And do not forget that a Gripen loaded with stand off missiles can do this job just as well.
And at a mutch lower cost.

Allso more importantly the, older Viggen has fixed canards. Its use was intendet to prevent the high landing speed/distance associated with a delta wing design.

The Gripen, of course is an instable design, fly by wire, mowing canards, reduces landing speed and improve agility.

All in all a more modern and advanced design.

The Nansen ships are a exelent example why Stortinget needs to make up its own mind about the fighter deal. The Navy started out by telling it needed 6 frigates, Stortinget reduced the number to 5. And now the Navy tells us that they can only keep 3 of them operational 😡

Today the discussion is if we really need 48 fighters, if we can buy 18 or 24 more capable a/c.

At the same time the oil industry are developing new fields in Lofoten, and the Barentz Sea.

Protecting these assets from terrorist attacks are vital, not only for Norway, but for the world economy.

Protecting the widening footprint of high value oil platforms, by dwindling numbers of a/c, is not a recipe for succsess.

Therefore 48 Gripen, that are cheaper to operate will be better than any number of stealth “hangarqueens”

Fact is: the Gripen will do everything Norway wants it to do.

The f16e/f is a capable a/c, but it is to expensive for what you get. It is not a player in Norway’s plan for new fighters either.

Furthermore the F35, is designed for attacking into well defended enemy airspace, Norway’s current foreign policy has no such ambition.

USA, however has these ambitions, and designed the F35 to fulfill them.

So even if the F35 proves to be everything its designers hoped for, it is still a a/c that is made for different requirements than those Norway desire.

In designing a plane to fit into Sweeden’s netcentic air defences, Saab came wery close to fulfilling Norway’s needs aswell.

The N version of the Gripen, with better range, more powerful engine and better weaponds load, fits the bill perfectly in my (not so) humble opinion.

Saw a F15 parked next to a F14, at a Canadian airshow in 1987/8.

Still remember that the 14 dwarfed the 15.

As a Norwegian i think the reasons are moast likely political, who you ally with is more important than what you purchase.

As we have no military threat against us, the range increased Gripen is the best option from a cost perspective.

But have no doubts, the F-35 will be the selected platform, after this seemingly thorough process.

Hi, first post here.

Just wondering :

Will the added weight give the Gripen N the same structural problems as the F-16. Is the Gripen platform designed with weight increase in mind ?

Norway plans to replace the C-130, with the “new Euro transport/tanker thingie”, can the Gripen be equipped for arial refueling ?

pegon