thobbesWhat would be the prospects of a GRIPEN-LITE Trainer in the international market? Boeing and SAAB could also perhaps discuss leasing out the jets to the USAF and other Air forces..
US adopting GRIPEN-LITE even just as trainer automatically opens up Gripen sales to current F-16 and F-5 users who can’t afford heavier 4.5th generation or 5th generation jets.
In some ways the same happened with F-5A/B/E/F – the USAF using T-38s and Aggressor F-5s probably helped make international customers feel secure as they were not buying an orphan aircraft.
Yes I know T-38 is different from an F-5A/B but similarities are there.
F-20G on the other hand was a failure for a number of reasons, but one that was often quoted was lack of USAF support.
thobbesJust thinking, the other thing that could allow ANG NORAD units to convert to JAS-39 is if the USA continues with it’s shift in external force projection.
The new paradigm seems to emphasise following elements:
1. Use local/indigenous forces as core combat forces
2. US support limited to following:
a. Training
b. Provision of aid – funding and equipment
c. Special operations used where required
d. Provision of drones.
This kind of operation limits US footprint, attracts far less media/political attention and reduces risk.
These kind of operations have been run in Latin America for decades and have been expanded in war on terror to includes Pakistan, Philippines, Yemen, Somalia etc.
It was also standard operating procedure in Cold War to use proxies as much as possible.
People should bare in mind that expeditionary warfare on the scale seen in recent years is a new thing. Other than Vietnam and Korea, US interventions in Cold War were generally far fewer and far less intensive.
US has become war weary so return to extensive useage of proxies is possible.
So how does this relate to F-39A/B Gryphon?
If the US decides this is it’s main approach and US conventional forces are to be used far more sparingly, then you don’t need to deploy those NORAD assigned units to expeditionary warfare and they become strictly homeland defence. And in this scenario, JAS-39 or F-16 is perfectly suitable and F-35 is overkill for Cessna chasing.
You still have a large F-35 expeditionary fleet for when required including ANG units not dedicated to Homeland air defence.
Just an idea!
thobbesUnfortunately you’re right Bring_It_On.
In some ways it’s ridiculous to have F-15s or F-35s chasing Cessnas but in this day and age those same ANG units do deploy outside of continental US.
Though the 6 ANG F-15C/D units haven’t had much to do in recent years unlike the numerous F-16C/D or A-10 units.
thobbesIn the 70’s, the USAF didn’t even considered the Skoshi Tiger seriously despite obvious advantage of the solution at the time not even the F5E. It waited firmly until the F16 was built around its own specification.
Skoshi was evaluated in 1965 and found to be similar to performance to an F-100 except for range. At that time there was no real A2A combat risk for US aviators as North Vietnamese fighter operations were only starting in that year. LWF studies only started in 1969 and RFP was in 1971.
Second F-5E/F was not designed around lessons of Vietnam, whereas LWF program that resulted in F-16 was. F-5E/F was always meant to be an international export program as part of International Fighter Aircraft competition.
By the time Northrop won competition for IFA, LWF program was already being formulated in US defence circles.
F-5s were always intended by the USA as the equivalent of Soviet “monkey model” MiG-21s and MiG-23s. Basically simple and cheap to acquire and operate by poorer airforces and with reduced fall out if technology fell into wrong hands. They even planned a monkey model F-16 powered by J79 turbojet.
However the F-5 has done stirling service and for many new air arms it allowed them to transition to supersonics relatively easily.
It also provided great combat service in Vietnam (South Vietnam), Ogaden War, Iran-Iraq, Western Sahara (though unfortunately they were some of the first jets to eat MANPADS) etc.
As for aggressors:
US currently use F-15C and F-16C for Aggressor duties and has done for a very long time.
Current USAF Aggressor squadrons are:
18 AS – F-16C/D-30 (based in Alaska, basing is being debated)
64 AS – F-16C/D-32 (Nellis AFB, Nevada)
65 AS – F-15C/D (Nellis AFB, Nevada)
USN/USMC operates a variety of F-5E/F, F-16A/B as well as in service F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F for Aggressor duties:
VMFT- 401 (USMC) – F-5E/F
VFC-12 (USN) – F/A-18A+ (converted recently from F/A-18C)
VFC-13 (USN) – F-5F/N
VFC-111 (USN) – F-5F/N
NFWS – F-16A (embargoed PAF jets) as well as F/A-18A/B/E/F
There’s also a lot of civilian providers in USA equipped with everything from Learjets to J-35 Drakens.
Hence – it is possible that USAF and possibly USN would use JAS-39/T/A-50 as an aggressor if they’re selected for LIFT role. It does fit with USAF model of using current in service aircraft. It also fits the USN model of using lighter jets (F-5E or F-16A-15) for part of the role.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see some F-35As painted up in extravagant colour scheme and used as aggressors as well.
I don’t see F-35Cs being used for aggressor role as they’re too few in number. But F/A-18s will probably continue in Aggressor role well into the future.
EDIT: Oh and JAS-39 fits in well with ANG homeland defence/NORAD role too.
That would allow F-35s to be dedicated to expeditionary role, whilst JAS-39s chase down errant Cessnas and Boeings. Only exception is Alaska, where you have two F-22 squadrons permanently based to deter Russian bombers and provide reserve for PACAF.
And JAS-39 wouldn’t technically be an extra type as it would already be acquired in large numbers as T-38 replacement.
In fact it would be one of the most numerous types in USAF service, equipping AE&TC, ANG, and ACC Aggressor units. It would probably also replace T-38s serving in U-2 in ACC and strategic bomber forces in AFGSC.
It would also serve as chase and test planes with every single research and test unit including NASA!
thobbesNo probs!
thobbesIf UAVs weren’t around, an RF-22C Raptor (F-22B was cancelled dual seater) would’ve been a good choice for a high altitude theatre level recce platform.
thobbesInteresting stuff, swerve!
By Asiatic, I was more referring to Asia Minor and Caucasus but obviously I’m wrong!
We coastal Croats (aka Dalmatians) don’t look very Slavic or even European – in fact we look more Turkish. I’ve seen Arabs (especially Syrians and Lebanese) that look more European than Dalmatian Croats.
But I’m not sure how much Slavic stock Dalmatians have and how much of it was earlier peoples inhabiting the coast or how much mingling there was with Turks (city where I’m from actually was besieged at least once or twice by Turks).
There was also a lot of Italians in Dalmatia (all ethnically cleansed post WWII) and again I’m not sure how many of those were possibly Southern Italians who might have had North African or Arab genetic stock.
thobbesThanks Phil.
Much appreciated.
thobbesHalloweene, do you know what those additional UAEAF F-16s are for?
Are they to create a new squadron (Shaheen 4 Sqn?) or are they to replace the Mirage 2000s delivered in 1980s (and subsequently upgraded to -9 standard)?
This would imply a fleet of 36-ish M2000-9 and 105-ish F-16E/F.
Also is the Rafale/Eurofighter competition there to replace other M2000-9s or again expanding the number of squadrons?
Oh and have they made any plans to disperse the fighter fleet? Basing 5 out of 6 squadrons on a single airbase sounds like suicide to me.
Base coordinates for those who want to see how many F-16s and M2000s (as well as USAF F-15s and KC-135s) they can spy:
24°14’54″N 054°32’52″E
thobbesI’m amazed he called India’s commitment to FGFA “crystal ball gazing.”
thobbesI think talking about future F-35 users beyond 2030-2040 is quite pointless. We don’t know how the situation will develop.
From all Eastern European countries it was only Poland which has decided to purchase new 4th fighters (F-16 Block 52+). Plus Czechs and Hungarians operating Gripens on lease contracts. Now count in Serbia with that small MiG-29M2 purchase.
All other countries stick with upgrading the old designs or buying 2nd hand.
And nearly all of these countries went had fighter fleets between 200-500 aircraft strong in 1991. Poland has been amazing in that it’s retained it’s fleet at 112 aircraft for so long. But even here the Su-22 is gone by 2020 and will at best be replaced by 1 additional fighter squadron or some UAVs and at worst by nothing at all.
Hence fleet drops to 80-96 aircraft by 2020 and that’s still a massive power compared to average Eastern European Air Force with 12-16 supersonic fighters, many of which aren’t even fully operational.
Africa and Latin America are even worse for fighter markets with pretty much a total collapse since 1991 (some exceptions exist).
I think it is quite possible that Romania might get F-35s one day, but most likely used 2nd ex-USAF examples which don’t really help the LM to raise production numbers. Of course, I cannot rule out that Romanian or Bulgarian economy will have improved to the point that they could be even considering a purchase like that but I personally find it quite unlikely. And even then, getting 2nd hand Typhoons for air policing would be a better option for these countries, IMHO.
I agree with this.
Whatever the case, unless the world gets more warlike prospects for fighter fleets are dim. And the whilst the USA is the unmatched superpower, the opportunity for conventional wars ala Iran-Iraq, India-Pakistan, Arab Israeli or even Ethiopia-Eritrea is low. Nukes mean any large power conflicts are nigh impossible even if USA does lose it’s military, economic and diplomatic power.
thobbesIf you actually believe what you said then why do you come to a forum full of military nerds who want to talk about airplanes?
There’s a lot more to military airplanes than “BUY F-35, BUY F-35” which is the line spouted by some members (as well as as BUY JF-17).
It’s like stating your a music fan but only liking one song in the world and disregarding everything else as rubbish or irrelevant.
When your view is essentially so political that you have no desire but to see all those aircraft programs shut down and money spent on social program instead.
Whose talking shutting down aircraft programs?
Personally I think some programs should be more embraced – JAS-39 is ideal for the poorer countries or those who don’t wish to spend much on defence.
JF-17 is the same – however globally defence spending rates are pretty low in the world. Since 1991 fighter market has collapsed by 90%.
Oh and F-35 is a great asset for those who need that kind of door kicking capability
They make arguments aimed towards a more political audience are they state clearly incorrect facts aimed at a more low information audience then those on this forum.
What a load of crap. I’ve actually posted plenty of examples of actual procurement, actual force structures and actual history compared to the BUY F-35 crowd ( Scooter and you being the new kid on the BUY F-35 block).
thobbesI wonder if Thailand will eventually get those South African Gripens.
Anyhow from memory there’s about 27 F-5s still in service – I think they’re all modernised to F-5T standard.
thobbesSad to hear that a pilot died. May he rest in peace.
thobbesWell look at that: “my wish” correlates with actual policy. India isn’t buying F-35s and is buying FGFAs in real life. :eagerness:
Sign In
