eagleThanks, good to know. This actually means Gripen is the only jet on offer which doesn’t need integration work. Makes the choice all the more plausible.
Yeah I agree I was stretching it with the conscript maintenance model but the engine point is utterly fair. They already maintain the GE-F404, the GE-F414 being an evolution will be easier on their maintenance crews.
Certainly. 🙂
eagleOh dear, he really seems to have an issue, or an agenda. Surely the evaluation costs of CHF 8 Million are well spent. If the Swiss AF simply called SAAB and told them they chose Gripen, I bet the offer would be slightly more than 8 Million more expensive.
If they had chosen Rafale and Typhoon, the same arguments could be made: No need for an evalution if you choose the best/the most expensive anyway :rolleyes:
eagleI am a bit confused by the various reports (from the Basler Zeitung), clearly at the beginning, the Swiss said all three aircraft passed the benchmark ( of the F-18).
This report, from which the graph supposedly comes from clearly shows that the Gripen did not meet it at either stage. The ‘confidential report’ also also states the Rafale was the only aircraft the pass the benchmark (this refuted by it’s own figures which shows the Typhoon also passed)
The newspaper reports are not official. Officially, they all passed the benchmark.
Never mind the Typhoon being as good as the hornet in a2a in 2008, apparently it was for a2g too!
Well, thats not too far off I think. A-G is a no brainer even today. And in A-A, the Swiss Hornet is very capable with C-7 AMRAAM, AIM-X, HMCS and Super Hornet FCS.
Electronic gizmos (ECM, RWR, IFF) apparently are on par with US systems, at least since the latest upgrade started in 2008.
Also, after the UAE debacle, does anyone else think that Dassault stating the Swiss “knowingly decided not to put Switzerland at the highest level in Europe as regards the performance of its new combat aircraft.” is a little …undiplomatic?
You’d think so, but actually thats what Ueli Maurer (defence minister) said himself 😉
eagleClarification – Carrel is a former SwAF boss.
Important difference, note also he regretted the choice on Radio Suisse Romande i.e. a French speaking radio.
All the fuss about leaked data, Gripen not being good enough and Rafale is the only way to go is slightly curious to say the least. But I mentioned that already.
eagleDo you have a source?
See the first post, you said it yourself the deal is about the E/F, not some interim version.;)
If you’re thinking about doing the assembly in Switzerland, or contribute some parts to the upgrade, thats possible and probably will happen due to offsets. But the end result will be a standard Gripen E/F.
Unless of course people go crazy during negotiations. 😀
The Gripen NG has a slightly larger wing than the C/D.
Didn’t know that. Do you have any details? The specs say wing span remains at 8.4m, and “Some structural changes have been made to the wing, but its fundamental design remains unchanged.”
At least thats what it says in Gripen News 23 April 2008. Are there newer specs?
Also, do you happen to know if its possible to carry 3 500kg LGBs on the centerline? 3 dumb bombs seems to be possible.
eagleDo we know that for a fact? AFAIK the second evaluation was from 2009, I am not at all sure that Saab offered NG to Switzerland at that time, but I may be wrong. Note that also Rafale and Typhoon were offered in improved versions in 2009.
No, we don’t! For all we know, the newspaper could have pulled those numbers from a very dark space 😉 Those graphs are just rumours from allegedly leaked reports. But officially, the Gripen met the requirements, any details are classified. End of story.
So I would take all those nice stories, esp. from French speaking parts of Switzerland, with a load of salt. I think its a mixture of clever PR and some disappointed souls. 😉
eagleNice. However, seems to be quite a bit of work left before a deal is signed, including a possible public referendum. Ergo => still chanche for Rafale and others to a secure deal.
No, it’s either Gripen or nothing.
A referendum or initiative won’t be about the choice, but the needs for new fighters is questioned in general.
Wonder if it will include the RCS reduction measures proposed for Gripen E/F (Redesigned air intakes etc.)
E/F has redesigned intakes to ensure higher airflow but they look very similar, see pic. Not sure if the upgrade includes any mods to reduce RCS?
eagleConsidering the Swiss have no plans to invade anybody a twin engine long range type seems less then logical. Gripen E/F (NG avionics) has plenty of plus points that I’m surprised Fernand Carrel hasn’t acknowledged them:
Firstly: Gripen in any form will be a quantum leap in performance and capability over the F-5. Actually it will be a significant capability jump from the Hornet for that matter!
Secondly: It will have a superior BVR capabilty even if they don’t purchase METEOR. The AESA repositioner radar, AMRAAM and newer generation avionics will be significantly better then the Hornet AN/APG-73 combo.
Don’t know if it will be significantly better, Swiss Hornets are very capable A-A birds, but AESA ensures Gripen will be no slouch.
From “leaked reports”, or is it propaganda ;), people seem to have the idea that Gripen is a substandard jet, when in fact, it is very good. It’s just slightly inferior compared to Rafale/Typhoon.
Thirdly: The maintenance model built around the Swedish situation of conscript maintenance personel actually fits nicely into the Swiss situation as well.
Fourthly: The engine in the Gripen is an evolution of that fitted to their current Hornet fleet reducing the training burden even further on their maintenance personel.
Yes, but I’m not sure if there are actually any conscripts doing maintenance on jets today, or if there will be with the Gripen.
Militia pilots will go, at least that was the plan.
eagleAre weapons included in the deal or will the Swiss use their weapons?
Weapons aren’t included, but wouldn’t come from Sweden anyway. Swiss Air Force uses AIM-120, C-7 and B versions I think, and AIM-9X. AMRAAM is already integrated on the Gripen.
Does anyone know if the Sidewinder X is integrated?
eagleBut there was an earlier report (saw this in a post on the Rafale thread) that stated that Saab was offering new build Gripen C/Ds to the Swiss, which were to be then converted to NG standard by RUAG, without the F-414G, additional internal fuel or the larger wings and inlets of the NG. Mainly the avionics and radar of the NG would be added to the Swiss variants. So, in some respects, the Swiss Gripen E/Fs would not have the kinematic performance and the higher internal fuel of the true Gripen NG.
Is this true anymore, or will the Swiss get the actual Gripen E/F with F-414G and all the structural changes that the Gripen NG will have? If Saab has gone slow on developing the NG to allow work to remain for Embraer (as reported on Ares blog) then how will this Swiss win affect that?
The deal is about Gripen E/Fs. The idea to upgrade C/Ds in Switzerland with E/F avionics but without airframe and engine mods has been rejected. And rightly so, because a 22 airframe subvariant doesn’t make sense.
Whats the deal with the larger wing? AFAIK, wing area remains unchanged.
When are these jets supposed to enter service for the Swiss Air Force?
2015
eagle@USS, oh c’mon. Give it a rest.
I was meaning the Typhoon and Rafale. It might not have any affect but just wondering if it might, if so what it (or they) could be.
Who knows, afterall Rafale (allegedly) scored higher than Typhoon in Switzerland. But that was the case in any other competition, so nothing new.
eagleIf it’s NG, then it’s not just ‘good enough for Switzerland’ but better for Switzerland than Rafale. It has a better radar (thanks to the repositioner), it has a helmet sight, and it has better take off and landing performance. Industrially, the Swedes are peerless when it comes to delivering offsets, etc.
No, the Swiss aren’t going to have such a good long range heavy attack aircraft as they’d have had if they’d bought Rafale. They’re not going to be carrying multiple Scalps over long distances. No, they’re not going to have an atom bomber. No they’re not going to have such a good BVR fighter as they’d have had if they’d bought Typhoon.
But they will have an aircraft that’s well matched to the capabilities they need most, and one which won’t ‘break the bank’ and one that will provide lots of work for Swiss industry.
Congratulations to Saab and the Gripen team.
+1 🙂
The specs don’t name the variant, but with 7500kg empty, 98kn F414G engine and 10 weapon stations, its quite clear.
Regarding empty weight, they seem to have added some 100kgs to each contender. Maybe it’s for the twin seater.
I think going for the NG airframe plus NG avionics is the correct choice. Even if Switzerland doesn’t really need the added range and pylons, it doesn’t hurt, and developing a new subvariant for 22 aircraft would not have been cost effective. The NG really is a pocket F-16. Carrying 2 1000kg class bombs, 2 large fuel tanks, 4 AAMs and a targeting pod is not too shabby 😉
Regarding take off and landing distance, the specifications say:
Gripen: 800m dry, 500m with AB take-off / 500m landing
Rafale: 820m dry, 590m with AB take-off / 490m landing
Typhoon: 700m dry, 500m with AB take-off / 700m landing
–> Advantage Gripen
But as the climb rates allegedly are >200m/s for Gripen and EF, and >250m/s for the Rafale, I’m not sure how reliable the data actually is…
eagleWhat is not realized by many is (as was shown in PGW#1) that the F/A-18C can dogfight with four Mk.-84 (2,000-lbs) bombs. Two F/A-18s loaded with four Mk.-84 bombs took on two MiG-21s and shot them down! Then the flip of a switch and the computer switches from air-to-air software for aerial combat back to air-to-ground to software to complete their bombing mission! I made mention of this years ago at F-16.net and none of the many pilots at that forum, had any comments or corrections to my statement!
AFAIK, that engagement wasn’t a dogfight, the Hornets simply tracked the MiGs and shot them down. If it had evolved into a turning fight, the pilots certainly would have jettisoned the bombs.
The F-14D with fixed inlet-system to lower the related cost had not even better flight performances compared to the SH. 😎
Top speed was Mach 1.8, which is slightly more than the SH does. Acceleration, loaded speed and range was still better.
It really doesn’t square with quotes such as:
The -14D has better flight performance than the SH in everything but roll rate, roll response and pitch response/rate*.
*Even then, the pitch response applies only to certain points of the envelope.
Please refer to the SH diagram posted earlier, you will see it can exceed Mach 1 at sea level.
eagleAs Europe is heading for another recession, (did it ever leave ?)
i think the Swiss will postpone the whole thing altogether.
Economics is the main enemy nowadays
Euro countries are in much deeper crisis than Switzerland, EUR/CHF exchange rate at the moment would make this deal quite a bargain.
Issue is they want it as future Hornet replacement, too. In the long run they aim at single type fleet. Benchmark therefore ist the F-18.
Gripen scored lower then the benchmark (F-18) in some categories.
That is not the official requirement. If it was, the Gripen probably would be out.
It’s also obvious the Hornet surpasses the Gripen in some areas. Again, if that was important, there would be no need to evaluate a fighter 50% the size of a Hornet.
eagleEach time it is different journos rarely the same. There is at least 15 sources all going in the same direction.
Here are some of them, check yourself the diversity :
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=109699&page=39
But there is no official source. They are all based on rumours.
Of course, chances are those rumours turn out to be correct.
I think it’s a race between Rafale and Gripen. The military want the Rafale, but the politicians still might buy the Gripen, simply because it’s the cheapest option.
I also would prefer the Gripen. Reason is simple: It’s not advanced enough to be a threat to the future F-18 replacement. Meaning: if we get Gripens, we need to get something else in 20 years to replace the Hornets.:D If we get EF or Rafale, undoubtedly someone will suggest to simply upgrade those and buy some additional airframes at best.
Sign In
