As an aside on a similar subject, can anybody give a good reason why when the Meteor BVRAAM is meant to be the principle air-air weapon of the EF Typhoon there have not been funds allocated for integration of the missile with the air frame to progress the test program? :confused: Only a European multi-national program could do something like that, decide on a weapon for their aircraft then refuse to stump up the cash to get the program moving.

Half of the decision was the RAF deciding that in air-air combat missiles would be the principle weapon of engagement and the gun was something they wouldn’t need, half of it was the usual British MoD and politicians tight fisted greed and historical talent at spoiling the ship for a ha’penny of tar. Given the price of the Typhoon program the cost of the gun is peanuts, less than peanuts, and although it is a fair comment that BVRAAM weapons have advanced to the point where they are now extremely effective and the short range AAM’s are lethal it’s also true the gun can still be very useful, in the 90’s the RAF found that cannon straffing was still an excellent air-ground weapon.

Security of the oil fields will be more the job of the navy and coast guard, many of them are a long way out to sea and weather conditions up there are hellish in winter, and the main threat is probably terrorist activity where fighters of any sort wouldn’t be the main response. Not to mention that a serious attack on North Sea installations would almost certainly be a shared threat with the UK and you’d probably find British assets like the Nimrod, Sentry, Typhoon, RN warships etc. would be available to support Norway.

Of course, Iran INVENTED the ground effect air vehicle, only the Russians used a time machine to steal the invention and claim it as theirs :rolleyes: And the Iranians developed super stealth by using old pizza boxes and plastic bin bags in it’s construction……

Not to mention they invented the Shkval sub sea missile the same week they invented the stealth ekronoplan :rolleyes: Believe it or not, there are people out there lapping this BS up thinking it’s a sign of how Iran are the bestest weapons industry in the world.

No probs, that’s what a forum is about 🙂 As a counter argument I’d point to the Nansen frigates, very capable vessels but now it looks like Norway will struggle to keep all of them in service and in retrospect it does look like the German MEKO derivative frigates offered would have suited their navy better.

I wouldn’t say Norway should disband it’s fighter force, but given the threats they face and the requirement to provide good air defence, protect their economic interests and make a real contribution to NATO then the Gripen seems more than up to the task. Look at it this way, geographically Norway is right next door to Sweden with a similar threat environment, now does Sweden look like a country that is defenceless? Their AF relies on the Gripen.

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.

I agree, unfortunately a lot of people don’t look at what the air force actually needs and which aircraft best suits, and consider the cost side of things.