JakobSDon’t think of it as Sweden joining Tempest, think of it more as Sweden is considering joining Tempest and how now launched a study with the UK to find out if it is possible. I mean it would have been insane for us to just jump aboard after one year, these thing takes a lot more time before they get of the ground.
JakobSSorry but I have to be honest, I really don’t like the nose of that thing.
JakobSI recall that when Sweden first ordered 60 Gripen E there was talk of a further 10 being added. When you talk of raising the number of airframes, are you referring to that?
It’s not really in the cards yet, even if it may materialise. Defence white papers happen every 5 years here, last one was 2015. They are about to release another one this year for 2020-2025. Another 10 Gripen E’s won’t really be in the cards until the next white paper for 2025-2030.
But I’m not sure the same logic is applied anymore. Back when it was decided about adding 10 more planes everyone here in Sweden (everyone not interested in defence matters) was still pretty damaged from the “everlasting peace thinking” from the 90’s.
Back then in 2015 we were still suposed to reduce our Air Force to only 60 planes. When Crimea happened everyone lost it and politicians quickly made all kind of different damage control. Promising another 10 planes so we would have 70 planes was one of them.
That logic dosen’t apply anymore and there is no talk about reducing the size of the Air Force anymore. The C/D will keep flying here for a long time to come. So I don’t think there is any need for adding another 10 more planes to the order when we have around 100 spare Gripens that can fly for another 20 years.
What have been leaked so far from the working group handling the upcoming 2020 white paper is that all Gripen D’s will be kept and used as school planes in the future. Also the Air Force is not to drop it’s number so at least 40 Gripen C’s will be kept. There have also been talk from the Air Force that they need 120 Gripen in 8 divisions for the future, so maybe even more C’s will be kept, but that we will probably not see until the 2025 white paper (training pilots and crews for a larger Air Force however is not something that just happens over a night, even if politicians seems to think/wish so).
IMO the best way would be to only order 60 Gripen E’s and keep as many C’s as needed. Then enter a project with either Brittain or France/Germany. That new plane can replace the C’s in the late 2030’s.
Also, do you happen to know what is the purpose of retaining any A/B frames? Are these stock to be used for conversion to C/D if SAAB gains another customer for a Gripen C sale or lease? If that is the idea, won’t it be much quicker and cheaper to offer SwAF C’s once E’s are being delivered to the air force?
Well they are still an asset, so better to keep them than to just scrap them. If Saab gains another customer for C/D’s then parts of these last planes can be used to keep the cost down. The engines for an example does not have many hours on them.
As of right now these planes are however being harvested for the first Gripe E’s in order to save the planes that are operational in the Air Force today. So all the components that is the same as in the E will be taked (for an example the ejection seat).
I don’t really think selling C/D’s from the SwAF’s inventory is an option anymore.
EDIT: When I say we need to join one of the future fighter projects in Europe my preference is strongly for the British one.
JakobSThe main problem faced by the Swede is their low number of airframe… and available pilots. They can get some T/x fitted with Air policing cap and just make for the delay as efficiently (a T/X will certainly outdog a Gripen; so when you’d have to go visual, it could be better to be flying the former than the latter).
There is no shortage of airframes in SwAF. Obviously the number is to low if you ask me, but the number is as high as it is politically decided to be.
If the politicians were to raise the number of airframes in the future (which is likely) there will be no shortages of Gripen airframes. There is still A/B’s left and the C/D’s have lot’s of lifetime left in them if they are to be kept longer.
JakobSSo will the first be delivered this year as planned ?
No, the first delivery will be 2020 according to the government. Saab however still claims it will be 2019, but they have started talking about different “definitions” and “meaning” of delivery, so obviously the government is right in this case.
JakobSIs there anyone who knows the planned production schedule of Gripen E in Sweden for their air force (+ initial frames for Brazil)? Additionally, is there a maximum number per year the current Swedish FAL can handle? I am curious partly because I am aware that Rafale export contracts have resulted in deferred deliveries to French forces and wonder if the same fate might befall the SwAF if, for example, Switzerland were to order 30-40 Gripen E.
Last new Gripen E will be delivered to SwAF in 2026 under the current schedule. That may slip to 2027 given that first delivery of Gripen E have been slightly postponed.
Given the state of the current fleet of Gripen C/D’s, and how few hours they have, I would be extremely surprised if SwAF could not handle a delay in Gripen E if that is what stands in the way of a new export order.
JakobS– 40 of the B variant seems excessive for just the two ships. The standard aviation compliment for the Izumo class is just nine helis. I’m sure you can do more, and you can perhaps pack the F-35’s a little tighter. But they aren’t going to be able to handle more than 14-16 combined fighters and helis while conducting ops. There just isn’t enough deck space. I think 25 to 30 would be a more reasonable estimate. That would still leave some spares for training and such.
That is silly, I would argue the direct opposite. If you have 40 planes then expect half of them to be unavailable at any given time. And if the crap hits the fan and you actually have to use them you will be very glad for every single one of them. Plus they may even plan to build more Izumo’s. I would say a bigger number than 40 is definitely needed.
JakobSThe company that produced the Tempest mockup have now completed some revisions to it and the second mockup that has been made.
Which company made the mockup?
JakobSWhile the radar for the Gripen may have been designed and built in England, if Italy should decide ( for whatever reason ) that Leonardo cannot sell military equipment to Sweden ( or any country buying that plane ), guess what ?
The Gripen no longer has a radar !
Yeah, but then no countries would like to make business with Leonardo in the future because you can’t trust them for ****. And all of a sudden Italy is without Leonardo and nobody is happy. So it dosen’t really work that way.
JakobSNot to break the ambiance, but i spoke one year ago with Sweden Chief of staff and SAAB representatives at swaf fans meeting (can’t go this year, in England ). Saab did not think about any fiture plane as Gripen is not yet operational.
Wrong. There have been loads of articles from Saab here in the Swedish press about the future. Saab is thinking heavily about what will come after Gripen and which project and studies they now will have take part in for being relevant. Both the UK and the Franco/German project have been talked about and Håkan Buskhe have said that he speaks with he’s european colleuges about these things very often.
Both Saab and SWAF is aware that Gripen E is only artificial breathing until a new generation can come to life, even if they will never admit this officialy.
It also promises greater workshare than the French and Germans will offer.
This is my thinking also. France have now been giving the leading roll it wanted for so long, no way they are going to let the UK in on a top level. The Franco/German thing will without doubt be a Thales and Safran creation.
JakobSDid not knew they actually signed for the F15
Not sure if it’s final yet. I saw that Pentagon cleared the sale about a month ago, but I think it also has to pass congress/senate. Bob Corker said earlier this fall that he would block all deals to sell arms to the gulf nations until the Qatar criss is resolved. That may be a reason why this old deal with the Typhoon came up again very quickly.
JakobSWas that not due to its size? IIRC Super Hornet does not fit the protective bays used to protect Hornet and the cost of enlarging the bays was expected to be too high to be acceptable.
No, it was because it was “only” an F-5 replacement. Boeing concluded that the Super Bug was to much plane for this deal, so they saved themselves the money it cost to participate. As Dassault and Airbus found out, they were right.
JakobSif it’s meant to replace the Rafale, obviously, the french will want it to have a naval version.
Lot’s of french fighters have been built without a naval version. Rafale will be good for France’s naval needs for many decades to come, when they wear out they will simply build more of them.
as for “projecting power to 3rd world countries”, that’s what everybody does…
Really, “everybody” is a former colonial power and cruises around the Mediterranean with a nuclear carrier?
You think France will replace Rafale M in 2030 with Rafale M+? It seems to me they wouldn’t want to fly Rafales in 2060 or so.
They will bring out a new version of Rafale for the Air Force in 2025, with deliveries going on into the 2030’s. I don’t see why the navy could not fly the Rafale into the 2060’s when the Air Force is going to do so.
Not all potential enemies are third world countries.
Please give an example on how the carrier could be used at all in a high conflict scenario where the enemy is to advanced for the Rafale to be used.
I doubt that. Any future USN effort aka F/A-xx will probably be heavier than Super Hornets for including all the gizmos internally. SH is already too heavy for CdG so unless the French want to replace their ship with a super carrier, they’ll have to (again) find a light weight naval fighter.
Super Hornet is qualified for CdG. Besides, France will have have replaced CdG with a new bigger carrier if and when a new generation of fighters becomes available to them. They running out and buying F-35’s in the next couples of years isn’t going to happen.
besides the source code, even without that, the US control what the fighters they sell are used for.. can you imagine the french going to some country where they want to intervene and have Washington tell them to forget it?
And how many times have US caused troubles for France in such a scenario?
Should France see the need in the future to fill a small part of the carrier wing with 5th generation planes it is more likely to buy them from the US. Sure the people from the french industry might give another impression, but when reality kicks in that will simply be the case.
JakobSOne thing about the oft-told tales of the SR-71 being a “victim”. In those cases, the SRs were flying at the same known altitude at the same known speed, on the same known route with no deviations to either side at all, at a known time (determined by the Blackbirds known launch time when they flew that repeated mission) no maneuvering or attempt to avoid, no countermeasures, etc. With a scenario like that, it’s not surprising that they were “intercepted”.
However, had the missions had to be flown in a “hot” environment without those constraints, I doubt that the Viggens, good as they were, would have been able to achieve a firing solution, if they even could have gotten to the area in time.
Quoted for truth.
We were considered a friendly nation, that’s why those tales are possible. Had we been considered an hostile nation we would never have seen those blackbirds.
JakobSnaval operations where the british seem too fond of STOVL aircraft to pay for a CATOBAR version which is mandatory for the french.
I don’t really see a naval version of any new european fighter in the next decades. The British are busy with the F-35 and France will undoubtedly just build more Rafale’s when the current naval ones end their service.
France use their carrier to project power in the third world. For a high conflict scenario with an even enemy the carrier won’t be used, hence why I believe Rafale will be the carrier plane for many more decades.
Should France decide that they actually want a new generation naval fighters they will more likely join the US Navy effort, rather than designing the new european fighter for it.
Sign In
