I have a feeling 2900 km is with 6,610kg of fuel.

Has PIRATE added an extra 155kg?

It’s interesting that the EF is limited to only Mach 1.8 max and Mach 1 at sea level. SC of Mach 1.1 is a tad low?

SC at Mach 1.1… That’s the specifications of Gripen NG. Perhaps somebody mixed the two? 😀

L

Apparently Tom Burbage – the head of F-22 and F-35 claimed that Norway would aquire full stealth versions? It is hard to know exactly whats going on.

sigh… according to some Norwegian journalists he had said something like that. However probably he said something else but he never bothered to clear up the misunderstanding… My guess is that he made a somewhat qualified statement. Of course Norway will get the full VLO version (provided the US Government approves it).

A Norwegian defence analyst was interviewed by a Norwegian newspaper. He said the Norwegian pilots thought the Gripen would be “too expensive and a poor airplane” but that he (the defence analyst) thought otherwise, he believed Gripen would be well suited for Norway. The next day he could read in the newspaper that he believed Gripen was a poor airplane and too expensive….

Don’t trust the media, in particular not the Norwegian media. They are rather confused and almost always make mistakes. Sometimes those are corrected sometimes not….

L

According to the LM sales pitch to Norway – the F-35 they purchase will be no-compromise LO.

Yes, that’s what they have been hinting at. However AFAIK it’s not LM that decides what sensitive technology the US will export or not, and to whom.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/DTIJSF.xml&headline=JSF%20Office%20Makes%20Buyers%20an%20Offer%20They%20Cannot%20Refuse

Moreover, there is no longer any serious doubt that not all F-35s will be equal in stealth. Asked earlier this year to confirm that all would have the same signatures, George Standridge, Lockheed Martin’s vice president for business development, responded: “That is a matter for the U.S. government. I cannot and will not answer that question.”

As an F-35 partner perhaps Norway has a higher chance of getting a more stealthy version than some other countries, but I guess we don’t know. AFAIK the US government has not said anything on this matter yet.

L

I see this as the stumbling block. I wonder if a faction in the Norwegian defence, set on the F-35, have highlighted the strike requirement since the expense of the F-35 cannot otherwise be justified relative to the expense of the Gripen.

I can’t see the need for Norway to get an aircraft whose strength is in the strike role when Norway has little history of engaging in such activities (if any, I don’t know) but a long history of using fighters in a defensive role.

http://www.adressa.no/nyheter/innenriks/article1121182.ece

De fire kravene de aktuelle flytypene må tilfredsstille er:

1. De skal kunne benyttes som jagerfly i tradisjonelle luftkamper,

2. De skal kunne overvåke store områder og innhente avansert informasjon fra de samme områdene,

3. De skal gi støtte til bakkestyrker og kunne samvirke med andre våpengrener.

4. I tillegg skal de kunne det som i militærterminologien kalles å gå dypt. Det vil i praksis si at dersom Norge blir angrepet skal vi ha mulighet for å angripe dypt inne i angriperens eget område.

Since most of you probably cannot read Norwegian I will try to translate.

The 4 requirements the fighters must fulfill:

1. They should be used as fighter planes in traditional a2a

2. They should be able to do surveillance of large areas and collect “sophisticated” information from the same areas

3. They shall give support to ground forces and be able to work together with other arms of the military

4. In addition they should be able to go deep. This means that if Norway is being attacked we will have the possibility to attack deep inside the attackers own area.

The other important piece of information is that the Norwegian DoD says all 4 requirements should carry equal weight. In other words, they want a true multirole plane.

It’s no secret in Norway that the Royal Norwegian Air Force, from the pilots and upwards, they all want the F-35. It’s American, it’s 5.gen. The RNAF never saw the need for a competion. Actually there was no competition until the current centre-left government entered office in 2005. The new government did not like the idea of just buying the F-35 and insisted on having a proper and “balanced” competition, they paid both EF and Saab some millions of dollars to “level the playing field”. Some people in the RNAF may be getting a little worried that the politicians will do what the RNAF consider a terrible mistake and actually pick Gripen. However I think most RNAF people still believe they will pull it through with massive support from LM and the U.S.A. And also, many of the people in the evaluation commitee are of course from the RNAF…. :diablo:

L

Hardly, as the Gripen can’t compete with the F-35 and is likely to cost nearly as much as the others with less capability……….

You keep repeating Gripen has less capabilities than other planes. Could you be more specific?

L

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/GRIPEN042508.xml

Swedish Fighter Prototype Addresses Propulsion and Evaluates AESA

Apr 25, 2008

Bill Sweetman and Douglas Barrie

Oslo’s choice is a straight fight between the Gripen NG and the F-35. The Eurofighter nations effectively shelved the bid with Typhoon, driven, at least partially, by how the competition was being conducted.

Part of the Norwegian evaluation scenario in support of its fighter choice included contender aircraft being tasked with destroying targets within a surface-to-air missile (SAM) system environment based on highly capable double-digit SAMs. The simulation scenario, however, called for the aircraft to be operated inside the engagement ranges of all SAMs with the weapons of choice restricted to the GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition and GBU-10/12 Paveway II weapons.

Sorry, some part of my previous post is not correct ~ Not SDB, but LGBs.

Political reasons may be the main factors for deciding the choice of NG fighter, but Norway still need a good techonological excuse to explain why it makes such a decision, and I think the simulation scenario mentioned above shall be an excellent excuse to explain the decision of choosing F-35 over Gripen NG…….

Toan,

Thanks, I did not notice this earlier. I find this very interesting because Norwegian newspapers have in the last couple of days “revealed” a “secret” letter to LM and Saab where they were asked to perform simulations of a ground-attack scenario. However the Norwegian newspapers did not offer the level of detail found in this April 25 piece by Sweetman…

Still, perhaps one should not dismiss the NG? The following story on the ongoing Red Flag from mil.se (translated by Signatory at militaryphotos.net):

Scenario – Ground units and air units in cooperation

The exercise area at Nellis AFB is built up to resemble a real situation as near as possible. Built up cities with vehicles and houses, and a large number of targets for the aircraft to train against such as tanks and radar stations. Other than the opponents in the air there’s also enemies on the ground in the form of a large number of air defense systems.
During the bomb release exercise on Thursday the bar had been raised significantly since the first day. Instead of flying air combat followed by ground attack this day all events was to happen at the same time with multiple scenarios played out concurrently.

Edstrom flew together with Stefan Kaarle and their task was to support two ground units. The objective of these ground units was to secure two cities, Bunkerville and Gotham City.

– From the air we detected a hostile military convoy heading towards Bunkerville at a distance of 5 km. Our first task was to stop them with GBU-12 by knocking out their first two of sixteen vehicles in the convoy.

The exercise succeed as planned. With the help of Forward Air Controller (FAC) on the ground Edstrom and Kaarle hit the designated targets without any kind of problems. The military convoy stopped and the pilots flew on to Gotham City where the second ground battalion was entering the city and requested help with cleaning out a terrorist holdout.

Edstrom and Kaarle were tasked to use their cannon against that house but in the very last second the exercise was aborted with the firing element pushed up another day. Despite this, it was still two satisfied pilots that returned to base after a well executed sortie.

Of course we do not know if the SAMs were double-digit and “highly capable” at Red Flag and we don’t know if the Gripens flew within the range of them — most likely not. Still it does show that Gripen has offensive capabilities in a hostile environment.

As I have said before, the Norwegian Air Force (and also others witin DoD) want the F-35 and they work very hard to make it happen. The above-mentioned scenario may be part of that strategy; still the politicians will have the final say. The politicians are very much aware that the AF have decided they want the F-35, so they will review not just the conclusion of the recommendation but also the underlying assumptions and premises for the analysis. Therefore I still think Gripen has a chance in Norway.

L

Second test flight of SU-35 (?)

I found this on YouTube just now, claims to show the second test flight of SU-35:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jfsjycSMMLo

L