nocutstoRAFSo as long as it can carryout a meaningful strike role I concede that the Sea Gripen operating of a STOBAR carrier, assuming that the changes to the airframe are as easy as SAAB say is a good alternative to the J-35 if you (i.e RAF/FAA) do not need an all signing and all dancing 5th generation fighter!
Seems I should have searched a bit more otherwise I would have seen this has all been discussed before – with some pretty good info from the Rank 5 Registered Users like Swerve! The answers appears to be STOBAR Sea Gripen only works in the strike role if you can top up its tanks by buddy refueling – which is the same as how the Su-33’s seem to work 🙂
nocutstoRAFThis is no different to the Su-33 or any other CATOBAR operator, they can carry a heavier load from proper airbases than they can from the carrier, but were designed to carry enough from a carrier to be potent and useful.
Not sure how valid this link is (it was just the top one for a search of Payload of a Sea Gripen): http://www.stratpost.com/saab-offers-naval-gripen-to-india
Anyway the key paragraphs are:
“According to Peter Nilsson, Gripen’s Vice President of Operational Capabilities, the Sea Gripen is intended for both CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery) as well as STOBAR (Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery) operations. “There will obviously be differences in the MTOW (Maximum Take-Off Weight). In a CATOBAR concept, the Sea Gripen will have a MTOW of 16,500 kilograms and a maximum landing weight of 11,500 kilograms. In a STOBAR concept it depends on the physics of the carrier. Roughly, the payload of fuel and weapons in STOBAR operations will be one-third less than the payload in CATOBAR operations. There will be no differences in ‘bring-back’ capability,” he says.”
“The Sea Gripen will be around 400 kilograms heavier than the Gripen NG, with the augmented airframe giving ‘an empty weight between 7500-8000 kg’.”
If I am doing the calculations right then the CATOBAR Sea Gripen will be able to carry 8,500 kg of fuel and weapons and a STOBAR Sea Gripen will be able to carry around 5,600 kg of fuel and weapons and I think that a full fuelled Gripen would carry around 2,300 kg of internal fuel http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/jas39.htm, possibly more (I think it should be 2,900kg of internal fuel), this would only leave 3,300 kg (or 2,700 kg) for ordnance, would this be enough ordnance for it operating in strike role, especially if it needed to carry drop tanks? – as Stormshadow weighs 1,230kg, Maverick ~300kg, Paveway II/III ~500kg, Paveway IV ~230kg, General Purpose Bombs either 505 kg or 312kg, ALARM 268kg, Litening III ~200kg of course a Brimstone only weighs 48.5 kg. Plus I have seen pictures of Gripen’s flying with 2 x 300 gal drop tanks which I think weighs around 900 kg a drop tank but I cannot find a definite source for this! (Would 2 x 300 gal drop tanks, and 3 or 4 Paveway IV and 2 ASRAAM be a reasonable configuration for the strike role?)
According to my first source the bring home weight is 11,500 kg which means that even if you dump all your fuel you would not be able to bring home more than 2,500 kg of ordnance – I guess this would be okay as Meteor weighs 185 kg, ASRAAM 85 kg so unless I am missing something (which I likely am) a STOBAR Sea Gripen would be able to carry out air defence and return to the carrier without dumping its weapons, and I would normally expect a fighter configured in strike role to have fired/dropped some of its ordnance before returning home.
So as long as it can carryout a meaningful strike role I concede that the Sea Gripen operating of a STOBAR carrier, assuming that the changes to the airframe are as easy as SAAB say is a good alternative to the J-35 if you (i.e RAF/FAA) do not need an all signing and all dancing 5th generation fighter!
PLEASE NOTE ALL WEAPONS WEIGHTS FROM WIKIPEDIA WHICH MAY EXPLAIN WHY THEY SEEM WRONG TO ANYONE!
nocutstoRAFWas it a Syrian reactor or was it Iran with North Korean assistance thinking outside the box? With the IAEA probing Iran it would make perfect sense to use Syria and attempt to hide a reactor. IMHO, they took that gamble and lost badly.
Was it just Syria that Iran had nuclear investment in? The question arises as to who is funding the North Korean reactor in Myanmar? Is Myanmar another attempt at Iran/North Korea thinking outside the box? With Iranian finance anything is possible!
‘IAEA chief says looking into Myanmar nuclear report’ (7th June 2010 report)
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-49107920100607
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-06/18/c_13356658.htm
TJ
The Syrian reactor appeared to look like the North Korean Yongbyon reactor from aerial shots – this would make the Syrian reactor a “Magnox” type of reactor which uses unenriched uranium. You can use a Magnox reactor to make plutonium for nuclear weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnox
Iran appears to be more interested in more advanced reactors – mainly Pressuried Water Reactors (PWR’s) which need enriched uranium. Obviously the problem there is highly enriched uranium can be used in a nuclear weapons.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/cnpp2009/countryprofiles/Iran/Iran2008.htm
nocutstoRAFCan they replace current government – I doubt it without heavy causalities on the American side or the use of Nuclear weapons. Have you ever seen the size of Iran’s Army ? America can have Aerial superiority but like in Vietnam they will find it hard to win on the ground without the support of the people. Imagine the IED situation 10000 times worse than Iraq, Iranians blatantly using children and women as human shields and a PR disaster if Americans fire on them. This will eventually lead to anti-war protests back home (probably worse than the NAM era) and Americans will pack their bags and go home.
My position on the matter is based on the fact that I went to university with the daughter of someone fairly senior in Iranian diplomatic circles and back in the early 90’s anyway she seemed to think there was little love of the Government in most of the cities – this was of course back when it was thought the pro-reformers would have a chance. I think there is still a big divide between the technocratic educated middle classes of Iran and the working class rural populations – so I doubt the Iranian government is universally loved.
However, do concede that it will be a high casualty situation – and I think that the US would have to wage total war. For example, even if I hated my Government, and wanted them out of power, if someone invades Britain I am fighting back no matter what and the more they kill people I know the more I am fighting back.
nocutstoRAFEchoing StevoJH on that sentiment, adding the Gripen is pretty much good to go and by far the cheapest option with the most stick time to its credit.
It’s design requirements mirror those of STOL (ramp style) carrier operations. It’s so small you really don’t have a problem storing 30 on a fleet carrier too. Anything you give away in arguable “fantastic technology” to a JSF you more than make up for in reduced complexity and cost-benefit ratio with no real loss in relative potency.
The Superbug I wouldn’t even consider. You’re not going to start building supercarriers.
– Would the Gripen be able to operate of a STOBAR carrier, or do you still need to go CATOBAR? If it operates of a STOBAR carrier could it take of with a reasonable payload? If not, how much of re-design is needed? Personally I do not know the answer to these questions, but I would have thought that it would cost a reasonable chuck of cash to modify the Gripen to operate of STOBAR or CATOBAR carrier, and that makes it a risk.
– I had not appreciated how much of a beast the Super Hornet is, I guess it the lifts could handle them, you would still be left with ~30% reduction (my crude calc of the difference in size) in the number of embarkable fighters so you would see a drop from a maximum of say 36 fighters to around 24 – 26 fighters if you went with the Super Hornet (I guess that is one way of saving money 🙂 )
nocutstoRAFWhy? Its much more expensive then STOVL and would require the Acquision of a dedicated fleet of aircraft for the RN rather then a Joint Force due to the increased training requirement for operating CATOBAR aircraft from a carrier..
Mostly because the only STOL fighter available is the F-35B and at it’s current stage of development and with the current economic climate it is hard to see how the Government will find the cash for the capital outlay for them unless the price and in service dates do not firm up soon. I accept over the life of the fighter/carrier CATOBAR costs more than STOL, but I think that if the more pessimistic cost estimates are true the Government will find it hard to pay $130 million a plane, especially if they are forking out a small fortune to keep the Harrier’s flying.
I just wish there was another STOL choice – a new generation Harrier, with AESA radar, new and improved engines, maybe a little bigger, able to land on the carrier with a full payload in hot climate, built with lots of composites and improved IR signature and reduce radar cross section.
nocutstoRAFRegime change ? Its one thing invading a country which is ruled with a heavy hand by a dictator who hails from a minority with in the country. The Iranian government (nvm the President the Supreme Leader and the Clergy) have huge popular support. Invading Iran will be another Vietnam. They will just give AKs to youth and even Kids and it would be impossible to occupy such a place.
Can the US invade Iran – Yes, can they replace the current Government – Yes, could they do all this without igniting a major civil war in Iran, and likely destabilising Iraq – No, could they do this without triggering a wider war in the Middle East – very unlikely. Would a US invasion of Iran gain UN backing – no, would it strain their relationships with UK – possibly, with France – Yes, with Russian -Yes, with China -Yes. Would Iran with nuclear weapons be worse than the above – I think (beyond their anti-Israel rhetoric) that the answer is no but it I think it would be close run situation.
Do I advocate an invasion, – hell no – do I think Israel should attack Iran’s nuclear facilities – no, for the reasons in my previous posts – as they cannot succeed if you define success as destroying Iran’s nuclear programme without any loss of planes, without any pilots being captured or without triggering a major military or political crisis in the Middle East. Do I think that Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities – I give it 1 in 3 chance!
nocutstoRAFAs for a good fixed wing STOL for the RN I would’ve thought a navalised Gripen would’ve been just what they were looking for. All the other choices seem poor by comparison, to my reckoning.
Firstly I should say (if it is not clear from my posts on various threads) that I think post SDSR that the UK will move from STOL carriers to CATOBAR carriers – this gives them four realistic choices for fighters – F-35C, Super Hornet, Rafale, and Gripen (you could also argue Tejas N and Mig-29K, but I think their are political reasons against those two)
The F-35C – will be the most advanced of the four, but it in service date is not guaranteed nor its price firmed up and I think the UK will want to fix the cost of the fighters for its carriers so I can see this as being a poor choice.
Super Hornet – would allow us to cross-train with the US, could negotiate a good price, will need some development work to incorporate full mix of UK weapons & systems (Litening III, Meteor and Brimstone for example). From a cost point of view the most likely.
Rafale – would allow us to cross-train with the French. Need some development work to incorporate UK weapons systems (Litening III, and current A2A missiles). If we persuade the French to buy an aircraft carrier I can see this being preferred over the Super Hornet.
Naval Gripen – Seems a fairly high risk as the plane has yet to be developed, I think it is only likely if Gripen NG is successful elsewhere and the development costs can be spread. If a naval variant already existed I think it would have been more likely.
nocutstoRAFIn the roles it would play I’d say K-I-S-S. Its not meant to be the high tech fighter listed for other roles.
Okay – though I thought the main improvement of the YA-7F was a more powerful engine in a longer body giving supersonic speed.
nocutstoRAFI think this is where the discussion spirals off into wider factors such geopolitical scenarios. The only certain way to have a non-nuclear Iran is to have a regime which isn’t pursing nuclear weapons. I don’t think the IAF can do anything about that. In that respect, would it be correct to say the Syrian strike was a success, as the regime there may still be pursuing nuclear weapons, but only have been delayed?
The destruction of the Syrian reactor has for the most part halted Syrian nuclear efforts – they will be hard pushed to build another experimental reactor to generate plutonium and Israel has demonstrated they can destroy any such plant with impunity – IAEA has found some irregularities with their declared nuclear activities, and it is hard to see how Syria will be able to develop nuclear weapons without US or Israel secret services finding out.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/schulte_syria.pdf
It is hard to see how Israel can achieve the same level of success with Iran, they have large well developed programme at multiple sites. The only way to stop their nuclear programme is regime change -which means a full scale invasion – which would require the US..
nocutstoRAFThe ‘success’ of the raids on Sudan and Syria was more to do with the inability of those two countries to respond in an appropriate manner to the air strikes. Geographical limitations did play their part, but that was not the overriding factor.
No one is claiming an IAF strike against Iran would be easy, which I have repeatedly stated, but then it’s not impossible either, which is what you seem not to grasp.
Jumping in here – (I was going to reply earlier in the thread but anyway) – I think this is the issue (again) of how you define success – IMHO to be successful Israel has be able to completely halt Iran’s nuclear programme, make it impossible for them to restart it, without loosing any planes, and no civilian casualties – anything else looks to much like a victory for Iran.
I think that a likely outcome of an Israel attack would be that they would have to launch multiple strikes over a week or so and at best the can damage the 4 sites, likely after neutralising various air defences and fighter bases. Along the way I imagine Israel will loose a couple of planes to lucky hits, possibly more – assuming the pilots bail out, they will likely be captured, no doubt followed by a “show trial” for the hapless pilots.
At this point Russia will be backed into the corner over the S-300’s it has been dangling in front of the Iranian’s and they will be delivered making it harder for any follow up attacks on the reactors which Iran will re-build. It is even possible that Iran might approach Russia (or China) to purchase more up to date air craft.
Plus we can expect political fallout across the Gulf area and Iran is just unpredictable enough to retaliate in some way or another.
nocutstoRAFClausewitz claimed you never start a war without a sound idea to end it successful.
So Israel is in a bind? They can attack the nuclear facilities using conventional forces but they cannot win, as the definition of success would be to stop Iran’s nuclear programme, and at best all the they can do is slow it down and even this is risky due to the fact that the Iranian’s have spread their facilities about (I think this summaries the general consensus but correct me if I am wrong – I am often am, and prone to going on a bit).
nocutstoRAF(Fixed Wing)
Ling-Temco-Vought A-7 Corsair II (T41 powered)
Interesting choice – how about the Vought YA-7F, as I assume A-7 would need quite a few upgrades?
nocutstoRAF…The comms are not a massive problem, the latest generation of UCAVs can act with a great degree of automity (sp?), any other updates required can be sent through Satcomms to a base station anywhere in the world, making them pretty hard to intercept from the ground.
I presume that only time uplink might get spotted is if the operator is piloting the UCAV and the uplink is operating constantly, and I guess that will only happen if the UCAV is making an attack run.
nocutstoRAFThere’s actually quite a lot to consider. Is cost an option? Beings that the nation is oil rich, I would imagine we’d have a fair degree of freedom. Likewise, what do our neighbors have? Are they relics from the mid-Cold War or do they have relatively updated equipment that we need to find parity with?
Okay – to be a bit tongue cheek, lets call the made up country the Liberal Republic of Beige (LRB) and give it three neighbours –
Republic of Indigo
Large, oil rich, military expansive, does not play well with its neighbours and has been sanctioned a lot by US and Europe, most recently for making threats against the Democratic Republic of Scarlet, after the Democratic Republic seized a cargo ship carrying missiles destined for the Democratic People’s Republic of Plum. Has a large fleet of “domestic” built fighters which look awfully like clones of F-4’s Phantoms and F-5’s Tiger III’s, but with more modern avionics plus a ageing fleet of F-16 Block 20’s, a good number of older Chinese Fighter Bombers and trainers, and ballistic and cruise missiles capable of hitting all their neighbours. Has a large marine force, and navy but it is all based on 80’s and 90’s technology. Definitely a threat
Democratic Republic of Scarlet
Close US ally, most configured for self defence and support expeditionary forces into neighbouring countries. Has lots of F-16 Block 50/52’s and has also acquired F-15 Slam Eagles. Has single largest air force in region. Can be currently considered neutral, but their relations have been souring of late with LRB due to conflict over fishing rights.
United Kingdoms of Purple
A collection of city states, rather chaotic, until 1987 each city state operated their own forces, since 1987 they have agreed joint defence, but procurement has been protracted, illogical and highly political. Operates a mixed fleet of legacy Russian, US and French fighters and support aircraft and they are in the middle of modernisation programme and looking to buy F-35. Extremist from the cult of atheism have been using the poorly controlled border regions of UKP to conduct incursions into to the Democratic Republic of Scarlet, who as dedicated Jedi’s offend the cult of atheism sensibilities. Also due to the fragmented nature of the country, they are very unpredictable, and they also are contesting fishing rights with LRB. However they are the largest trade partner with LRB and have made huge soft loans to LRB to get the country up and running again.
Lets give the Liberal Republic of Beige’s air force a budget $15 billion a year including running costs, and say it has spent $60 billion in the last few years building up it’s air force
Sign In
