If this history is any indication, protecting western jets against Russian strikes should be fairly easy.

Thanks for the reply. It is really surprising that the Russians have left Mirgorod unmolested.

Yeah, I really don't know what to say. When they had problems at Zmeiniy they did manage to hit the Bayraktar basing location near Odessa. On the flip side Ukraine has operated jets near the Russian border, and near Artemovsk/Bakhmut with impunity. Mirgorod is a particularly stark example, but there must be others.

 

[ADMk2]

Gripen's engine swap can be done in field conditions. How they maintain the actual engine beyond that I do not know, but yes, doing it in the field would likely require magic.

What field conditions? In mud? In a jungle? In a sandstorm in a desert environment?

Still, if you look at what Ukrainians have actually been doing since the start of the war with Su-27 and MiG-29... yeah, pretty much how Gripen is intended to operate in the Swedish Cold War doctrine.[/quote]

So exactly how the Singaporeans operate their F-16’s? Dispersed and from highway / local road converted runways?

Compared to Ukrainian ancient Su-27 and MiG-29 certainly. And also I assume compared to F-16. Not sure about how Rafale compares.

What is this ‘sortie’ rate you even speak of and what do you consider “high”? 1 per aircraft per day? 10 per aircraft per day?

Is it better do 10 short sorties per day or 5 long sorties per day? What is the Ukrainian operational requirement for ‘sorties’? As many as pilot fatigue will allow? If so, what has the aircraft to do with that?

What specific feature of the Gripen actually affords this ‘high sortie rate’? Can you load fuel or stores onto this aircraft faster than other aircraft perhaps?

Why only Sweden? It is hardly the only European country to utilize Gripen. And again, nobody mentioned buying Gripen during the war - for now, Su-27 and MiG-29 are the best option, considering Ukraine already operates them.

Because every other Gripen user besides Sweden runs minuscule aircraft fleets and ALL of them, utilise reach back to the OEM and owning airforce for training and logistical support. Even Brazil does and last I heard they had 1 single Gripen E delivered. None of these airforces can provide the training capacity that Sweden does, let alone the United States.

It’s a great little jet, but let’s not get carried away with it. There are more than enough that do that already…

 

[ADMk2]

The big question though, is how long will it take to convert Air and Gound crew from operating Soviet era Migs to modern Western Fighters*. To turn out competent personnel that makes both pilot and aircraft survivable?
*Including older designs like, the F-16 and Mirage 2000 that have been updated with more modern systems.

In the F-16’s case, using all the vast available resources of the USAF and designing a ‘crash’ course for already qualified fighter pilots? Running them ragged and barely giving them time off during that training?

Around 6 months…

It’s not the base platform, that can be done in an estimated 40 days or less. It’s all the systems. A prospective F-16, Gripen or Eurofighter pilot needs to learn how to ‘fight’ the aircraft, not just fly it.

New radar, sensors, comms, nav, ew, counter-measures, weapons, TTP’s. The list goes on and on. The base platform is irrelevant. Learning any 4th Gen western fighter and all their systems from scratch is neither quick nor easy.

 

[ADMk2]

That is not the only issue however. One of the things war in Ukraine has confirmed is that air bases are vulnerable to attacks. I covered that issue in few previous posts as well:

Private Site

Private Site

Private Site

That is actually my point. Yes, technically you can use dispersed bases with any fighter aircraft in existence, but doing so will involve sacrifices in effectiveness. And aircraft designed for such operations (Gripen, basically all Soviet-design aircraft) will suffer far less from it than aircraft that are not designed to do so.

How? What special feature does the Gripen have that affords this and why do jets like the F-16 etc not? Every design decision is a compromise, if Gripen does have some special sauce that affords this, what capability did they give up to add it?

(Besides of course range, payload, radar dish size and so on…)