So the next time the rebels use a chemical attack (as they have (strongly suspected at least) in the past) we can also expect a hundred million worth of Tomahawks launched at them? Riiiiight.

The US is already working to “address” those rebels… until the latest chemical attack the Trump admin was even willing to work with Assad (a horrible, gruesome dictator) to exterminate those rebels. However unless Assad can convince the US that from now on he will really truly get rid of all chemical weapons (or at least the most dangerous ones) I think he will remain highly unpopular with the Trump admin.

Some people seem to not fully understand why the US is reacting the way it does.

The reason why Trump changed his mind about Assad is not because Assad “killed children”. It is because A kept those chemical weapons. For Trump it is still America First.

THis is IMHO the most relevant qoute:

It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-syria-statement-transcript-236976

This is what this is all about: preventing and detering the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. The scenario that I am sure some of Trumps advisors have informed him about is that terrorists could get access to these chemicals and launch an attack on the US.

This is a message not just to Assad but to dictators everywhere: “do whatever you want within your own country but do not develop and store chemical (or nuclear) weapons” — if there is a risk that those weapons can end up in the hands of terrorists (one way or another).

A guy in North Korea should also take notice.

No Typhoon? They aren’t candidate for the finnish next fighter competition?

Officially they are a candidate however realistically they cannot compete against the Rafale and F-35 on capabilities, and against the Rafale, F-35, SH and Gripen NG on cost…

Same dimensions

http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/weapon-systems/air-to-surface-missile-systems/rbs15f/rbs15_missile_system_family_high.pdf

hmm, perhaps you are right — are you sure that this is referring to the newly ordered mk4?

The weight reduction seems to be rather minimal. Can the Gripen E carry 600+kg on those wing pylons?

The JSM missile weighs around 400kg AFAIK. Presumably Saab and Diehl between themselves are roughly at the same technology level as Kongsberg et al? Or perhaps the high weight is because they want to keep the “huge” warhead of 200kg?

“The first aircraft to be delivered to the Brazilian Air Force is already under production at Saab’s facilities in Linköping, Sweden,” said Mikael Franzén, head of Business Unit Gripen Brazil, Saab business area Aeronautics.

The two-seat version of the Gripen NG is being developed at the Gripen Design and Development Network (GDDN), which was inaugurated in November 2016, in the state of São Paulo. The site was designed to serve as the technological development center for the Gripen NG in Brazil for Saab and Embraer, together with Brazilian partner beneficiares and institutions. It currently has 56 engineers working at the facilities, with 40 Brazilians and 16 Swedish expatriates.

Read more: http://www.defenseworld.net/news/18919/Saab_Starts_Development_of_Two_Seater_Version_of_Gripen_Fighter_For_Brazil#.WOTkbIVOJfE

The Super Hornet would be an absolutely terrible choice. Its a souped-up 70s design for Christ’s sake. Do you really think this is the answer to our needs considering we are gonna fly those fighters until 2058? :rolleyes:

If your measuring stick is the F-35 then of course the SH falls short.

If you compare the SH to the Eurocanards, in terms of RCS reductions my guess is it’s the same ballpark. The ASH suggested by Boeing also demonstrates a significant growth potential (which of course pales in comparison to the growth potential of the F-35).

Cost wise it seems to be cheaper than both Rafale and Typhoon… I am not sure how it compares to F-35, Boeing seems to be challenging the conclusions made in Denmark.

I saw a Belgian poster suggesting that Belgium should go for a mix of SH and Growlers, arguing that operating costs of F-35 is still a bit of an unknown, and that Europe will in any case have a significant number of F-35 whereas Europe has very limited stand-off EWS capabilities.

He actually does have a good point… Even tiny Australia has infinitely larger numbers of Growlers than Europe (which currently has 0). And for Europe (or NATO) whether Belgium adds 34 F-35 or not does not really make a huge difference in the grand scheme of things.

Both France and Sweden probably has the know-how to develop a Growler version of either Rafale or Gripen but it has not yet happened.

The author is from POGO and we all could have skipped trying to read his garbage in the first place.

Thanks for the heads-up, that saved me from even opening the article 🙂

The A-Darter missile, developed by companies in Brazil and South Africa, broke out at the certification testing stage. According to the project manager, Lieutenant-Colonel Anderson Moreira of the Brazilian Air Force (FAB), this is “practically the last phase” of weapons development. The tests are expected to take place this year on the African continent.

“The development trials are now closed and we are now preparing to prove to the certifying authorities that the product works according to the manufacturers’ specifications and meeting customer requirements,” says Moreira.

The A-Darter is an air-to-air missile, designed to combat aircraft. As the FAB explains, it is a fifth-generation, infra-red, short-range armament between 8 and 12 km.

Google translated from: http://airway.uol.com.br/desenvolvido-no-brasil-missil-a-darter-entra-na-fase-de-testes/