APRichelieuhow is Gripen going to survive when EU will be imposing strict European solutions for defense and that will include funding cuts to countries that donot support EU defence industries.
The EU cannot impose anything w regards to defense.
The commission can propose solutions which can be accepted by members.
EU is not funding Gripen at this points, so there is nothing to cut.
Sweden is a net contributor to the EU, so EU is the part that has something to lose,
APRichelieuActually the vast majority of us do know. You’re the one that fails to grasp what is a fairly simple principle. The ALIS manages logistics. The absence of ALIS connectivity in no way inhibits the aircraft from engaging in regular combat operations.
Over the short term, it makes zero difference. Over the long term, spares supply can still be manually managed on an (inefficient) ad hoc basis. The same way that the Gripen E & SH logistics are run.
The RCAF is manned entirely by regulars while conscripts form less than 25% of the FiAF’s standing strength (involved in non-technical duties). Neither the RCAF nor the FiAF employ the conscripts to maintain their Hornets. Nor are they so hard up on manpower that they can’t spare a battalion’s worth of professionally trained airmen to maintain just 60 odd new fighters, acquired at the cost of several billion dollars.
So where exactly is this ‘untrained conscripts’ business coming from? Canada isn’t going to introduce conscription because it fits “the concept SAAB has been pushing for decades”. Nor does Finland intend to remodel its AF to reduce professionalisation (quite the other way round).
There is no “advantage” for the operation of fighters to use conscripts as ground crew
(except they are cheap, food, lodging and a few $ per day)
It is an advantage that design of the aircraft has been focusing on easy/fast maintenance,
because that is going to affect turnaround time also for professional crew.
APRichelieuYep, have never seen any evidence that the F-35 outperforms its rivals here.. Have you?
This isn’t utter nonsense, this is Swedish daily routine.. I have not said untrained, BTW.. and operated does not mean flown..
Well used to be, since Sweden abolished conscription a few years ago.
Typically ground crew would consist of a small number of Air Force employees,
with bulk beeing conscripts serving in the Air Force for 9-15 months.
APRichelieuTrue enough, but I have never seen any actual evidence that the Gripen has an advantage there.
All forces that anticipate operating from roadways in wartime understand the need for maintenance, etc, to keep their force viable. They wouldn’t be practicing operating from a highway without considering the necessity of staying mobile and keeping their planes mission capable.
The F-35B in particular is envisioned as operating in the manner you described to stay ahead of enemy targeting efforts:
See slides 37-38.
Note I have previously provided you this information, in this thread no less, so I know you should know this by now.
What is known about the F-35 is that it is going to need 40-50 manhours per hour of flight.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/179243/navair-projects-f_35-to-need-50-maintenance-hours-per-flight-hour.html
Canada is not getting F-35B.
APRichelieu[ATTACH=CONFIG]250180[/ATTACH]
Corruption, in Brazil?
Strange, because Lula appeared to be favouring Rafale,
then there was a decision to delay the selection until after the nd of his presidentship.
The decision was made under Dilma Rousseff.
APRichelieuLots of aircraft have operated from road bases. Last week someone posted pictures of IAF Mirage 2000 operating from roads – not a type I would associate as a dispersal type. Even F-4s and F-16s have operated from highways.
Any plane can land and take off from a highway, given it is long enough and wide enough.
What makes the strategy useful, is if the plane can be easily serviced at the highway base,
and if the base can be easily moved to another location.
APRichelieuCertainly this is one possible approach, but bases are expensive and this undermines any possible cost advantage the Gripen might otherwise have.
Of course. There are numerous factors and trade-offs that must be considered but in general an aircraft like the Gripen is best suited to small countries because that is how its design is optimized. The Swiss were dissatisfied with the Gripen’s range, but they did ultimately decide it was sufficient for their needs. Similarly, I am sure with some adjustments Canada could find a way to make do with Gripens, but it would require a lot of compromises and the cost/benefit analysis would almost certainly not support buying Gripens.
A Gripen airbase can consist of two trucks and a strip of highway…
APRichelieuIt’s something fighters only do in an emergency in peacetime. Bombing Daesh or the like is pretty much peacetime conditions, i.e. no air-air threat or effective ground based air defence, so they can afford to keep the tanks, & thus save the cost of replacements. But in a war against an enemy with a realistic chance of shooting down your aircraft, they’ll be littering the countryside with empty tanks.
During WW2, US fighters sometimes used drop tanks made of paper…
They were not very expensive.
APRichelieuYes indeed, the plan to induct 120 Tejas Mk1 and Mk1As was known, this is the actual contract signature related news. Now that the contract will be signed, HAL will get busy in scaling up the assembly line to 16 per year. And once that investment is made, IMO, there is all the more reason to have the Mk2 after the 120 are delivered. Since HAL is not participating in the other assembly line, they will be motivated to push for the Mk2 for the IAF.
The plan is to deliver 120 aircraft until 2028, so why need 16 per year?
First production quantity 2020?
APRichelieuDo we, from where? Because the only figures I’ve seen from Saab themselves are M1.1.
They state it here, note that they lie for the other 2 aircraft.
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/DutchAirForceAssociation_Gripen_2009.pdf
There are many things that add up to make supercruise possible or not. One is drag, other is engine operation at that speed, another is intake performance, another is nozzle performance. It might have a lower IR signature but then again, it may not and the difference likely won’t be massive wrt range given atmospheric attenuation, which is even worse than with radars.
One advantage I would definitely given Gripen E over the F-16 is Meteor. The US would likely cry if someone asked them to integrate Meteor onto an F-16, even if they paid double for the work. Another is EW. However the F-16 wins on cost and weapons support and the US would likely provide better backing in terms of spares/replacements in the eventuality of a war with China than Sweden.
How will the US be able to provide spares, if the manufacturing is all done in India?
APRichelieuhere we actually agree mauriobaggio: it eludes me why the swedes kept harping on with C with the fall of soviet union,
instead of change the contract with SAAB to the E model
The last order for Gripen C/D for the Swedish Air Force was placed 1997.
APRichelieuPlease are there at least one picture to explain me how the SAAB has been tacking for 14 years to build a prototype of the Gripen E?
After all I haven’t been understanding how the Gripen E that will has those : 60% of parts of the Gripen C / D from 1996 and the engine F 414 of the F/A 18E/F from 1995 it has not yet made its first flying into sky!
Maybe if the highly qualified staff from SAAB has not been devoting so much time to prepare those fancies graphs and illustrations , perhaps the Gripen E could have been flying almost 10 or even 15 years ago?!
SAAB only received an order for Gripen E in 2014.
A lot of the Electronics for Gripen E was not available 10-15 years ago.
Radar, IRST etc are all brand new.
So no, it could not have flown 10-15 years ago.
APRichelieuSo if Swedish pilots are happy, we are supposed to believe it, but when IAF test and squadron pilots are happy with the Tejas, their testimonial should count as well, shouldn’t it?
Feel free to watch this program on NDTV, where Air Cmde. Muthanna voices his opinion on the Tejas
And HAL is scaling up production to 16 Tejas fighters per year from 8 per year as set up for now. They’re actively encouraging private sector companies to take up more of the production work. Wing work is given to L&T, Center fuselage contracted to Wem Technologies, etc. And they’re looking to build more, as the MD Suvarna Raju said, “it could be 16+”.
Indian government is saying that the last of 120 Tejas will be delivered in 2028.
That is not 16 per year.
APRichelieuWhy don’t you tell us what specs specifically make the Gripen E better than the F-16 Block 70 (whose specs you really aren’t even fully sure of, since it is only supposed to be based on the Block 60 but may add more)
The Raven is a GaAs radar. The swash plate is the one thing it has which the F-16’s APG-80 AESA does not have but I doubt it has as much of a difference as is being made out. And regarding the whole “old Gripen flying circles around older, leaner F-16s”, I doubt anyone but a Gripen fanboy will believe that.
And if GaN is so great and Saab has it ready, why isn’t it on the Gripen E/F? Oh right, it isn’t even close to being ready as yet, and had it been chosen, it would derail the Gripen E/F’s entry into service.
Proof please. The Swiss evaluation certainly didn’t seem to back up anything you’re stating.
The radar for Gripen E was selected a long time ago.
SAAB expects a GaN fighter radar can be available in the timeframe for the India fighter deliveries.
APRichelieuLet’s forget the rest of your fantasy and focus on this radar. So this mythical, nonexistent radar is the best in the world due to being GaN and mounted on a swivel? That simple, no other factors come into play huh?
If it is being offered right now, you should have no trouble posting Saab’s pdf or brochure on said radar, no?
But you won’t, it does not exist, and won’t until someone signs on to pay and help develop it.
Here is what Saab actually said:
http://defensenews-alert.blogspot.com/2016/06/saab-offers-cutting-edge-gan-aesa-radar.html
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/17225/Saab_Offers_Technology_Transfer_Of_Gallium_Nitride_AESA_Radar_To_India#.WAAX-hTPzHg
The difference between SAAB and other companies that are into GaN AESA radars is that SAAB already have a GaN
radar in production, it is just not a fighter radar.
Sign In
