LokeMy understanding is that the main issue with the Rafale as the one and only MMRCA was the costs; it simply did not fit into the budgets.
So I think they have two main options:
1. Buying more of what they have already in the inventory (or will have soon).
They could add a few more Rafale on top of the current plan of 36, and combine this with an increase in the number of SU-30mki and Tejas mk2, and perhaps also some Mirage 2000 from e.g. UAE.
2. Add one more a/c to the mix; however for this to make sense they must go for something which is very cheap to compensate for the extra cost of operating one additional type of a/c. This would point to Gripen E/F.
I simply don’t see them going for both the Typhoon and the Rafale. They could call Austria and ask about operating costs of the Typhoon.
LokeIn the previous post I was thinking about the internal emitters in the E, they are known to be GaN.
However Gripen can also be supplied with an external jammer pod. According to the the info sheet at AviationWeek (from 2014?) the pod is BOQ-X300:
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2014/09/asd_09_25_2014_jas7.pdf
However there seems now to be a newer pod available, the BOQ-X310:
There seems to be a complete lack of information on the capabilities of both the X300 and X310 pods…
Presumably the X310 is a further development of the X300 with improved capabilities. And presumably both pods can jam ground based systems (why else bother with a jammer pod in addition to the internal jammers).
Anyway, a Gripen E with this newly developed (or to-be-developed?) BOQ-X310 pod, new sensors, improved sensor fusion, and the MAR-1 anti-radiation missile may turn out to be a quite effective SEAD platform… or it may not. We simply don’t know due to lack of information. It is tempting to guess however that it will be an effective SEAD platform. Saab/Ericsson has a quite good reputation in the field of EW systems.
LokeGripen E and EW capabilities
There is little information in the public domain regarding the jamming capabilities for Gripen, including the E version.
We know that the E will have GaN emitters, with higher power. However GaN are also known for offering higher bandwidth.
Could jamming of ground based radars be feasible? Perhaps not the search radars but the trackers?
Then there is of course BriteCloud, a off-board jammer decoy which is supposed to be efficient against both airborne and ground based threats, and which is being integrated into the Gripen.
http://www.selex-es.com/product-portfolio/electronic-warfare/britecloud/britecloud-3
Loke$4 mil is nothing
I wish I was in the position to make such a statement!
Edit: congratulations to the F-35 development team and USMC. I believe that the F-35 will become successful in the end.
LokeThere seems also to be a 4th important requirement: That of OCA/SEAD, which would favor the F-35, or alternatively an SH/Growler combo.
I completely forgot: Gripen E will have SEAD capabilities, with the MAR-1 missile:
Another missile that will be part of the Gripen weapons load is the Mectron MAR-1 air-to-surface anti-radiation missile. The original announcement of this program had lead some observers to speculate that it had been designed solely for the Pakistan Air Force, but Mectron executives told AIN, “The MAR-1 has always been intended for the use of the Brazilian Air Force and was designed to meet our armed forces’ requirements first of all above any other customers’.”
LokeTest test !
You lost me there!?
I find it a bit funny that a swede in Finland think finns cannot read swedish newspapers albeit they are taught from third grade to learn swedish.
Perhaps; I have been to Finland just a couple of times and when talking to some of the locals I had to switch to English since they did not understand my Norwegian whereas I have never spoken English to a Swede, they never had issues with my Norwegian…
Apparently swedes ( finnish swedes ) think something in Finland has happened as they are leaving for Sweden in large quantities.
Increased aerial activity on the Russian side apparently make some folks loose their nerves.
Are they really leaving in large quantities? If yes, perhaps it’s more related to the Finnish economy and not the Russkies? (If they were really concerned about the russkies they should flee to Norway, which is protected by NATO… ;))
LokeAll people in Finland are taught swedish and finnish, but this fellow clearly isn’t able to see the situation in Finland, besides in the swedish minority news..which actually isn’t the main media here. Sorry he seems to write good finnish too…so it was a typo in the text I read.
So what is the situation in Finland?
LokeSweden lowers loan cost in Saab fighter deal for Brazil
Full story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/brazil-sweden-saab-idUSL1N1091UT20150729
They aim at signing the final contract in 12 days.
Good news for Sweden and Saab.
LokeDo keep your hat, not sure I’ve heard that claim.
The Norwegian evaluation government claimed that the F-35 would be cheaper than the Gripen, on the basis of the evaluation reports.
In reality what the reports said was that they could make estimates for the life cycle costs for F-35 but that the situation for Gripen was “too uncertain” to estimate life cycle costs. I found that a bit puzzling, but that’s what they concluded.
Regarding purchasing costs, the Norwegian evaluation report concluded that purchasing 48 F-35 would be cheaper than purchasing 48 Gripen…
Loke1. number of a/c similar to today (64)
2. maintenance done locally
3. stealth a/c is preferred1 and 2 would favor Gripen; however 3 would favor the F-35.
There seems also to be a 4th important requirement: That of OCA/SEAD, which would favor the F-35, or alternatively an SH/Growler combo.
I think the Finnish air force will push for a decent number of F-35.
OTOH we also saw from the Swiss leaks that although the Swiss air force pushed for Rafale they had to accept the Gripen since this was the only fighter that met the requirements (although barely so) and that fit into the tight budget.
LokeThat cannot be a finnish blogger as the only finnish word was faulty finnish in the text.
From his blog:
I come from the Swedish-speaking minority in Finland, meaning that I have the possibility of following the discussion in both countries without the problems of a language barrier.
LokeThen those ‘serious forums’ must involve a lot of discussions on the aesthetics of military aircraft, because any debate on application/utility/cost will inevitably result in some form of a ‘vs discussion’. The two most basic questions for any fighter aircraft program are –
1. How will it perform? (vs enemy aircraft, ground defences, static & mobile targets)
2. Is it worth the cost/should it be bought? (vs the alternatives incl. other fighter aircraft, bombers, missiles combinations, or demilitarization)
Me and all the (juvenile?) air forces in the world that are running open competitions for aircraft (consisting of a head-to-head technical & financial evaluation of all contenders).
Ah, I see; you misunderstand what I was referring to when I said “vs discussions”. What I meant is probably somewhat better explained here:
Also you are partly wrong; when a professional air force assess new aircraft they normally do the following:
1. make a list of requirements (and perhaps also some mission scenarios)
2. Check the capabilities of each candidate against the requirements.
So if an airforce is assessing e.g. the Rafale, F-35 and Typhoon, they will typically not do a “technical head-to-head comparison” of e.g. the Rafale against the F-35, but instead check how close each a/c is to meet the requirements, which is a somewhat different process.
Anyway if you are still in doubt, I suggest you do the following:
1. Register at defencetalk.com
2. Start a new thread, giving it a catchy name like “F-35 vs. Rafale” and explain in the first posting why you think the F-35 is superior to Rafale.
3. Wait for the reaction of the moderators…
LokeA Finnish blogger on the Finnish fighter replacement:
It seems to me that it will be very difficult (if not impossible) to find an a/c that meets some very important criteria (to Fin:
1. number of a/c similar to today (64)
2. maintenance done locally
3. stealth a/c is preferred
1 and 2 would favor Gripen; however 3 would favor the F-35.
Norway, a much richer country, is struggling to find money to purchase 48 F-35 (+ 4 training a/c). The Finnish economy is somewhat smaller than Norway’s, and much weaker at the moment. Also, my understanding is that only very limited maintanence will be done locally with the F-35.
Seems to me the Finnish would have to compromise on some of their requirements. It will be interesting to see what they decide to do. 30-35 stealthy F-35 that cannot be fully maintained locally, or a higher number of non-stealthy Gripen that can be maintained locally?
LokeThere not flaws, they’re assumptions. Assumptions that the individuals reading it are level-headed people that can recognize a reference to a loss-exchange against a hostile 4/4.5/5 gen fighter, not against extraterrestrial aliens or turboprop fighters.
People that have been around for a while tend to frown at vs. discussions… some of the more “serious” forums (frequented by professionals) even ban such discussions.
I will not spend time and effort explaining why this is so; instead I’ll just wait. As time goes by, you will grow wiser.
On verra.
Lokehttp://www.sldinfo.com/building-an-8000-hour-tactical-aircraft-21st-century-materials-technology/
Some interesting comments…
Sign In
