I agree — there’s a baby-elephant like cuteness aesthetic that it has. 🙂

well, hope it doesnt grow any heavier then. 😉

Hi guys,

Last fall I was at a lecture and the subject was Red Flag 2008-03.

There were almost 10 different “forces” from all over the world using various versions of F15..F16:s..B52:s..E6:s..F5:s, tankers & Awacs during the exercise

-Some interesting facts….The 4-group Gripen group was planned to fly aprox. 100 missions…only 2 were cancelled (due to flight suite problems)…highest record among the participants. The flew both attack and defence missions for the blue team against the agressors (USAF:s best) The Gripen group accomplished 90% of all their missions..also the highest record. (USAF& Turish air force 87%) The brazilians were last in the “competition”…but the were operating old F5:s so…The Gripen group was also restricted in flight performance due to no tanker capacity during the exercise, leaving them to fly with 3 ex-tanks at all time.The number of technicians & other staff was only 50-60% comparing to the rest of the participating forces.

And some other well kept secrets;-)

Not bad at all from a small force from a small peaceful country in northern Europe….

they didn´t got AWACS support either, what i heard.
Thanks for the statistics, i have tried getting hold of it but it seems hard.

Is the MMRCA for a fighter or a multirole strike fighter? I was under the impression this was for a strike fighter. I think this has drifted towards whos the better ATA discussion. They already have SU-30mki for air defense. Honestly if the whole weapons arsenal is available I think the SH is the clear winner over any of the other candidates just because how mature and proven it is in the ATG role while still being extremely capable as a air to air asset as well. The others may surpass it in the ATG role eventually but none are as mature (at least to my knowledge)

its a multirole medium weight to replace single enginecrafts? So i think F-16 and Gripen would fit best. But as everybody, you have the right to your opinion 😀

the future striker would be MCA i think..and it is not on the table what i heard.

http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/2010/02/rafale-contre-f22-le-bilan-du-match-.html

Nice! Go rafale!
So silent is the real winner…it would be nice to see a “radar” fight thou

i wonder if this will boast the tech even more to passive side..
And if everyone is quite than good optics is a must.
What about fight in cloudy parts of the world?

lol Saab lovers.. 😉
sorry i trust more a renowned media like Flightglobal than a firm which only see its own interest … especially SAAB

i though a desicribed it well enough?! :confused:
And whats about “especially” SAAB?

he quoted independant sources …

so the partners in this matter are wrong about their own agreements at hand?!?
Most journalists cant see the difference between the gripen Demo and gripen NG. thats the problem.
The DEMO program is a de-risk project for any gripen upgrade and new gripen tech.

NG is a new platform which new systems are based, example gripen IN, N, BR etc.

Thats big difference. Demo will never leave SAAB and is a testbed that coninously changeing its avionics and sometimes even structure.

BR, IN is offered systems with a specifide tech inside.

Offcourse if the cooperation between Thales and SAAB worked out well on the Demo project, and the price/performance was good, Thales would have been a allready de-risked supplier and would probably been choosen. But it didnt work well this time.

When the offer was out for the NG, Saab wasnt aware of what Selex had to offer. SAAB own (risky) concepts was exactly a swashplate (read it somewhere) design. So Selex AESA probably fitted perfectly into the requirements.

No, it was selected because Thales simply dropped out because of Dassault pressure. Thales was the prefered partner all along.

no?! there wasnt any contract on that. they dropped out the gripen demo contract. Not the NG contract.
They first needed a system in the air, and then a long time partner. And Thales had one up for grabs. the other was a long time comparing offers from different vendors, and Selex UK was selected with there superior design and price, that fitted the timeframe and roadmap of gripen better.

I never said your defence industy is not working well, I said your Gov can’t provide such political advantages, nor can your industry the same as the French, to be a stratigic partner.
The only thing we dont do is carriers…
What about nuclear subs, or nuclear powerplants at all, destroyers, MBTs, or helicopters?
The Swedish industry is good no doubt, but as I said, can’t offer anything countries like France, US, UK, or Russia could offer.

Btw, it will be interesting to see how much UK and ITA backs the Gripen NG in India and how much ToT will be provided there. They seem to do everything to get the deal and a cost-effective Gripen NG with same radar and weapons as EF would be a big problem for them.

Where having the best non-nuclear subs in the world, ask the Amercan navy. We have made enough nuclear plants for having to close down some of them, AESAs have been made since 1990. Our destroyers are been true stealth for quite some time. SEP etc…Helicopters? are you kidding?

Productwise we have a lot to give. But not the security councle.
Even french industry isnt selfgoing, but they keep there subcontractors under sectrecy. Even SAAB is a subcontractor with intellectual property in thales, dassault and MDBA products.