It would also be very useful as a platform for Storm Shadow since it wouldn’t have to get close to enemy MEZ’s.

Gripen is a platform for the KEPD 150 & 350. Originally the smaller KEPD 150 was developed especially for Gripen. Now they tested the larger 350 for Gripen, too. It has a range of 350/400km + ( depending on source).

Perhaps not as a/a potent as the Block 60 F-16 will be but probably quite a bit cheaper

Gripen will be first aircraft able to fire Meteor. Therefore it should be better for A/A. The true strength of the F-16 is it’s multirole capability. This was the strength compared to the MiG-29, which was the better ‘pure’ fighter. Block 60 rafines this with it’s new radar, so the new Falcon is swingrole. On the other hand is the Gripen optimised for fast turn-arounds, it’s availability should be better and costs/flighthour are lower. All this together should lead to more flighthours per pilot. And that is in my opinion the best argument for small countries. Many interesting upgrades should be available for Gripen in the near future. For the F-16 I would expect future upgrades mainly from Israelian companies.

And the NORA radar is the most interesting project I ever heard of for new radars. (besides CELLDAR)

Since in several months only, the euros rise of 30 or 40% vs the dolalrs, is it worth to compare these prices ?

EADS for example has an insurence against the risks of floating exchange rates. The price is made in $. This is the case for BMW, VW and nearly all global players, too. I see no reason why this should be different for Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH.

Hi mercurion,

real nice designs, I love this Black Widow with Canards. I did something similar same weaks ago, with a bit longer and wider frontsektion (side by side cockpit, more fuelcapacity….) and 2×2 EJ-200 as propulsion. The Engines have moved a little backward, using parts from aft fuselage of Typhoon. The inlets are simplified, too. (Super Hornet/Raptor look a like). The weapons bay is large enough for 2 Kept 350. Semi recessed Meteors equal to Typhoon. Front a bit more roundet. Wings more swept backward, again using parts from Typhoon for the outer wing. Damn it, my scanner broke down last week.:mad:
The Black Widow really needs a rivavle. It’s to beautiful for rusting in museum !

I got an essay to this theme from a Zdzislaw Dyrman:
Article by Zdzislaw Dyrman discusses aspects that should be considered in making choice of the multipurpose fighter plane for Poland: “Fighter for Polish Sky — Selected Aspects for Making Choice” ]

Persons interested in our national defense entertain differing opinions about the multipurpose combat plane for Poland. The opinions of experts on the advantages and disadvantages of the designs of the planes proposed by bidders for the Polish tender are divided. That is because to some experts certain issues matter more than others. For example, they consider the question of industrial co-production to be more important than technical specifications and combat potential. In the article below I intend to present selected but so far rarely discussed factors impacting the selection of a multipurpose fighter plane for Poland.

A major argument cited in favor of the F-16 is its widespread use and positive experience in its operation and in combat. It must be admitted that these two aspects are decidedly in favor of the American fighter plane. Altogether, more than 4,000 F-16’s have been built and are used in several dozen countries around the world. Their production is ongoing and will be continued until at least the end of the present decade [as published]: As ensues from the orders placed so far the total of the F-16’s built will reach nearly 4,600 in 2020. The F-16 will still account for more than one-third of the combat plane fleet of the US air forces for the next 15 to 20 years. Whatever the region of an eventual conflict in the world, the infrastructure for operating this plane is already in place there. This may prove very helpful, but this fact, while it should not be ignored, does not in itself tip the scales for selecting that plane.

The F-16’s extensive combat experience in various kinds of conflicts, including the famous Israeli-Syrian air battle in the Bekaa Valley in 1982, in conditions close to a tactical scenario for a full-scale conflict, is a much more telling argument in favor of this aircraft.

As for the Gripen, it is true that it has had no opportunity for demonstrating its potential in combat, because its currently sole user, Sweden, is a neutral country. But from the military point of view this is not significant. What matters is that a particular plane take part in combat operations and emerge from them successfully.

Both the aforementioned arguments in favor of selecting the F-16 are essential, but still they cannot be considered decisive. The really decisive aspect of this question is something else that has been generally overlooked. This precisely is considered in what follows here.

What Ensues from Membership in NATO?

This is one of the most fundamental issues, as well as a major requirement of the tender underway. Why? In joining North Atlantic Treaty Organization we expected to benefit from specific advantages in return for, “unfortunately,” adopting highly important obligations. The advantages are indisputable, because we have joined a group of countries with an imposing military deterrence potential, and as a result we ensured for ourselves a fairly high level of security. We can moreover reduce (that is, cut the financial outlays on) our own armed forces, because collective defense is much more efficacious, not just from the military but also from the political standpoint. Therefore, our future multipurpose combat plane must be consonant with NATO standards.

What Does It Mean for a Plane To Be Compatible With NATO Requirements?

Participation in NATO operations is the price we pay for safeguarding our security, and therefore we must take part in them. Our aircraft must be capable of participating in such operations. In theory, any aircraft equipped with appropriate IFF [Identification Friend-or-Foe] gear and NATO navigational and communications systems can take part in such operations. But that in itself is not enough. If we rest content with that, we will have to provide on our own, at our own expense, at the site of operations, the entire remaining ground logistics, weaponry, and suitable sets of spare parts. In addition, we would have to attend to the logistics of our aircraft there, in the form of logistical supply units and personnel trained in operating a particular type of aircraft. Moreover, we would have to provide several (a minimum of two) transport aircraft for ferrying the needed equipment and personnel to other airfields at which our planes (or even a single plane) would be landing owing to inclement weather, damage sustained over hostile territory, or ordinary breakdowns of on-board systems. The question arises, how much will all this logistics cost? Moreover, a logistical and repair base established at our expense in a distant theater of operations would have to operate under differing climatic and geographical conditions. For example, on Middle East airfields plagued in the spring and fall by vexatious sand storms and for much of the time by scorching heat. It would be better to have aircraft which could benefit from a uniform logistical base, typical of NATO, developed by other countries–or jointly with us. Even then, though, our aircraft would have to meet the following basic NATO requirements:

Basic Requirements

For an aircraft to be at all able to operate within NATO air forces, it has to meet certain basic requirements. They include:

–IFF gear adapted to NATO military code ranges, Mode 4, must be present on board.

–The plane must be equipped with radio gear operating in the Have Quick II system (frequency hopping in accord with a particular sequence of the actually mandatory codes).

–The plane’s communications gear must be additionally equipped with the KY-58 coding system, typical of NATO.

–The plane must include an information exchange system compatible with NATO Link 16 protocol.

–The plane’s navigation system (extremely precise) must be equipped with a GPS system operating within the military code ranges (these codes are accessible to the Americans, who maintain a satellite network ensuring the performance of the system).

–Flight personnel must be trained in the tactical operation of their aircraft according to NATO procedures, day and night and in any weather.

When we consider the various makes of aircraft offered as the future multipurpose plane for Poland, the principal question is whether they meet the above requirements.

Unfortunately, the Gripen, that otherwise reliable and modern combat plane, does not meet any of the above requirements. Sweden is not a NATO country, and therefore it has no access to NATO identification codes in Friend-or-Foe terms. It also lacks the Have Quick II technology (it merely has the older Have Quick I system). Similarly, it lacks access to P-Code codes for military GPS receivers and to the KY-58 coding device. The Gripen consortium, represented not only by the Swedish Saab but also the British (and hence NATO member country) BAE Systems, vouches that the export version offered to Poland will be equipped with all these devices, and its bid price includes the cost of adaptation to the aforementioned requirements. But this does not alter the fact that performing all these adaptations will be costly (perhaps more than expected), takes time, and most likely will require the consent of the US Government to providing the attendant information to the company handling the integration.

These adaptations may be handled by BAE Systems, but in themselves they are not enough. Following the physical completion of this work the performance of all the additional equipment would still have to be tested in flight. This raises the question of whether BAE Systems has available Gripen-trained British test pilots or whether it as yet intends to train them. That is because it is hardly conceivable for Swedish pilots to test the new equipment in flight, since it is supposed to remain secret to them.

Since we are speaking of pilots, another question that arises is that of training Polish WLOP [Air Force and Air Defense Troops] pilots according to NATO standards and tactical procedures, on utilizing specific properties of aircraft. But for that we need instructors trained on the Gripens and having experience in NATO operations. The Swedish air force includes a group of Gripen-trained instructors, but they certainly have no experience in utilizing broadly the tactics of NATO air forces in any weather and in various combat applications. As for the British pilots, who do have such experience, and who have not infrequently taken part in actual combat operations conducted according to the concept of using NATO air forces, they are not trained to fly the Gripen. It is likewise quite certain that there are not any British Gripen flight instructors.

Armament

Regarding armament, the matter is even more complicated. It might appear that an aircraft carrying Sidewinders, AMRAAMs, and Mavericks is quite compatible with NATO requirements. In reality, what matters is a particular version of that armament. That is because the aircraft should be capable of carrying armament that is actually being manufactured. The reasons are two: While Polish aircraft are to operate in distant theaters of operation only modern armament ensuring NATO planes with top combat effectiveness in complex combat conditions over the region can be accessible. When an aircraft is integrated with newer-generation weaponry, as a rule it can also use older weaponry (with which integration had simply taken place in an earlier stage of development, as in the case of the F-16). The converse, unfortunately, is not possible. In the event that NATO aircraft have to operate from Polish bases, should the Gripen be chosen, the WLOP would have to maintain two separate stocks of weaponry, the older for Polish planes and the more recent one for the NATO reinforcement forces. That would be a rather curious situation.

In the case of the Gripen, it has been integrated with Sidewinder, AMRAAM and Maverick missiles. As usual, however, the devil lies in the details. That is because the Gripen caries the following versions of that weaponry: AIM-9L, AIM-120B, and AGM-65A. At present, however, the versions AIM-9M, AIM-120C-5, and AGM-65G, as well as older missiles adapted to the AGM-65H version, are being manufactured. Regarding the AIM-9M missiles, Sweden has obtained permission to acquire them, but so far that country has not requested the transfer of the data needed to integrate the Gripen with them. This also applies to the AIM-120C-5. But as regards the last-named missile, it is additionally heavier and longer than the AIM-120B and integrating the Gripen with this weapon requires additional test flights and obtaining appropriate certification. As for the AGM-65G/H, the situation is even worse, because Sweden has not obtained consent to acquiring these versions of the missile. Of course, this is merely a question of following appropriate procedures, but that has to be done yet.

NATO also requires of a multipurpose aircraft that it carry laser-guided bombs (for example, of the Paveway II or III family) and GPS-guided bombs (for example, JDAM). The Gripen does not at all carry weaponry of this type. As of the present, Sweden has not obtained permission to acquire Paveway II (or Paveway III, too) bombs. There is no need to add that the Gripen has not been integrated with these weapons, and such integration requires considerable work and flight tests. The situation with GPS-guided weaponry is even worse. That is because it requires the MIL STD 1760 data bus, whereas the Gripen uses only the MIL STD 1553B data bus. Installing the newer data bus is a big job in itself, because it would require, for example, altering the power supply system. Altogether, thus, the scale of these changes is considerable and they, too, must culminate in a specified cycle of flight tests and certification process.

It should be added that these are only selected examples. There are many more questions regarding the Gripen’s armament. For example, there is such an important question as anti-air defense weaponry, if only to protect the aircraft against radar-guided air defense. As for HARM missiles, we have not mentioned them at all, but it is worth noting that the Gripen carries no missiles of that class.

The Version Existing “On Paper”

The version of the Gripen plane offered to Poland simply does not exist except on paper. To be sure, such a version will some day (perhaps) be built. According to the manufacturer, the Gripens to be delivered starting in 2005 will meet NATO requirements. But when we consider the details, it turns out that this concerns the requirements binding at present, that is, in 2002. Polish multipurpose combat planes will attain full combat readiness not earlier than in 2007. Will NATO requirements change by then? Most certainly. Hence, we do not know whether the Gripen version meeting the requirements of 2002 will be compatible with NATO requirements in 2007. Perhaps yes and perhaps not. In contrast, aircraft which are even now compatible with NATO standards and are being continually modernized in order to keep meeting these changing standards are a different kettle of fish.

Recently a tender for transport aircraft, culminating in the signing of a contract with the company EADS CASA, has been conducted in Poland. Consider that the offer to acquire the Spartan plane was rejected for formal reasons: The lack of certification of the version of the Spartan offered. At the time when this decision was taken the certification process had been underway and was completed in June 2001, whereupon the aircraft met the requirements. Were our government to be consistent, the offer of the Gripen consortium would have to be rejected for the same, formal reasons.

One could ask why the interest of other, bigger countries in protecting Polish sovereignty. Well, it is exactly the same as ours. In the course of achieving their political objectives in various regions of the world, these countries rely on the support and assistance of their lesser allies, because it is politically advantageous. At the same time it enables the big countries, even if they are world powers, to reduce their own armed forces and their outlays on defense. In view of this, they cannot leave their “little allies” in the lurch. Were they to act otherwise, other countries would see no point in continuing to maintain the structure of NATO and everyone would be the loser. This delicate machinery offers us a real chance to safeguard our national security, the basis of existence of our country.

For this machinery to perform irreproachably, we too must make our own contribution to the functioning of NATO. No one expects of us any excessive efforts, but meeting elementary NATO requirements is directly linked to our own national security. This also applies to our active participation in NATO activities intended to maintain peace and stability not only in the traditional region of NATO responsibility but also wherever the unfolding situation may create a real danger to the security of NATO member countries. After 11 September 2001 this problem has acquired a completely new importance. It could be said that the rules of the game have been tightened. The time of jokes is over.

NATO-Compatible Combat Aviation

If we accept the idea that our active participation in NATO operations wherever the need arises is directly linked to our national security, we have to choose between two options.

We could be a supplier of “cannon fodder” in the form of light infantry. Then it is enough to buy rifles, helmets, and backpacks, and eventually also radio sets, and send our “boys” to the mountains of Afghanistan or to the Iraqi desert. But at the same time we would have to invest in developing military hospitals as well as purchase a considerable number of wheelchairs and prostheses for war veterans with (in the best case) legs mutilated by land mines.

The other option is to turn our military into a source of elite, well-equipped units, for example, aviation units, which in present-day conflicts play a much greater role than infantry, which performs the “dirtiest” jobs in the absence of publicity and while suffering painful casualties.

Modern aviation is also the key to an effective repulsion of aggression by an eventual enemy, especially during the first, decisive stage–the struggle for air superiority. Therefore, our combat planes, and especially the future multipurpose combat planes, must be fully compatible with NATO requirements. This concerns extremely detailed requirements, precisely in order that NATO aircraft transferred to our air bases could utilize the existing logistical structure not only with the object of restoring combat readiness but also as regards the performance of repairs, inspections, and periodic maintenance. This may happen in the event that a prolonged crisis requires long-lasting presence of NATO air forces in our country. Otherwise, our NATO allies would be forced to set up their own logistical and repair facilities in our country at the moment a crisis or tension arises in our region and not before. That could be pregnant in consequences. On the occasion, it is worthwhile to consider just what aircraft will be flown by Americans, Belgians, Dutchmen, and Danes to our air bases?

Instead of a Conclusion

The F-16 is said to be a fighter used for many years already and therefore not a promising one. But that is not true. Although this plane has indeed been flown for many years, it still is being produced and will remain produced for many years ahead. Furthermore, the versions of the F-16 used at present have hardly anything in common (other than the characteristic shape of the fuselage) with the versions built in the years past. Not only is this plane fully adapted to NATO standards but even, considering its widespread use in NATO air forces, the fact is that these standards are established in accordance with its capabilities and those of similar aircraft (even in an informal manner). So far, more than 4,026 specimens of the F-16 have been built (“more than,” because new specimens are continually being released from production lines, to this day, too). Given the number of orders placed until 2010 the output of F-16 planes will reach a total of 4,348, and in 2020, more than 4,570. In the next few years the F-16’s will account for more than 40 percent of the entire combat air fleet of the USAF. The US Air Force expects to fly the F-16 until the year 2026. By 2010 a large number of planes of this type is scheduled to be upgraded, with the costs correspondingly apportioned (the so-called economies-of-scale effect). Poland could upgrade its F-16’s in, say, 2015, that is after one-third of their operating life, more or less. Moreover, this plane has a successor, in the form of the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35).

This also applies to the Mirage 2000, which has a successor, the Rafale. But as for the Gripen, it has no successor. The company Saab has admitted that this will be the last combat plane to be developed in Sweden.

As for the F-35, it is worth noting that this plane has also been chosen by Great Britain, both by its naval aviation (FAA) and by its air force (RAF). This is an unusually promising aircraft, designed with a thought to future transition to unmanned flying combat vehicles (see the article in Lotnictwo Wojskowe, No 1, 2002).

In conclusion, let me add that my purpose in writing this article is to initiate objective and substantive discussion of this issue. The editors welcome any other opinions, insofar as they are backed by objective arguments and logical conclusions. That is because the issue of a multipurpose aircraft for Poland is one that lies close to the heart of, particularly, those who are concerned for the future of Polish military aviation.

Contrary to this article is what I was told by Polish comrades in 2000: They told me, Gripen would be perfect for their needs. (operating from streets and so on). They prefer Gripen, because they expect lower operational costs and better availability. The saved money could be spend for more flighthours per pilot and integration of new hardware. They seemed very optimistic that PZL with an own production line could be a vital partner for further developments of Gripen, especially in keeping them NATO-compatible.
Often I hear this offset argument. Well, are most investments made only why Poland bought F-16 or why Poland is a large market with good potentials for future or why working power is so cheap there ? If this is the case, I ask the EU to stop the promotion of those investments. Those hundrets of millions of € could be better spend for the victims of the last natural disasters in Southern France, Italy and along the Elbe river.
The shift came with war in Iraq. Now the aim wasn’t anymore defending Poland from improvised airstrips, the aim was: “The first question any nation should be asking is how do we link up as tightly as we can with American air power”

The Polish Aviation Factory Company Limited (PZL) in Mielec, Poland, has started work on its first contract to manufacture sub assemblies for the Gripen fourth-generation multi-role fighter.

“For the fourth time in 11 years, American air power is proving to be decisive in combat,” said Air Force Lt. Gen. Tome Walters, director of the Pentagon agency that runs government-to-government arms sales. “The first question any nation should be asking is how do we link up as tightly as we can with American air power,” Walters added in remarks released by his Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

In neighbouring Czech Republic, Jihlavan, a.s., based in the town of Jihlava, has recently celebrated a follow-on order for Gripen airbrake and scoop actuators. This follows successful completion of an initial contract to manufacture five sets, placed in June 1999. Jihlavan is now the sole supplier of airbrake and scoop actuators for Gripen.

Gripen components and sub assemblies come from major suppliers in the United Kingdom, United States, Germany, South Africa and France in addition to Sweden, Poland and the Czech Republic.

Why should an european nation like Czech Republik or lets say, ähm, Poland buy Gripen ? Or why should it not ?
Is the F-16 so much better than Gripen ? The latest F-16E/F has shurely more capabilities, but do you need those capabilities ? Is your country able to finance them ? I f you have to keep the balance between your european partners and the U.S., what would you buy ? An all-american fighter or an multinational fighter with many parts from both partners ? Some time ago, I had the impression this deal between Saab and Poland was safe. The Polish militaries said it would fit prefectly in their Airforce, Politicians were happy that PZL would integrate U.S. weapons for all potential custumers, the Swedish invested in their new partners… and than came Lt. Gen. Tome Walters:”The first question any nation should be asking is how do we link up as tightly as we can with American air power”. Yes, this makes sense. The Swedish invested anyway and if your european friends pay the bill for your good relatians to America…. Who wouldn’t understand this ?

Well, I doubt that “Old Europe” will show that much solidarity with Sweden. Don’t forget: Belgium is official bidder for the F-16s.

Damn it, when european partners show no solidarity with Sweden, what is this whole EU good for ? The point is: if the Czech Republik now decides to lease F-16, this is something like an option for JSF. I’d rather see them flying Swedish hardware. And we like to sell Sweden our nice Eurojet turbofans and much other equipment. They are already partners for Taurus, Iris-T and Meteor.

If they feel safer in NATO hands than they do under an EU defensive umbrella you really ought to respect that decision, give them the money and let them decide.

I really do understand this. Everytime Germany and Russia had good relations this was pretty bad for Poland. France and GB were not really able to help them in the last war.
The only problem is that they use money from Europe to buy American fighters. I don’t pay taxes for polish F-16 ! If they would pay them on their own, well that would be their decision. And what makes me really angry is the fact, that they cry for more money ! Block 60 sounds much better than Block 52. LM would shurely be happy to change the contract . How about Poland to sponsor us F-22 ? Would be fair, don’t you think so ?

I think this guy has pretty much fun posting this bull****. Sometimes I really think he’s not even french. Normally I stopped reading his posts, but with a glass of wine or a good Mai Tai it is really funny to read his posts.:p