Gripen - Red Flag
- Thread starter chrishorne
- Start date
- Status
Now we are off-topic:
Scania was lost in the 1660'ies and countless wars has tried to regain this part of the country. The Swedes has time and again perpetrated unspeakable atrocities on the local population (downright etnic cleansing)- as late as the Napoleonic wars conscripts were executed for refusing to fight other Danes.
The Swedish motive for holding on to Scania was that it is the only place there is decent agricultural land.
The Student movement in 1860 originated at the university of Lund, because the scanians this way tried to reconnect to Denmark. This connection broke in the second Slesvig war - but quite a few served in the Danish army as officers - where they were sorely needed.
In the late 19th century there was a massive emigration to - especially Copenhagen - of scanians (NOT well published): You can trace them in their surname where seemingly swedish spellings survives: Jönsson for Jensen.
There is a supressed non-violent movement in Scania today for greater independence of Stockholm. At the last election a protest movement - that has been slandered as xenofobic by the establishment - has really started to gain importance on local and national level.
You might call me crazy, but I believe it is a matter of time before some solution is found with greater independence of Scania. I don't think an independent Scanian nation has a future:
a. It is too small.
b. The massive attraction of Copenhagen is to close.
c. Sweden has swept serious issues under the carpet for so long, that when they appear on the surface they will not be able to be solved within the framework of Sweden as a nation.
d. Sweden survived the cold war by playing the USA against Russian and vice versa. This is not quite possible any more and has left a resentment in the USA against Sweden - that they have appointed Carl Bildt as foreign secretary is one stupid move: He is detested in the USA and the americans have time and again blocked his applications for important international positions. Furthermore: Sweden has been build on cheap electrical power from hydroelectric plants - now there are no more resources there for growth.
Sweden has a low productivity workforce (just take the number of sickdays) with so many social (costly benefits) that are counted as rights. When Germany get their workforce whipped into shape - and that will happen eventually - they will outcompete a Sweden that sells the same products as the German industry.
The main problem will be how to avoid violence.
If You shake Your head at my rantings, I hope You are satisfied with Your presold tickets for the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the German Democratic Republic.
Scania was lost in the 1660'ies and countless wars has tried to regain this part of the country. The Swedes has time and again perpetrated unspeakable atrocities on the local population (downright etnic cleansing)- as late as the Napoleonic wars conscripts were executed for refusing to fight other Danes.
The Swedish motive for holding on to Scania was that it is the only place there is decent agricultural land.
The Student movement in 1860 originated at the university of Lund, because the scanians this way tried to reconnect to Denmark. This connection broke in the second Slesvig war - but quite a few served in the Danish army as officers - where they were sorely needed.
In the late 19th century there was a massive emigration to - especially Copenhagen - of scanians (NOT well published): You can trace them in their surname where seemingly swedish spellings survives: Jönsson for Jensen.
There is a supressed non-violent movement in Scania today for greater independence of Stockholm. At the last election a protest movement - that has been slandered as xenofobic by the establishment - has really started to gain importance on local and national level.
You might call me crazy, but I believe it is a matter of time before some solution is found with greater independence of Scania. I don't think an independent Scanian nation has a future:
a. It is too small.
b. The massive attraction of Copenhagen is to close.
c. Sweden has swept serious issues under the carpet for so long, that when they appear on the surface they will not be able to be solved within the framework of Sweden as a nation.
d. Sweden survived the cold war by playing the USA against Russian and vice versa. This is not quite possible any more and has left a resentment in the USA against Sweden - that they have appointed Carl Bildt as foreign secretary is one stupid move: He is detested in the USA and the americans have time and again blocked his applications for important international positions. Furthermore: Sweden has been build on cheap electrical power from hydroelectric plants - now there are no more resources there for growth.
Sweden has a low productivity workforce (just take the number of sickdays) with so many social (costly benefits) that are counted as rights. When Germany get their workforce whipped into shape - and that will happen eventually - they will outcompete a Sweden that sells the same products as the German industry.
The main problem will be how to avoid violence.
If You shake Your head at my rantings, I hope You are satisfied with Your presold tickets for the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the German Democratic Republic.
Waylander (Slesvig-Holsten)
That is where You are wrong.
1. Slesvig-Holsten were personal dukedoms of the Danish king, not an integrated part of Denmark as Skåne is. The old archdiocese of Denmark was located at Lund. (note for the heraldically interested: The flag of Scania - yellow cross on red cloth - is actually older than any national flags, Dannebrog included. It is the personal flag of the archbishop of Lund).
2. There was never a question of national affiliation of Scania - in as much as nationality did not have the same meaning in those days; but the debate in Slesvig-Holsten was long and heated - and even occationally civilised.
3. There was a referendum in 1920 where a reasonably equitable solution was found. It was so reasonable that even Hitler did not contest it - and he contested just about everything. The occupation of Denmark was due to our misforune of lying on the path to Norway.
4. After WW2 we could have had Slesvig-Holsten at the drop of a hat (and the cost of Bornholm to the Russians). There was a massive pressure for a new referendum, which given the mood of the period, would have been won hands down. The Liberal party in parliament split as a result of refusing to move the boarder.
Whatever the rest of the world may accuse Danes and Germans of: We have managed to solved a very hotly contested issue - despite massive international intervention - and healed a stinking puss-infected wound.
If we can be proud of nothing else - we can be proud of that.
During the cold war we managed to cooperate in the only multinational corps - and I acknowledge that West-Germany footed more than their share of the bill.
That is where You are wrong.
1. Slesvig-Holsten were personal dukedoms of the Danish king, not an integrated part of Denmark as Skåne is. The old archdiocese of Denmark was located at Lund. (note for the heraldically interested: The flag of Scania - yellow cross on red cloth - is actually older than any national flags, Dannebrog included. It is the personal flag of the archbishop of Lund).
2. There was never a question of national affiliation of Scania - in as much as nationality did not have the same meaning in those days; but the debate in Slesvig-Holsten was long and heated - and even occationally civilised.
3. There was a referendum in 1920 where a reasonably equitable solution was found. It was so reasonable that even Hitler did not contest it - and he contested just about everything. The occupation of Denmark was due to our misforune of lying on the path to Norway.
4. After WW2 we could have had Slesvig-Holsten at the drop of a hat (and the cost of Bornholm to the Russians). There was a massive pressure for a new referendum, which given the mood of the period, would have been won hands down. The Liberal party in parliament split as a result of refusing to move the boarder.
Whatever the rest of the world may accuse Danes and Germans of: We have managed to solved a very hotly contested issue - despite massive international intervention - and healed a stinking puss-infected wound.
If we can be proud of nothing else - we can be proud of that.
During the cold war we managed to cooperate in the only multinational corps - and I acknowledge that West-Germany footed more than their share of the bill.
Waylander:
I find the perspectives even more interesting:
Who would - say 20 years ago - have predicted that the Germans and the Poles could plan to fight side by side in the same corps?? Yet it is a reality in the Baltic Corps - with the Danes as a junior partner (contribution wise) and glue.
Indeed the organisation of the German army today is very much modelled on the old cooperation between Denmark and Germany during the cold war - and it is giving Germany its just influence at the cost of independence. Interestingly enough: Independence is NOT a prerequisite for influence! On the contrary.
I hope Merkel is wise enough to listen to the rocket the Fogh is giving her at the Nato summit! It is nonsense to keep German troops out of harms way in northern Afghanistan, when we and the british are pressed in the south.
Denmark has earned the right to talk out of turn! We say what the others think - and we have proven we have no desire to harm Germany.
Denmark has the role of the impertinent telling bad news in Nato - and elsewhere (as the chinese found out) - that is why our continued silence on the Iraq is significant.
I find the perspectives even more interesting:
Who would - say 20 years ago - have predicted that the Germans and the Poles could plan to fight side by side in the same corps?? Yet it is a reality in the Baltic Corps - with the Danes as a junior partner (contribution wise) and glue.
Indeed the organisation of the German army today is very much modelled on the old cooperation between Denmark and Germany during the cold war - and it is giving Germany its just influence at the cost of independence. Interestingly enough: Independence is NOT a prerequisite for influence! On the contrary.
I hope Merkel is wise enough to listen to the rocket the Fogh is giving her at the Nato summit! It is nonsense to keep German troops out of harms way in northern Afghanistan, when we and the british are pressed in the south.
Denmark has earned the right to talk out of turn! We say what the others think - and we have proven we have no desire to harm Germany.
Denmark has the role of the impertinent telling bad news in Nato - and elsewhere (as the chinese found out) - that is why our continued silence on the Iraq is significant.
Sorry for high-jacking this thread; but there more important issues cropped up than the quality of rubber-bands for the newest outdated product from an obscure nations "aviation" industry.
A discussion among grown-ups is unpredictable; but rarely irrelevant.
(Yes, I know, I'm perfidious - and I nearly excuse)
A discussion among grown-ups is unpredictable; but rarely irrelevant.
(Yes, I know, I'm perfidious - and I nearly excuse)
robertwest
New Member
Information about the Gripens performance in Red Flag is scarse. Although some information can be found in "Insats & Försvar" an information news magazine on the Swedish armed forces.
The exercise was a success. The Tango Red Gripens flew for the blue side, and usually four Gripen fighters were flown in each mission, there were a total of 19 missions.
The Red team generally consisted of eight F-15 and F16 fighters, which usually were "reinstated" after they were killed in order to make the exercise more challenging.
The reds also had extensive anti-aircraft units at their disposal, which in different ways simulated a realistic threat towards the blues.
Contingent commander Ken Lindberg -There are many who are curious to know how the Gripen performed during the exercise. I don't want to present any numbers, but we did very well!
The reason for this is that it is impossible to come to the right conclusions without looking at the specific details for each mission.
-The most important thing is that we more than than enough solved the tasks we were given for each mission, which was made in cooperation with the forces of other participating nations.
The Gripens flew a total 346 hours over 225 flights. Of 103 planned flights, 98 were actually flown. Four flights were cancelled due to bad weather which grounded the entire 35th Air Expeditionary Wing. And another flight were cancelled because of a faulty Litening pod.
A spare aircraft had to be used on only four occasions.
The total avaliability of the Gripens during the exercise was 99%.
I have personally spoken to some of the people of F17 staff, and the general consensus is that(exact translation) the Gripens kicked a**.
One thing that really stood out was the difficulty in detecting the Gripens on radar which proved to be close to impossible. The radar controllers were very impressed with the Gripens inbuilt jamming systems, it made them pretty much invulnerable. There were losses on the blue side in every mission, but AFAIK none of them were Tango Red's Gripens.
The exercise was a success. The Tango Red Gripens flew for the blue side, and usually four Gripen fighters were flown in each mission, there were a total of 19 missions.
The Red team generally consisted of eight F-15 and F16 fighters, which usually were "reinstated" after they were killed in order to make the exercise more challenging.
The reds also had extensive anti-aircraft units at their disposal, which in different ways simulated a realistic threat towards the blues.
Contingent commander Ken Lindberg -There are many who are curious to know how the Gripen performed during the exercise. I don't want to present any numbers, but we did very well!
The reason for this is that it is impossible to come to the right conclusions without looking at the specific details for each mission.
-The most important thing is that we more than than enough solved the tasks we were given for each mission, which was made in cooperation with the forces of other participating nations.
The Gripens flew a total 346 hours over 225 flights. Of 103 planned flights, 98 were actually flown. Four flights were cancelled due to bad weather which grounded the entire 35th Air Expeditionary Wing. And another flight were cancelled because of a faulty Litening pod.
A spare aircraft had to be used on only four occasions.
The total avaliability of the Gripens during the exercise was 99%.
I have personally spoken to some of the people of F17 staff, and the general consensus is that(exact translation) the Gripens kicked a**.
One thing that really stood out was the difficulty in detecting the Gripens on radar which proved to be close to impossible. The radar controllers were very impressed with the Gripens inbuilt jamming systems, it made them pretty much invulnerable. There were losses on the blue side in every mission, but AFAIK none of them were Tango Red's Gripens.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
A few more "dribs and drabs" of the gripen's work at Red Flag:
Sweden earlier this year deployed seven Gripens to the USA to participate in the inaugural Red Flag Alaska event alongside aircraft from the Canadian, Japanese and US air forces, logging 340 flight hours during 200 missions. Armed with Raytheon GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bombs - 16 of which were dropped - and AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, the aircraft performed air interdiction and close air support missions during the exercise, which was also supported by Swedish air force Lockheed C-130H transports. "We always knew where the air defence was, could avoid them and still do our work, even in very dynamic situations," says detachment commander Col Ken Lindberg. The deployment was seen as a precursor to possible future deployed operations with the Gripen to be used in support of the Nordic Battle Group, NATO Response Force or EU peacekeeping commitments from late this decade.
Courtesy: www.flightglobal.com
Sweden earlier this year deployed seven Gripens to the USA to participate in the inaugural Red Flag Alaska event alongside aircraft from the Canadian, Japanese and US air forces, logging 340 flight hours during 200 missions. Armed with Raytheon GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bombs - 16 of which were dropped - and AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, the aircraft performed air interdiction and close air support missions during the exercise, which was also supported by Swedish air force Lockheed C-130H transports. "We always knew where the air defence was, could avoid them and still do our work, even in very dynamic situations," says detachment commander Col Ken Lindberg. The deployment was seen as a precursor to possible future deployed operations with the Gripen to be used in support of the Nordic Battle Group, NATO Response Force or EU peacekeeping commitments from late this decade.
Courtesy: www.flightglobal.com
I personally am not a fighter pilot or in the millitary aircraft industry but one of my best friends is. He is a CF -18 or if your a Canadian the CF- 118 and is currently stationed with 4 wing/ 409 squadron at Cold Lake Alberta. He was at this Red Flag in Alaska so I asked him to comment on the Grippen. His comments was that it preform better in some aspects and missions than the 18 did but in others it did not. In ACM missions it preformed very well, but its lack of staying power was a draw back ( what ever staying power means, I did not ask and would not have gotten an answer to anyways 
) He said over all most of the pilots there where impressed or at lest had changed some of there oppion's about the aircraft and since there the ones that would know what there talking about, I would say that statement says the most. His most important comment was that its the pilot that make the aircraft not the other way around and the swedish pilots where of a very high standard as he put it ( more fighter pilot speak LOL ). So over all he said it held it owns in most missions and he would take it to war if he had too.
Cheers
) He said over all most of the pilots there where impressed or at lest had changed some of there oppion's about the aircraft and since there the ones that would know what there talking about, I would say that statement says the most. His most important comment was that its the pilot that make the aircraft not the other way around and the swedish pilots where of a very high standard as he put it ( more fighter pilot speak LOL ). So over all he said it held it owns in most missions and he would take it to war if he had too. Cheers
Red Flag was a largely pre-planned excercise, as usual. And when did somebody hear an airforce say 'Yeah, our planes suck'? Of course everything was just GREAT, and of course there is ALWAYS room for improvement, and we will WORK very hard to ... blahblahblah.
Somebody said JAS-39 was not designed for offensive strike. That is not correct. Sweden is not Finland. The idea in a Soviet attack scenario was to attack them as soon as possible, meaning still on Finnish ground, and especially in the anti-ship mission out in the Baltic. That requires some range. I'm pretty sure JA-37 was a better striker than the JAS-39.
JAS-39 is in some respect a modern day MiG-21. That was/is also great in WVR a/a combat, but only till the first maneuver, than its poor t/w ratio leaves it hanging in the sky. No way a strike configured JAS-39 could maneuver for a/a self preservation. Plus in a strike configuration the range is *very* limited, Mr. Plummer is absolutely right. That is/was a European disease, always building fighters in line with the Spitfire and Me109. Only good for defense, no offensive range with a useful warload.
And if I remember correctly the Swedish air force mission during the cold war was counter air and anti-ship, not so much air-to-ground. Actually, the danger of a Soviet invasion over land was pretty low.
Somebody said JAS-39 was not designed for offensive strike. That is not correct. Sweden is not Finland. The idea in a Soviet attack scenario was to attack them as soon as possible, meaning still on Finnish ground, and especially in the anti-ship mission out in the Baltic. That requires some range. I'm pretty sure JA-37 was a better striker than the JAS-39.
JAS-39 is in some respect a modern day MiG-21. That was/is also great in WVR a/a combat, but only till the first maneuver, than its poor t/w ratio leaves it hanging in the sky. No way a strike configured JAS-39 could maneuver for a/a self preservation. Plus in a strike configuration the range is *very* limited, Mr. Plummer is absolutely right. That is/was a European disease, always building fighters in line with the Spitfire and Me109. Only good for defense, no offensive range with a useful warload.
And if I remember correctly the Swedish air force mission during the cold war was counter air and anti-ship, not so much air-to-ground. Actually, the danger of a Soviet invasion over land was pretty low.
When aircraft 39 was developed during the cold war they didn't expect it to end in the early 90s.
But still, isn't the t/w ratio impressive? So efficient compared to other figthers.
Good post destiller!
It is with such exercises as annual business reports: The bottomline is the least interesting figure, it is far more informative to find out how the result is reached. But in these exercises the assumptions are classified.
The other point well made is the short range of traditional european fighters - and the long range of their light bombers.
I would have said: It tries on a F-104 airframe to the job of a Tornado ADV.
Finally I agree with You that the prospect of invading Sweden was rather remote, as Sweden at best would have been a soak on resources. the occupation of Sweden would have entailed little advantage for the Soviet Union. Add this to the fact that Sweden is very hard to invade over land and from the sea.
It is with such exercises as annual business reports: The bottomline is the least interesting figure, it is far more informative to find out how the result is reached. But in these exercises the assumptions are classified.
The other point well made is the short range of traditional european fighters - and the long range of their light bombers.
I would have said: It tries on a F-104 airframe to the job of a Tornado ADV.
Finally I agree with You that the prospect of invading Sweden was rather remote, as Sweden at best would have been a soak on resources. the occupation of Sweden would have entailed little advantage for the Soviet Union. Add this to the fact that Sweden is very hard to invade over land and from the sea.
robertwest
New Member
Actually, there's a much greater chance to hear only the negative results from a Swedish Armed Forces report than the other way around. Sweden has a history of shutting up whenever we do something good.
Ken Linberg said -I don't want to present any numbers, but we did very well! That's as far as Swede's go. I'm surprised he actually dared to say that! Who does he think he is!!?? And that is how Swedes work. It's the way it is, unfortunatelly.
True... If a tourist would remark on the beuty of for instance Stockholm during the summer any Swede immediately replies, "Yes it's lovely now, but you should try living here during the wintertime".
Anyway, I have to agree with Robertwest and Oryx posts above re Gripen performance at Red Flag, both the SwAF and the industry(Saab) are very pleased with the performance at Red Flag. Naturally there are a few lessons learned and room for improvement in some areas but the overall result was a great success.
I think you are a bit confused about this. The idea behind the gripen is not to be a superior strikeaircraft or a superior airsuperiority aircraft but rather an anti airsuperiority aircraft with powerful antiship weaponry as an option. In short, something the US dont want in the hands of one of their potential foes since it would make invading that foe alot more expensive. It is almost as if the Gripen was designed specifically as an anti-us aircraft (of course, it was an anti ussr aircraft but many nations find themselves in a similar relationship with the US today)
Looking back on the two Iraqcampaings for example your first order of business was to establish absolute air-superiority. The thought behind the gripen is to disperse your airforce in the countryside, supplying them with a truck and 5-10 groundcrew, hopping between potential ad-hoc bases such as highways, dried up lakes or what have you (no driedup lakes in sweden but you get the drift) making tracking them down as hard as the hunting mobile scudramps in the first gulf war. Thus, when your superior invader has established airsuperiority he will still need strong escorts for all his airstrikes thus making each airstrike more expensive thus reducing the number of airstrikes he can perform. And, if opportunity arises, perform airstrikes against shipping yourself.
So, obviously the Gripen will not contribute much to nato since nato is filled with heavier and or more specialised fighters and interception and anti shipping tend not to be such a big issue. Instead, view involving the gripen in nato exercises as a chance to study a potentially extremely annoying mosquito. Dont get me wrong, I cant see us swedes supplying the Jas to the more unsavoury regimes in the world and im in favour of most US foreign policy, or at the least alot more fond of the US than your foes. But better safe than sorry, yes?
"KPI: It sucks to be you, but it's not just that we are better."
Naaaaa...Bitter behaps?
AESA will be added BY THE TIME...without too much strain and pain.
I also got the impression that alot of other things are under way.
There is bold talk about JSF - but it will take a while before any dilivery outside US I guess
I'm Agree about: Thrust, Range and payload are limited
Mod Edit:
Kurt Plummer has been banned for nearly 2 years IIRC. It's pointless replying to him now.
Regards
AD
Naaaaa...Bitter behaps?
AESA will be added BY THE TIME...without too much strain and pain.
I also got the impression that alot of other things are under way.
There is bold talk about JSF - but it will take a while before any dilivery outside US I guess
I'm Agree about: Thrust, Range and payload are limited
Mod Edit:
Kurt Plummer has been banned for nearly 2 years IIRC. It's pointless replying to him now.
Regards
AD
Last edited by a moderator:
Well regardless of the many negative opinions expressed here on this thread with regard to Gripen, the aircraft is here to stay.
With the Swedish government deciding to invest close to one billion US in the upgrade of their Gripen fleet(standardising on the C\D model; 100 of them) and also developing an improved version of the aircraft with new engine etc. , the future of the aircraft seems secure. (This has been discussed in another thread)
And to all the critics out there.. Gripen, at this point has a better export record than Rafale. The fact is, money talks and many middle to lower income countries find Gripen with its relatively low cost and excellent capabilities very attractive.
I contend that Gripen is perfect for a country such as South Africa that probably will not find itself in high end warfighting any time soon. Something that will prove very interesting indeed will be what weapons will be integrated on the SAAF Gripens, this has partly been decided but a lot of decisions remain up in the air.
The SAAF plans to integrate the A-Darter indigeneous short range dogfight missile sometime after 2009(an interim missile will be thus be needed).
A new BVR missile has not been decided on. My money would be on Meteor, since there is no South African developed successor to the South African\Israeli V-4\Derby currently used on South African fighter jets, that I know of.
It would also be interesting to see SAAF thinking on what it will use with the Gripen - Litening combination in the ground attack role.
I know this is off topic for a thread about Red flag\Gripen, but hey, practically this entire thread seems to be off topic.
With the Swedish government deciding to invest close to one billion US in the upgrade of their Gripen fleet(standardising on the C\D model; 100 of them) and also developing an improved version of the aircraft with new engine etc. , the future of the aircraft seems secure. (This has been discussed in another thread)
And to all the critics out there.. Gripen, at this point has a better export record than Rafale. The fact is, money talks and many middle to lower income countries find Gripen with its relatively low cost and excellent capabilities very attractive.
I contend that Gripen is perfect for a country such as South Africa that probably will not find itself in high end warfighting any time soon. Something that will prove very interesting indeed will be what weapons will be integrated on the SAAF Gripens, this has partly been decided but a lot of decisions remain up in the air.
The SAAF plans to integrate the A-Darter indigeneous short range dogfight missile sometime after 2009(an interim missile will be thus be needed).
A new BVR missile has not been decided on. My money would be on Meteor, since there is no South African developed successor to the South African\Israeli V-4\Derby currently used on South African fighter jets, that I know of.
It would also be interesting to see SAAF thinking on what it will use with the Gripen - Litening combination in the ground attack role.
I know this is off topic for a thread about Red flag\Gripen, but hey, practically this entire thread seems to be off topic.
- Status