Swerve
I would be surprised. Buying some secondhand fighters of a new type would go against the whole trend of policy, & introducing another type means additional stores & training costs. We have more Tornado ADV than we know what to do with. They cost more to fly, but they’re paid for, we have spares stocks, weapons for them, trained aircrews, etc. We’re retiring airworthy Jaguars early to take a type out of the inventory.

We can and do train against other air forces (e.g. the French are always popping over), in lieu of an “aggressor” force.

The F3s have hardly any FI left, and will be need to be retired soon anyway. Ditto the Jags, unless they converted the Cosford GI airframes, which still have bags of hours left.

The Gripen would impose the cost of an additional type, with all the infrastructure costs that would entail, unless they were leased like the ETPS jets seem likely to be. They do have hourly operating costs in the same league as a Hawk, however, and would be an excellent supplement to Typhoon pending JSF, if that aircraft ever happens. They might even allow a reduction in in-use Harrier numbers, spreading Harrier hours over a larger number of airframes and allowing that type more of a chance of reaching their planned OSD – which seems MOST unlikely at the moment. Like you, though, I wouldn’t see them as dedicated adversaries.

Prowlus
The Gripen is primarily a point defence fighter . Its loadout couldn’t even compare to a jag’s

Simply wrong. With two tanks, two AIM-9, Phimat and ALQ the Jag’s payload was modest, at best, and Gripen could carry more, further, and carry a pair of AIM-120s as a useful bonus. And all in a fully net centric airframe with a real multi-mode BVR radar. And it would be as deployable as Jag, able to operate with a similarly small logistic footprint, and operate from equally austere bases.

TinWing
As a pure air defense fighter, the Gripen A/B would be satisfactory. Sadly, there isn’t much of a need for that sort of fighter anymore.

There are significant costs and delays associated with integrating air-to-ground weapons with a very unstable canard delta aircraft. I doubt whether local upgrades of the obsolete A/B Gripens would be cost effective or worthwhile.

It would be far easier and cheaper to update used F-16 and Mirage 2000 fighters.

Again, simply wrong. Reading across many of the C/D weapon clearances would be straightforward, while the A/Bs existing precision attack and anti-shipping attack capabilities are pretty robust. In any case, Gripen’s very low operating costs and low costs of ownership would make any upfront spending a worthwhile investment, that would be rapidly recouped.

Hammer
What can the Gripen do that the current F-16s in inventory can’t? Nothing.

Apart from accurately simulating an unstable, agile 4th generation fighter? Apart from exactly simulating a modern Net Centric threat aircraft? Apart from providing rapidly deployable air power requiring minimal support (half a dozen conscript groundcrew), capable of operating from road strips, able to be turned around in half the time that an F-16 takes, and with an hourly operating cost of just £8,000…….

Not much, I guess.

Yeah yeah TMor, like you have a girlfriend……

Spotter!

😉

International Air Power review published a variant-by-variant article on the Puma and Super Puma.

danrh,

You’re wrong, I’m afraid.

This is not a WC (why would a WC have laser and missile warning systems, DIRCM and a tac paint scheme?), and though your second pic does show an MC- it’s an MC-130H – hence the different nose.

It’s an ex Rivet Clamp MC-130E aircraft, with Fulton gear removed, but with the same basic nose shape.

HISTORY OF THE MC-130E COMBAT TALON I
There were initially four different using organizations operating sixteen aircraft. Three U.S. Air Force squadrons (“users”) performed many Secret missions for the Combat Talon program, with twelve aircraft modified to the Rivet Clamp configuration. The fourth user was further cloaked and participated in Top Secret missions for Heavy Chain and other classified programs, using four aircraft designated as Rivet Yard. These designators identified the hardware configuration of the respective aircraft. The original aircraft were identified as follows: Rivet Clamp Aircraft:

64-0523
64-0555
64-0561
64-0566
64-0547
64-0558
64-0562
64-0567
64-0551
64-0559
64-0563
64-0568

Rivet Yard Aircraft

62-1843
63-7785
64-0564
64-0565

Each user had four aircraft assigned. Combat Talon missions were divided into three organizations, each providing coverage to different geographical areas: Combat Spear covered the Pacific theater, operating from several different bases ; Combat Arrow covered the European and West Asian theater, operating from a home base in Germany ; and Combat Knife covered Central and South America, and Africa, operating from Pope Air Force Base, NC, then later Hurlburt Field, FL. The Rivet Clamp aircraft were sometimes swapped from one Combat Talon user to another, if necessary, to satisfy logistical requirements. Four of the original sixteen aircraft have been lost and two aircraft were added as replacements to the fleet, resulting in fourteen aircraft still operating (as of January 2001):
In November 1967, aircraft 64-0563 was destroyed on the ground by fire that was started during a mortar attack at Nha Trang Air Base, South Vietnam.
In December 1967, aircraft 64-0547 crashed near Hanoi, North Vietnam, during the performance of a combat mission.
Aircraft 64-0571 and 64-0572 were incorporated in 1968 as replacements for 563 and 547. These two aircraft were modified to be functional equivalents to the Rivet Clamp configuration, except for the Fulton Recovery (Skyhook) system. These two aircraft still have the standard nose.
In February 1972, 64-0558 was destroyed in a mid-air collision off the North Carolina coast during an ECM training exercise at night. Previously, this aircraft had been severely damaged during a nighttime TF (Terrain Following) training mission in January 1969, when it flew into trees on the top of a mountain near Blowing Rock, NC. The crew regained control of the aircraft, and managed to safely land at the Hickory, NC commercial airport. The aircraft required extensive depot repair, but was repaired, modified to the Mod 70 configuration, and returned to service.
December 31, 1973, the Heavy Chain missions were discontinued. The four Rivet Yard aircraft were returned to depot to be de-modified, to be capable of accomplishing the Combat Talon mission but without the extra security measures required to support the previous Top Secret configuration. The configuration designation was changed from “Rivet Yard” to “ Rivet Yank”, and the aircraft were made available for Combat Talon missions in 1974. . 564 and 565 had originally been Skyhook configured, but the user had directed the Fulton noses be removed in 1968; so all four Rivet Yank aircraft were standard nose configured. While the Rivet Yard aircraft were operational, they had received special attention for routine field and depot maintenance, and were usually the first to take advantage of available upgrades. These four were among the first C-130s to get the Allison T56-15 engines, replacing the old –7s; therefore, they had a better climb capability than the Rivet Clamp aircraft. The Rivet Clamps waited several more years for the normal procurement cycle to provision their engine upgrades. The Combat Spear (Pacific) user took all four Rivet Yank aircraft as replacements for their Rivet Clamps. The four departing Rivet Clamps were assigned to Combat Knife (Hurlburt), temporarily creating a surplus. Hurlburt was able to justify two of the additional aircraft to support student flights, since training was becoming more formalized. Two aircraft, however, were unsupportable at Hurlburt, and were turned in to the Item Manager (AFLC/AZ). Aircraft 571 and 572 were partially de-modified (primarily by removing classified ECM systems) and were put out on loan. 571 was assigned to Kirtland AFB, NM, where it was used as a special test aircraft. 572 was used as a utility aircraft by ASD at Wright Patterson. These two were temporarily modified and designated as “Rivet Swap” aircraft.
In the mid-1970s, the Special Ops aircraft type (designator) was changed by the Air Force from C-130E(I) to MC-130E, except for the two Rivet Swaps, which were changed to NC-130E. The four aircraft assigned to Combat Arrow (Germany) had been modified in the latter 70s to add special ECM systems tailored for the European Theater of operation. This modification was referred to as the ECM Update. At this point there were four different system configurations (primarily ECM systems) among the 15 remaining Combat Talon 1 airplanes:

MC-130E(C) (Clamp)

64-0551
64-0562
64-0559
64-0567
64-0568

MC-130E(E) (ECM Update)

64-0523
64-0555
64-0561
64-0566

MC-130E(Y) (Yank)

62-1843
63-7785
64-0564
64-0565

NC-130E(S) (Swap)

64-0571
64-0572

In 1981, aircraft 564 crashed into the South China Sea just west of the Philippine island of Luzon. One aircraft from Hurlburt (Combat Knife) was loaned to Clark Air Base (Combat Spear) to temporarily fill in. Aircraft 572 was re-modified to the Rivet Clamp configuration and was sent to Hurlburt. 571 was brought back from Kirtland and modified from the Rivet Swap configuration to a Rivet Yank configuration (there were differences in ECM systems), and was then permanently assigned to Combat Spear in the Pacific.

UK 1,000-lb Paveway II

No GBU-series designation

If you think that shorthand text-speak (“U’ll”) and ignorant, tub-thumping, simple-minded, uncritical acceptance of USAF and Lockmart propaganda, patriotic though it is, warrants a serious reply, “U’re” very much mistaken.

I’m content to merely point out the more stupid of your claims.

And the idea that “the A2a capabilities insilled in the JSF practically make it second to only the Raptor in that role!!” is daft enough to be highlighted and mocked, while your cost estimates are similarly far from reality.

You now say that: “the raptors are cheaper then 110 million each flyaway…”

Even when the USAF was going to buy 438 the Raptors came out at $159 million per plane, which soon rose to $187 m (339). The cost has now reached $339-$361 per aircraft (based on 183 aircraft), and is still rising.

Even the marginal flyaway cost quoted by the USAF (and challenged by the GAO) is $133 m per F-22, excluding R&D, spares, much of the GSE, weapons, and various GFE (Government Furnished Equipment) – perhaps including engines, according to some sources……

Moreover, if you expect Lockmart to be able to sell export aircraft significantly below unit programme cost, you’re living in a dream world.

Yes, and Rivet Joint, and ABCC, and Joint Stars……

Net Enabled and Net Centric Warfare infers a widely distributed net with lots of elements.

32 nm is twice ASRAAM’s range, not three times.

I trust neither figure, incidentally.

ASRAAM is definitely superior to AIM-9X, and I believe is superior to IRIS T in key respects.

TMor

Your belief that Rafale’s wing produces less lift induced drag than Typhoon’s is unsustainable, and can only be a matter of faith.

Even if it produces less drag and more lift for a given Angle of Attack (again this is unprovable and unguessable without knowing details of the section, camber, surface, etc.) then there is still the likelihood (or possibility, if you prefer) that the more unstable aircraft, with the more advanced FCS, will be able to produce more lift at a lower Angle of Attack, thereby reducing trim drag.

Your assumptions about the effectiveness of the LERX in delaying separation of the boundary layer are fine, insofar as you limit yourself to looking at Rafale, you cannot ‘read across’ to make assumptions about Typhoon.

Without a big budget and good high and low speed wind tunnels, determining the lift produced by the two wings is unproductive guesswork.

And even if you could accurately determine lift, Typhoon’s thrust and control authority give it an edge in agility, as all of the evaluations so far have confirmed. Rafale does have some advantages over Typhoon, but neither MMI nor agility are among them.

As to Fonk, you mentioned his simplistic analysis and his absence. I wasn’t aware he wasn’t still visiting the board. I didn’t like him much I have to say, as I found him boorish, ignorant, stubborn and stupid, but I very much admired and liked his passion for aircraft, and he did occasionally reveal a nice sense of fun. Is he OK, do you know?