http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1321013&postcount=1

its best summered up in signatorys thread..
it says in swedish:

this is the gripen A, new measures have been made with C/D and lastly NG.

That’s the FOI paper I am referring to.

I read the paper by Google Translator, and all it said is “Radarmalarea 0,1 m2” was an assumed value for modeling and simulation.

There is no mention at all that a real Gripen flying with realistic weapons and fuel load was actually measured to have that RCS value.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1321013&postcount=1

Thats FOI papers, science institution for warfare, thats reliable

Isn’t the number “Radarmalarea 0,1m2” just an assumption taken for the purpose of modeling and simulation?

Is it actually tested result by flying a Gripen with useful load against real airborne and ground radars?

I’d appreciate if someone could fully translate attached pages into English.

What are the chances of S. Korea, Japan, and SAAB to join on that proposal ?

Very low.

Japan has its own stealth fighter technology demonstrator program called ATD-X Shinshin. 8.5 billion yen is allocated to it in FY2009 (10.4 billion yen was requested though).

Sunho

For the past 40 years, the USN’s primary weapon against hostile surface combatants is the SSN. Aircraft could find surface combatants and relay coordinates to the SSNs and the SSNs would take care of the problem. Surface combatants were too dangerous to approach (SAMs) unless you were willing to escalate to toss delivery of nukes.

For small surface crafts without SAM protection, Rockeye cluster munitions delivered by A-4/6/7 or F-4 would take care of the problem, or Walleye if available.

A Wild Weasel Phantom inadvertantly shredded the topside and CIC of the USS Worden, a Leahy-class Terrier missile cruiser, by two AGM-45 Shrike anti-radiation missiles off Vietnam in April 1972. It took about ten days to repair damage at Subic Bay.

I believe the 1970’s surface combatants with SAMs could be adequately dealt with by SEAD aircraft.

Sunho

Below is Ed Rasimus’s post about land-based USAF Phantoms’ anti-ship tactics in the 1970’s.

Dunno where you were in the early ’60s, but Walleye didn’t come into the inventory into quite late in the ’60s and even then wasn’t used in any great numbers. Attempts in SEA were minimal and the results from first generation LGBs were offering much better results.

Bullpup B was deployed in large numbers but the small warhead made it a poor choice for ships (along with the highly vulnerable delivery profile). The AGM-12C version had a bigger warhead, but still demanded a long, straight, post-release flight by the delivery aircraft to successfully guide the weapon. Still minimal size for a warship.

I was doing TASMO tactical development during the mid ’70s with the F-4 out of Torrejon Spain. (TASMO=Tactical Air Support of Maritime Operations, i.e. attack by land-based air of naval vessels–a NATO term). We would have liked third-generation LGB, but only the F-111Fs out of England had that, so we primarily planned with the available bombs which were the Mk-8x series of GP low drags.

Concept was strictly roll-back with packages on average of 12 aircraft, usually with chaff support, doing low altitude ingress to pop-ups on the first combatant encountered. Pk ranged in the neighborhood of .8 for these with a seaworthiness kill (stop the vessel manuvering potential).

Sunho