TinWingJAS39A/B does not have a wide array of usable weapons, but it has a suitable weapon for almost any role a typical smaller air force could utilize. Not all air forces are obsessed with throwing LGBs around and having four types of intelligent bombs for the same role and usually also don’t have funds to base their ground-attack abilities upon guided weapons.
These days it is vital to have a wide selection of precision guided munitions – especially the cheap ones like JDAM and WCMD.
GBU-12 seems to represent a baseline offensive capability – which might explain why the French hastily integrated this 500lb LGB with the Rafale. Of course, Paveway II will eventually be replaced by the GPS guided AASM – yet another JDAM equivilent.
TinWingUntil now, no. But a lot of things are changing with the establishment of the Nordic Battle Group. Gripen is supposed to have full operating capability in the close support role at the same time as the NBG stands up (Jan 08 if memory serves me right, IOC later this year). For CAS it will use (among others) the ‘PWS 39’ (Litening and GBU-12).
What isn’t clear is whether the Gripen A/Bs in question will receive GBU-12/Litening capability?
TinWingAnd regarding tinwings BS about A/B Gripens not being multirole – go read up on history boy. They are called JAS for a reason.
Sweden has traditionally had a very limited arsenal of air-to-ground weapons. Even the old “attack” oriented AJ 37 carried a very limited assorment of ordinance.
The early model Gripen seem to be limited to the Maverick missile, the RB15F anti-ship missile and the the DWS39 weapons dispenser.
The Swedes haven’t even shown very much interest in integrating LGBs, designator pods or any other modern munitions into their domestic fleet of Gripens.
TinWingAgain, simply wrong. Reading across many of the C/D weapon clearances would be straightforward, while the A/Bs existing precision attack and anti-shipping attack capabilities are pretty robust. In any case, Gripen’s very low operating costs and low costs of ownership would make any upfront spending a worthwhile investment, that would be rapidly recouped.
You seem to be forgetting that there are significant structural differences between the A/B and the later C/D. Why do you think that the MTOW and empty weights for the A/B are so much less than for the definitive Gripen C/D?
In hindsight, the Gripen A/B was a limited production, limited capability model meant only for domestic use. Production of the early model Gripen did accomplish one thing: far earlier introduction to service than other unstable canard-delta fighters.
You really do have to wonder if there are practical reasons for the early retirement of the Gripen A/B?
TinWingThe buying country has to be very “brave” (or nuts) to take in these older Gripens.
The Swedes are totally *******ed-up this time. Each older airframe given away by the Flyvapnet means at least in theory one less sale of a new Gripen by SAAB… In the end this a unavoydable downward spiral for the Gripen Industrial Program.
Follow me here:
Hardly any foreign sales >
Very low production rates to try to keep the line open>
Contracting numbers of Flygvapnet operational airframes>
Frozen production lines>
No long lead items procured from suppliers >
No consistent near-future versions in development >
Upward spiraling support costs in the future>
Dead industrial program…To me, there seems to be no way out of this dire predicament unless some country like India (or even Iran or China) rides in on a great white stalion and shiny armour to buy the whole program wholesale ordering hundreds o new Gripens for manufacture at their local airframe manufacturer…
A real bail out, even this radical solution would certainly be a buyers market.. hardly any good pargaining power left for the Swedes..
There are a few – albeit unlikely – possibilities.
Taiwan might be very interested in all 65-70 – after all a follow up order for another 60 Mirage 2000s was blocked by Chinese pressure.
India seems like an unlikely prospects, but who knows? Perhaps India could be interested in the Gripen as a substitute for the flagging LCA. Imagine a Gripen with a Kaveri and Indian avionics – in short, a way of salvaging the wreckage of the LCA program. In any event, the sale of 65-70 units would certainly be a great prelude to transfering the entire production line.
The United States might also be interested in the Gripen as an “aggressor” aircraft to simulate the Chinese J-10.
Still, the prospects aren’t good for the earliest production batch of Gripens.
TinWingWEll I think this is a marketing tactic – its obvious none will be scrapped just sold at bargain basement prices to the highest bidder. I bet a few museums out there would pick up a some as well. I hope the air and space museum in DC does then I’d get to see one first hand :dev2:
I agree. It is unlikely that the planes in question will be “scrapped.”
Perhaps the real intention is to sell the Gripens in question to Saab or BAE Systems for “scrap value?”
TinWingWhat an extraordinary thing to say. You should look up the range of air to ground weapons which have been integrated with the Gripen. It was always intended to be a multi-role aircraft – JAS39, not J39 – unlike the F-16. Not having a full national range of weapons to offer, Saab deliberately set out to make weapons from multiple suppliers available to customers.
Just how many air-to-ground weapons are actually integrated with the JAS39A/B fighters in question? Not very many. The early model Gripens are not highly flexible multi-role aircraft. The later C/Ds are, but the A/Bs aren’t.
BTW, where would all these used Mirage 2000s come from? Last I heard, there were exactly 12 on sale, & the asking price is similar to new Gripens. France is only letting Brazil have some to get a foot in the door for a hoped-for sale of new planes.
A draw down of the Mirage 2000C force will probably occur far sooner than most expect.
The supply of sound F-16s is now running low. The Dutch have found buyers for all theirs. Most of the stored USAF F-16s would require extensive & expensive refurbishment to make them usable.
The Gripen is the cheapest to operate, & the easiest to maintain, of the lot. JAS39As are newer, with more modern equipment fits, than stored USAF F-16s (now if you want an obsolete fighter . . . 😀 ).
There are literally hundreds of surplus American F-16A/Bs with plenty of flight hours left – enough for 10-20 years of service at the utilization rates of the average 3rd world air force. Israel is also expected to offload its early F-16s in the new few years.
On the other hand, the early model Saab Gripen A/B was never exported and might prove to be difficult to support in the coming decades. Similarly, the Volvo-built F404 variant has seen a very limited production run. If only the Swedes had simply just purchased standard F404 production models straight from GE….support costs and capabilities would have been far cheaper and more predictable in the long run.
For the money, the new built Korean A-50 Golden Eagle would be cheaper to support and possibly even cheaper to buy than even the used Gripen A/Bs. More importantly, weapons integration would be far less problematic for the conventional A-50.
TinWingAs a pure air defense fighter, the Gripen A/B would be satisfactory.
Sadly, there isn’t much of a need for that sort of fighter anymore.
There are significant costs and delays associated with integrating air-to-ground weapons with a very unstable canard delta aircraft. I doubt whether local upgrades of the obsolete A/B Gripens would be cost effective or worthwhile.
It would be far easier and cheaper to update used F-16 and Mirage 2000 fighters.
Perhaps there is still a market for all of those used Gripens? However, I think that the demand will be weaker than most expect.
Yes, South Africa might buy a few as an attrition reserve. Some might be purchased as “aggressor” aircraft, or for the training of test pilots. Perhaps a few will be sold to 3rd world militaries as well. Still, it looks like there will be plenty of competition from used Tranch 1 and 2 Eurofighters sooner than you think
TinWingThe panda’s are what will pilot the aircraft 😀
i think they’re the olympic mascots.
Everyone likes pandas….except the Taiwanese government.
TinWingMarcel Dassault (a jew) was deported to Buchenwald, one of those german camps. I am not too sure this is something to be joked about !
I have always wondered why he changed his name from Bloch to Dassault after the war? Did he collaborate with the Germans?
Similarly, where did Dassault’s post-war start up money come from? Switzerland?
TinWingGallons make my head hurt 🙁 . Anyone good at imperial/metric conversions?
300 U.S. Gallons = 250 Imperial Gallons = 1136 liters
TinWingFor example, MiG-25 had to be fast at sea level too. Blackbird had not.
MiG-25 had to carry underwing missiles and bombs. Blackbird had not. Etc,etc.
External stores are incompatible with sustained Mach 3.3 flight!!!!
Internal stores were planned for the YF-12 derivatives, but the separation of the AIM-47 into a Mach 3 airstream remains an impressive technical accomplishent.
I should also point out that the MiG-25 was not intended for low level operations. Due to its profound structural weakness, it is easy to surmise that the MiG-25 would have had a very short fatigue life if operated at low altitudes.
Not to mention maneuverability. The MIG-25 can do loops, rolls, imelmans, zoom climbs, etc.
The MiG-25 “maneuverability” is poor compared to even an early model F-4 Phantom. The MiG-25 isn’t even stressed for a modest 7g turn.
To make a Mach 3 multi role aircraft was immense task, which americans could not have solved.
Well, the Soviets never produced a “Mach 3 multi role aircraft,” either. The MiG-25 fighter is incapabable of Mach 3 with external stores.
The MiG-25R was a limited endurance, single role recon platform with very poor optical reconnaisance systems. In truth, the profoundly subsonic Canberra PR.9 was a far more useful reconaissance aircraft.
TinWingThe MiG-21 thread got me thinking……can we all compile a list of the various sizes of drop tanks that fighter-sized airplanes can carry and where they can carry them. There are several aircraft for which I don’t know the drop tank sizes for…….here are a few I think I know…..if I’m wrong please correct me.
I was hoping that someone might start a thread about the relative economics of drop tanks. For instance, how much do they cost, and how many a produced for a given number of airframes? What about manufacturers and lead times?
In short, how many drop tanks can a squadron of a given type actually afford to “drop” during sustained combat operations?
Oh, and what happens to a tank that dropped over water? Does is just sink or does it become a minor navigation hazard?
What about drop tanks “dropped” over land? What about civilian casualties? What happen when a half full 1000+ liter tank of jet fuel hits the ground? Pictures? Stories?
TinWingAnother important thing is the high cost (and growing!) of the American personnel. The cost of the the Chinese, iranian and arab airman (considering the same educational and professional level, please) will always be much cheaper, so operating costs for the US military will allways tend to surpass the “enemies'” defense costs.
Perhaps it is time to question the reasoning of the philosophy “that you have to make an officer before you can make a pilot.”
TinWingwell, the files are from CDI, a Washington think tank that is comprised mostly of military men.
some points they mentioned:
-Israel valued their Mirage IIIs more than their F-4’s in air to air combat
-Pakistani F-86’s achieved more kills than their larger Indian counterparts
-Me 262s were superior, but overcome by larger number of inferior P-51s, etc
-quantity is emphasizedsome suggestions they make or imply:
-the next fighter should be around 11 million
-the next fighter should be physically small
-the next fighter should have a bubble canopy and good rear view
-The F-5 and earlier F-16s were the closest to their ideal design, and in some ways, so was the F-104
-the next fighter should be bought in quantity and overwhelm the opponents
-the next generation aerial warfare will see aircraft turning their radars offsome questions I had in mind when reading it:
-more smaller fighters require building more forward bases to deploy them
-some areas where the US might get involved, require distance to reach the target
-technology has improved to the point where BVR and RWR has improved significantly
-aircrafts that match the description of what is preferred are the Golden Eagle, FC-1, and LCA. but i doubt any of them can reach that 11 million price tag, not even the FC-1.
-the rest of the world doesn’t really have aircraft in quantity the way the US does..except for China. In some of the last several conflicts, the US and allies had both a quality and quantity advantage.
-future UCAVs could be built to match that spec and price tag.
Both links seem to be dead.
A lightweight fighter has very little appeal for a global power such as the United States, or any of the key NATO allies. While there may be a market for a fighter smaller, cheaper and lighter than the F-35, it is solely an export market.
It seems that future conflicts will be fought in regions such as the Middle East and South Asia, where severe demands will be placed on the range and endurance of any combat aircraft.
Sign In
