LokeHow come Turkish pilots have always difficulties to stay inside their borders…?
Iraq, Syria, Greece, Cyprus… They all continuously complain for airspace violations from THK…
I guess it was a matter of time….:rolleyes:
Mr Gul said it was routine for warplanes flying at high speed to cross borders for short distances.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18562210
Unbelievable — the Turkish president confirms that it’s routine for Turkish pilots to violate other countries’ borders.
LokeIt seems India is dropping the Kaveri for the LCA!??
LokeGMT, June 4, 2012 Brigadier General Jiri Verner, commander of the Air Force of the Czech Republic outlined how he was able to achieve a great deal for a small country following reorganization of the ex-Eastern Bloc air arm into a leaner force equipped with modern fighter aircraft, numerous helicopters mostly used for army support and a small transport fleet.
Key to Czech air defence is the fleet of 14 JAS 39 Gripen fighters, backed-up by 24 Czech-built L-159 ALCA advanced light combat aircraft. The Gripens are used exclusively for air defence while the ALCAs also do ground attack, forward air control (FAC) training and conversion training.
“It is a big mistake of some of our politicians and decision makers to call the L-159 a better L-39. I say it is more of a worse F-16,” said BGen Verner. With many common systems, the L-159 to Gripen conversion is “short and cheap and easy” he added.
A highlight of recent Czech air operations was undertaking the Baltic Air Policing mission from Siauliai air base in Lithuania in 2009. In addition to maintaining quick reaction alert at home, the Czech AF supplied four Gripens, supported by 75 personnel. The four-month rotation cost €1.6 million and saw eight real life intercepts of uncommunicative aircraft. Showing a slide of a Russian Air Force Il-38 ‘May’ ELINT aircraft shadowed by a Gripen, Brig Gen Verner described “The Aerof lot aircraft with special antennas, looking like a hedgehog”.
The Gripens were followed by a Luftwaffe Typhoon detachment with 200 personnel. “Only the Turks had more,” Verner added.
The Czech AF will return in August 2012 for another air policing stint.
The Czech AF is particularly proud of the Silver Tiger award won at the first NATO Tiger Meet exercise they attended with the Gripen in 2009.
“I consider that the trophy means we are fully accepted as a NATO member and I would love to keep that going after 2015 [when the current Gripen lease agreement is due to expire] and that our politicians make an excellent decision for the future.”
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/36061/?SID=85f08f2c0e53b11ceded4b6cadb36574
LokeI gained the distinct impression Skjolds are hard to get for international customers.
Why do you suggest that Skjolds are hard to get for international customers?
LokeSwiss hornet are top notch since their “upgrade 25” MLU : HMD, AIM-9x, ATFLIR and the RWR system of the super bug are today’s technology…
But how much of that was in place in the Swiss Hornets in 2008? Also I may be wrong but I thought some of the charts shown were comparing the 2016 versions of the 2008 version of the Swiss Hornets. I agree that the 2008 version of the Swiss Hornet was not too shabby OTOH it was not top-notch either. And when starting to compare the 2008 Hornet to the 2016 Eurocanards at least I would have hoped for a bigger gap. There is this “scaling factor” that they used, which skews the image somewhat, but still.
main BVR missiles are alike.
Still the Rafale stands clearly above in all missions tested by the SAF.
Despite what you say, this is actually a discovery for many american people who were dismissing any edge of the French fighter over the vanilla F-16 and F-18.
Now, where do you think the Super Hornet would stand in this evaluation ? Probably not higher than the eurocanards.
Rafale no doubt performed much better than what most Americans (and some Brits…? :diablo:) would expect.
We don’t know how the SH would have performed in this competition, however given that it’s after all a major “upgrade” of the Hornet I would expect it to perform better than the Hornet in parameters related to sensor capabilities, MMI, sensor fusion, etc.
The real surprises of this eval were the really weak scores of the Gripen and the inability of the Typhoon to surpass the Rafale in its advertised domain of expertise (A2A) despite longer range BVR missiles and better “a/c performances” for Air policing.
That tells us how good and consistent the weapon system of the Rafale is, with no noticeable weakness over the whole range of missions and all this, despite the lack of HMD, puny radar, short leg BVR missiles, underpowered engines, obsolete IRST, French (ie terrible) MMI, inability to supercruise…etc.
Gripen C/D is in a completely different class compared to the Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon, keep that in mind. The NG will narrow the gap but probably not close it.
Are you sure they looked at BVR scenarios? And if they did, perhaps it carried much less weight than WVR?
Finally we should also keep in mind the Swiss eval was very peculiar; AFAIK one of the most important scenarios considered was to intercept an intruder coming in at mach 1.5, with some quite strict time constraints… I wonder if the F-16 would have managed this? I am not at all sure about it. This is really a task for high-performing jets like Rafale, Typhoon, and the F-15…! I am somewhat surprised that the Hornet seems to do it so well, perhaps the old Hornet is somewhat undervalued?
LokeWhat an excellent subject started by the hot saucage nr. 20!
Was it a coincidence that it was started on May 17th, the Norwegian constitution day? Who knows…
My completely, 100% biased opinion is that of course the Skjold class completely outstrips that other boat by far:
1. Speed of course as others have mentioned.
2. Stealth characteristic is probably much better on the Skjold
3. It got some world-class sensors
4. Networking capabilities
5. It has better seakeeping capabilities
6. The NSM is due to it’s stealth characteristics one of the most lethal missiles out there.
7. It got a real cannon
LokeOverall the swiss gave the rafale an edge in every type of their AtA scenarios and on a more general note it says that the typhoon don’t have any clear edge in AtA which gave Lake a hard time finding excuses.
I am sorry but to me the most disconcerting thing about the Swiss evaluation is how little edge both the modern Rafale and Typhoon got, compared to the old, old Hornet…!!!
What a sad state of affair in Europe…
LokeLoke’s translation:
Right now a new test plane is being prepared, which, according to Buskhe, is one ton lighter, will have a new engine, new flight control system and new avionics.
LokeThe veteran F-16 operational tester and Weapons School grad shared some of his impressions the F-35. The jet is powerful, stable and easy to fly.
“One of the things this aircraft usually takes hit on is the handling because it’s not an F-22,” Kloos says. “An F-22 is unique in its ability to maneuver and we’ll never be that.”
But compared to other aircraft, a combat-configured F-35 probably edges out other existing designs carrying a similar load-out. “When I’m downrange in Badguyland that’s the configuration I need to have confidence in maneuvering, and that’s where I think the F-35 starts to edge out an aircraft like the F-16,” Kloos says.
A combat-configured F-16 is encumbered with weapons, external fuel tanks, and electronic countermeasures pods that sap the jet’s performance. “You put all that on, I’ll take the F-35 as far as handling characteristic and performance, that’s not to mention the tactical capabilities and advancements in stealth,” he says. “It’s of course way beyond what the F-16 has currently.”
The F-35’s acceleration is “very comparable” to a Block 50 F-16. “Again, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and [turn] rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35,” Kloos says. “But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I think would probably outperform it.”
The F-16, Kloos says, is a very capable aircraft in a within visual range engagement–especially in the lightly loaded air-to-air configuration used during training sorties at home station. “It’s really good at performing in that kind of configuration,” Kloos says. “But that’s not a configuration that I’ve ever–I’ve been in a lot of different deployments–and those are the configurations I’ve never been in with weapons onboard.”
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/
F-16 is never flown in a pure a2a config?
Also interesting wording — “it will ‘probably’ outperform the F-16”.
Does it matter? (perhaps) Yes and no. No, because F-35 will be superior to any 4. gen jet due to VLO and better sensors. Perhaps Yes, because in the future the F-35 may encounter other 5. gen jets that could be as stealthy but with kinematic performance far above the F-16 and more in the Typhoon/F-22 class.
LokeI think the article is anti gripen because of its not so satisfactory performance. Not the reverse.
BS
May I ask you a question: What is the most important thing for a newspaper?
I will give you the answer in case you don’t know: It’s to sell as much as possible.
What sells? Scandals! Conspiracies! Political mistakes!
What does not sell? Boring things that goes according to plan. So expect more sensationalist articles also in the future. If things go according to plan, they will be critical about the plan, and if things don’t go according to plan they will scream about that even louder.
We see similar things about the F-35 in Norway. With the F-35 program there is a lot to critizise, but often we see the media are going far beyond what one can reasonably criticize, and invent things that are not there (and they do that with the F-35, where there are so many real issues to write about!)
LokeExport customers: Yes SH has only 1, but doesn’t Rafale also have 1, and Eurofighter only 2, of which 1 bought second hand. Doesn’t the humble Gripen actually trump them all, with the Czechs, Hungarians, South Africans, and Thais. How did they go with the Swiss?
Politics plays a major role.
In most Western countries (or countries “oriented” towards the West) they tend to buy fighter a/c from the US rather than other countries. Because of this the SH should have a major advantage in most competitions compared to Rafale and Typhoon.
In some countries Rafale and Typhoon may have advantages exactly because they are not US made, but those countries are in minorities.
There are very few countries that would consider SH and Rafale/Typhoon to be equally relevant.
However in spite of having the large political advantage Boieng has failed score more than one SH exports; compare that to the highly succesfull F-16, and also the more expensive F-15 is more successful than the SH.
Why? My guess is that after all the SH is more expensive than the F-16. Most countries are happy with the F-16, they don’t see the need for slightly better avionics found on the Sh compared to the latest F-16. So why would they go for the SH if the F-16 meets their needs and are cheaper?
Some countries however have bought the more expensive F-15. Why did they not go for the cheaper SH? Probably because it did not meet their requirements…
Which should tell you something 😉
It is also interesting to note that of all the original Hornet customers so far only Australia bought the SH. One would have thought that SH could be a natural upgrade but it seems the Hornet customers have other ideas…
As for Rafale/Typhoon sales; apart from the political disadvantage they have had two other disadvantages; lack of technical maturity (seems less of an issue for Rafale at present but definitely an issue for Typhoon) and higher price.
Gripen is not in the same class as SH/Rafale/Typhoon, being single-engined and much smaller.
LokeSince its creation in 1927 the RAAF has seen operations in WWII, the Korean war, the Malaysian insurgency, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. They were also ready for action in Timor in the late 1990s. I suspect they know more about this topic than the majority of posters to this forum.:p
And how many air forces have actually bought the SH….?
In spite of being mature, cheap (compared to the Rafale/Typhoon) and with the additional advantage of being US made (yes politics plays an important role) Boeing has so far failed in all their sales efforts but one tiny order of 24 a/c to Australia.
I guess the RAAF “knows more about this topic than the majority of the air forces on this planet…”
LokeBrazil FX2: (Super Hornet, Rafale, Gripen, Su-35?)
Indian Helo: (Ch-47, Mi-26)
Indian Transport: C-27, C-295, Il-112
Indian SARS: Shin meiwa US-2, Beriev Be 200, Bomberman 415
Malaysian MMRCA: (Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Super Hornet, maybe some Russian type)
Swiss AF: (is it really Gripen or will Rafale come out of nowhere?)
Korean FX: Eurofighter, F-15, F-35, others?
The first Su-35 export customer will be? Vietnamwinner will be the one who gets most of them right.
Correct answers in Bold 😉
LokeSo a direct quote from the SAAF is a lie ? :rolleyes:
Who said the SAAF quote was a lie?
Reread what Swerve wrote above, and try to understand it… 😉
Lokehttp://www.rtaf.mi.th/news/n07/gripen/rtaf_whitebook_f5_replacement.pdf
Somebody at mp.net claim that Thailand claims their Gripen cost half as much to operate as their F16, and referred to the above. I tried to google translate but it’s too long and difficult to decipher.
Do we have any Thai speakers that can confirm the claim above?
Sign In
