m.ileduetsOriginally posted by Steve Touchdown
Italy must be the top operator: they haven’t creashed any yet…mind you it has only been a couple of weeks since they got ’em 😎
The Italiens, I love them. Their esthetic sense is infaliable: The G- 91, the Starfighter, now the F-16. They keep chosing just absolutely beautiful planes. Never mind they keep breaking down. Just like their cars. 😀
m.ileduetsAs somone has pointed out before the Polish F-16 will be perfect if Poland is again going to decide to be junior partner in any future American lead intervention. They can use American training, bases, weapons, equipment etc and be assured of a nice tap on the shoulder from Mr. Bush in the end. So no criticism against their choice. If they want to continue this policy, it’s a very rational choice.
Just like Austria for half a century now, the Czech Republic obviously decided to cut back to the minimum for air policing and home defence purposes. They can abstain from brownnosing and have therefore hard earned money left to invest in building highways and other long neglected infrastructure. If they want to pursue this policy, the Gripen is the right choice.
m.ileduetsYepyepyep – that’s the point “makes them less dependent on the US”. It is every thinking man’s duty to fight off those evil Bush-ites! Those blackmailing enemys of freedom and democracy! Those warmongering hypocrites and capitalistic exploiters!
Well, it’s not anybody else’s fault if the US- Administration makes arms- deals and -aid part of their politics. (See international court issue…) This is not the case with Sweden, obviously.
The Bush-ites would better listen more to what they preach in economics and leave arms trades a little more to the free market, too 😉
But being dependent on one supplier also entails other than just political risks. In the current discussion for the Swiss fighter procurement this issue was raised because of a spare part shortage the F/A-18s had to endure during “desert storm”. This won’t help the F/A-18E/F of course.
Calm down. We still love you.
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by Distiller
Politics is a bad advisor for technical questions.
Well, ironically it was the technicians who rated Gripen first. It seems that they rate the practically new Gripen higher than the rather old used F-16s and F/A-18s, which sort of makes sense.
Originally posted by Distiller
In case of Poland, they know whom to rely on in case of real military danger, so they bought American. It is hilarious people pooh-pooh the F-16 as old crap or not performant enough. Whom do you trust more to build a jetfighter – the Swedish, who didn’t have war since 1809 or the US?
No offence, but the Swedish have produced excellent fighter planes for decades. The Gripen is a rather new design that still has to prove its battleworthiness, but so do the Rafale, the EF, the JSF or the F-22. That doesn’t make them worse than the F-16.
The US just purchased quite a few strykers, an original Swiss design. Switzerland hasn’t been involved in a war since Napoleon. Does that make the stryker design bad?
Is enough said?
Originally posted by Distiller
I really can’t see the point – other than wryly European politics – why such small or symbolic forces as those mid/eastern-Europeans posses should opt for unproven hermit-like aircraft! [/B]
Well, there are three customers for the Gripen up to now, and a couple more potential ones. The Gripen with its carefree and low maintanance cost design seems a rather good choice for the less affluent Eastern European, South African and South American countries. One additional asset: It makes them less dependent on the US (spare parts: Look what happend to the Swiss with the F/A-18) and less vulnerable to blackmailing, which should suit some pretty well. It’s not big a suprise to see Americans sneering at the Gripen…
m.ileduetsOne also has to consider that the M4000 would be competing against the EF and the Rafale by now. To me it seems it was a wise decision to stop the program and focus the effort on the development on the Rafale.
m.ileduetsWell, my preference isn’t really an issue. I’d prefer the Gripen myself: It would be inexpensive in comparison, fulfill all basic needs and fit well into the existing caverns (avoiding the need to dig new ones for millions like we had to do for the F/A-18).
If you ask me what I considered the most likely choice I’d say JSF, though, since it seems that things are going to be postponed out of financial reasons, which would make the Gripen look a little old already by the time we evaluate the planes.
m.ileduetsThe F-5E/F’s of course! They will have to be phased out by the end of the decade. Plus it is planned to replace the Mirage IIIRS’s reconnaissance planes with recce- pods and regain ground attack capability. (Our F/A-18s are currently not equiped for ground attack, but might slip into this role). There’s a whole thread on the topic further down somewhere….
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by F-18 Hamburger
we all know of your deprivation from the lack of a global fast food chain in your country. Dont worry, I feel your pain.And Swiss and the Rafale? Unlikely.
Well, there’s too many McDo’s here already for my taste.
The Rafale is just as likely as the Gripen or the JSF. The EF was rated as the favorite by the NZZ some weeks ago, but it’s too early to tell.
The Rafale is well in the race for sure, so why not combine the ice tests with some marketing and some nice days in the Engiadina.:cool:
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by Aurel
…So political pressure comes from both sides. Maybe ‘old Europe’ is not that aggressise as ‘new America’, but we won’t spent money one more time for people that don’t think european…
Well, I doubt that “Old Europe” will show that much solidarity with Sweden. Don’t forget: Belgium is official bidder for the F-16s.
Here’s some more pleasant American mail to the Czechs:
“The new Gripen offer certainly might be appealing to the Czechs, but there are a lot of open questions about it. For example:
1) Why do the Czech think they will get a better offer than the one given to Hungary? The Hungarians also were offered Gripens with lowest price, lowest operating costs, completely NATO interoperable, and with a huge offset program. And today they are still negotiating weapons and capabilities… This leads to:
2) What are the long-term weapon integration costs and who pays for them? Who are they shared with?
3) What is the legal status of a NATO country taking a leased fighter, the title of which is held by non-alligned Sweden, into an out-of-area operation?
4) Czech newspapers reported the Czech tender called for an interim solution of a bilateral government-to-government agreement to acquire and operate USED supersonic aircraft under a lease agreement or through a direct purchase from an air-arm. If those Gripens offered are newly built and come directly from the Saab-production at Linköpping’s line to the Czechs, do these company-aircraft meet the tender specification?
5) Will they be owned by the Swedish government for the first 5 years? Will they be declared used after maybe a week of flying ?”
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by F-18 Hamburger
trying to match Eurofighter’s testing in Norway? Or is there a potential customer that far up north?
Well, I guess you just have to look more closely at where they test. Switzerland certainly looks like a potential customer for the Rafale.
(But then again you’re excused: there’s no McDo’ in Samaden or anywhere near, so how would you know where it is.):D
m.ileduetsMarketing goes icy
Originally posted by Aurel
Yes, and Typhoon is tested at the moment in Norway.
Unfortunately Singapore is not cold enough for such tests…
Well, they could conduct tropical heat tests there for a change…
m.ileduetsOriginally posted by Distiller
There are not only more F-16 in the air than there are other models.
They also fly a lot more, there are units in the USAF clocking 450 to 500 fh/y. And a very considerable percentage of that flying is done under combat conditions.
As I understood it the rate is higher than any other’s per flight hour, not per plane.
Anyway. Airplanes luckily have become more safe, and the safer the better, I guess.
m.ileduetsRe: Re: Czech ranking
In the USA, the safety record of the F-16 isn’t really applauded, either as the following extract of an ABC- article (2001) reveals. (But LM might express a different view, of course ;-))
“Air Force statistics show that Fighting Falcons have crashed an average of 13 times a year since 1982, when the plane was first flown heavily, costing an average $260 million annually in destroyed aircraft.
The statistics also show the Air Force’s F-16s are more prone to crash than its other aircraft.
While there are more F-16s in service than other planes — nearly 1,400 — meaning there are more opportunities for them to crash, they also crash at greater rates. Over the past 19 fiscal years, from 1982 to 2000, the Air Force averaged about 4.5 Class-A mishaps for every 100,000 flight hours per year for its F-16s.
That’s significantly higher than those of its other aircraft, including the other front-line fighter, the F-15, which is made by Boeing.
The F-15 has a lifetime Class-A mishap rate of 2.53, and has had only two such mishaps this year and three in 2000. The only other aircraft to have a Class-A this year was the A-10. It had one.
The Navy says its most widely flown, multi-role aircraft, the twin-engine carrier-based F/A-18 C/Ds, have a lifetime Class-A rate of 3.45.
The F-16’s average rate, though, was higher during the first 10 years of that period, 5.6, than during the most recent nine, when it was 3.3, showing improving safety.
With July’s crashes and two months to go before the end of the fiscal year, the Fighting Falcons’s rate of Class-A mishaps in 2001 is 4.5. “
…
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/airforcef16safety_010807.html
As others have pointed out, it doesn’t look better for the F-16 here in Europe.
m.ileduetsMcDonalds and the end of the Roman empire
I agree with you, mate. Too much junk food and not enough moving around on one’s own too legs, this is the main cause of the degenerating of western culture.
Look what happend to the Romans when they were getting too fat and lazy.
m.ileduetsF/A-18C will improve in dogfight
GarryB: Assumption is right, yet I’m in doubt with your conclusion, too. An upgraded F/A-18 with HMS and AIM-9X will be hard to beat in dogfight. So they will probably be about even again, disregarding the maintenance questions etc.
Sign In
