Nicolas10Nic, do you know the reasoning behind the change back to single seat Cs?
Because apparently one pilot was enough to fly the Rafale operationally. Two seaters have often been observed flown by just one pilot. And (not sure about that) I think it was the case in Libya on a number of occasions.
Nic
Nicolas10Did Brazil fly the Gripen NG or Gripen Demo? Did they do a thorough evaluation like Switzerland or India?
If not, how on earth did they rank the still undefined Gripen NG above an in-service Rafale F3?
They did, only nobody knows what the Gripen E/F consists of as of yet. It’s not been developped yet, and the swiss will help do that.
But yes it did win the Brazilian guessing contest.
Nic
Nicolas10no not really :confused:
have you read anything above?
Does Eagle1 or Nicolas have any meaningfull or new gripen info, or is it just rafale lobbying. if not you really dont need to comment any futher.
I’m genuinely interested in the Gripen’sq flying hour cost… mind you, and for what it’s worth I quite like the Gripen. And for a country like Sweden it is a tremendous achievement.
Nic
Nicolas10Gripen E/F isnt specifide, and therefore its preformance is not known.
Apparently the only thing that was known was it’s cost per flight hour :rolleyes:
Nic
Nicolas10It won because it was the cheapest and by far the best fit for requirements*.
That’s not what the SAF report says. So I take it that you’re saying that the SAF chose whatever plane would fullful their ego the most and that they didn’t care to properly evaluate the requirements. Obviously everyone here know what the SAF requirement were better than the SAF itself. It’s risible.
There’s no denying that the Gripen can replace a F5. Heck a JF17 could probably replace a F5. But stop saying you know better than the SAF which planes fits the requirements better.
Nic
Nicolas10Let’s disagree then.
Nicolas10The problem with that is that making such assumptions leads one to numbers which as you say, are astounding – and also ridiculous, & unsupported by any evidence. 300 per decade for Aberdeenshire (rather than just the Aberdeen area: the city had about 15% of the population of the county) multiplies up to 30000 per decade for Great Britain & Ireland.
300 kids kidnapped in the whole Aberdeenshire in one decade is “only” 30 a year. Someone making a specialty of being a kid-napper must have had many off days if they had work only once in ten days. Definately not busy enough to warrant a new name for your nice new job. It doesn’t seem much at all to me. So I don’t think it’s far fetched at all. Maybe some areas in Scotland or Ireland were more hit than other areas in the UK, which would twist the numbers. But then again maybe not. Maybe it was 500 per year, like in “Aberdeen and the environs” (we don’t know if it’s Aberdeenshire from the sentence), and just 300 in some other areas. As I said I think I was actually very conservative.
One would have to postulate that the number of kidnapped & surreptitiously transported children was similar to the total number of legal, mostly adult, emigrants.
Yes, and why would that be impossible exactly? I’ve heard a review of one book which mentionned of more than 20 000 UK child slaves in just some islands (not one of the 13 colonies). I didn’t mention that because I forgot the exact numbers, which island, and in what book that was stated… unfortunately.
I think it’s safer to assume that multiplying up these spot figures is not a valid way to estimate the number of kidnapped child emigrants. Certainly, there were some, & perhaps many – but not what one gets by multiplying up the figures you cite.
It would be pretty interesting to make the same sort of calculation on the number of black people easily available on the african coast to the slave merchants. See if the “official history” numbers add up too.
The point remains that slavery was not a country sponsored business. And descendants from some countries don’t have to feel guilty in the least wrt to slavery. Although I’d say anyone condoning slavery (past or presnt) needs a serious morality check.
Nic
Nicolas10Then why does the flygväppnet want and improved Gripen?
BTW I think the Gripen won mostly on politics in Swizerland.
Nic
Nicolas10The Rafale looks awesome all over. The typhoon looks great in some angles and ugly in some other angles, mostly depending if you see the air intakes or not… or the canards.
I wonder why one of the Rafale carries missiles.
BTW I love the fact that the french “cocardes” are high visibility. I wonder why the Typhoons roundels are low viz and yet the squadron markings are high viz?
Nic
Nicolas10With the handling of MRCA project and giving the winner to a France company this could be a way for Russia to sticking it up into India. In a “Hey, don’t cross us” in future friendly gesture or else we sell product to your rival China.
As good as the Rafale is it is no match to updated Su-35 and I think China knows it too. It is probably why they want the aircraft.
Russia understands that India wants diversity of suppliers to avoid political nightmares, and if anything I’m sure Russia is delighted that India went with the french instead of going for Super hornets for instance. Besides, India is set to remain a major supplier for the IAF through the Su30 programme, and especially the FGFA programme. And I’m not even mentioning Mig29k and IAF Mig29 modernisation programmes.
Nic
Nicolas10This is a too much simplistic comparison with no basis of data what so ever. sorry. i rather lean on public documents than on you´re 8 rows of biased logic, period
Feel free to rely on whatever documents you please even if they defy simple logics.
Nic
Nicolas10No, what did you get that from? im saying manhourprice in 1:st level maint/refueling/loading for SwAF is probably going up from now and into the future.
Please be more accourate reading my posts, you tend to lean in one direction with no basis, exept your own experience with Rafale. These are different types off systems. Gripens is obviosly more carefee and need less complicated maintnance by personal with lower education degree. So dont go that road.
So during all those years you have been comparing the CPH of Gripen served by conscripts to the CPH of other fighters served by professionals? How fair!
The prices have varied from SwaAF 2500USD in the early 90:s to todays offers TO OTHER COUNTRIES of >4000USD. Thats it! ARE YOU STILL QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THESE DATA FOR A/B/C/D GRIPENS AFTER 20 YEARS OF SWAF EXPERIENCE?
Yes I do. I’m not saying the SWAF is lying far from it, but I’m suspecting that the cost per flight hour mentionned by Saab isn’t the same as the cost per flight hour mentionned by some other manufacturers. The conscripts vs professional is a good example of how you can tilt numbers.
The future seems to be more expensive, according to a politician. But noone know how he came up with these numbers, so we have to wait an see wont we?
So this leaves with a few possible explainations:
1 Strong Euro means expensive flight cost per hour for European fighters 😀
2 The gripen was far from comparable with eurofighter or rafale, because it doesn’t have the same systems complexity… (hinted in the Swiss AF evaluation)
3 The swedes know some things that no other aircraft manufacturer knows, since Dassault for instance built the Rafale around the concept of simplified maintenance.
4 all of the above.
Now all this talk about the evolutions of the Gripen for the Flygväppnet point to number 2: they need to make the Gripen bigger, to be able to compete with aircrafts like the Rafale or the Typhoon.
The question is, what kind of engine would they have available for this? F414 would be too small to provide enough thrust if the plane gains more weight, AND to provide the kind of power available for AESA+AESA based ECM+IRST and so on. Could RR provide the F136? Or would the US provide the F135 considereing that an improved gripen would be in direct competition with the F35 that they desperately need to sell?
Nic
Nicolas10Sorry to make another post, but I just wanted to add that it didn’t stop in the 1760s, contrary to my calculation:
1789-1815: French revolutionary wars; Napoleon Bonaparte. The wars involved many thousands of young men who would formerly have gone – freely or otherwise – to the North American colonies.
Basically the whole history of slavery we are served nowadays is a lie. It was not a case of the french, or the british, or the white people exploiting the black people. A few capitalist with no value for human life traded any kind of slaves they could get, from anywhere, and of course it included a lot of black people, there is no denying that. But the crux of the matter is that, just like nowadays, a small group of people did exploit others, regardless of the origin of those slaves.
Nic
Nicolas10There was a public scandal in England about the kidnapping of children to be sent to the colonies as indentured servants (mostly from England, BTW, not Scotland, Ireland or Wales) in the 17th century, which led to legal restrictions on sending indentured children. It didn’t stop kidnapping of children, but it certainly accounted for only a small minority of indentures, & those were completely illegal (though the victim would probably find that hard to prove once spirited away).
Well you are underplaying this to some extent. It started in the 1620s with hundreds of vagrant children being sent to the colonies. It’s not really kidnapping yet but that’s slavery anyway. The word kidnapper appeared at the second half of the XVIIth century (1678, the verb kidnap was recorded in 1682), which means the practise was already a known business.
September 1698: Flying Post newspaper reporter claims he observed ‘about 200’ kidnapped boys held on a ship in the Thames awaiting departure for the colonies.
1740s: Aberdeen (Scotland) and environs saw some 500 young people kidnapped for the colonies.
1757: The Extraordinary Adventures of Peter Williamson exposes kidnapping of children in Scotland for service in the Americas. The book led to a celebrated civil action against certain Aberdeen businessmen and magistrates for complicity in the traffic.
from there http://www.goldonian.org/barnardo/child_migrationl.htm
Now if only in the 1740s, 500 kids had been kidnapped in just the aberdeen and environs, how much have been kidnapped in the 1740s in all the united kingdom? And keep in mind that’s more than five decades after the word kidnappers first appeared.
Say we assume, for the aberdeen area only, an average of 300 children kidnapped per decade (assuming the 500 in 1740s were a high), and caluclating from the 1680s (after the word kidnapper appeared, which means I’m conservative in starting in the 1680s), that’s about 2300 kids until 1757 and the book that led to the trials to stop kidnappers. Multiply this by all the regions of the UK… and ou probably get pretty astounding numbers.
Nic
Nicolas10Truly great mean don’t live long in politics if they somehow manage to reach the top of the pyramid (no pun intended), sad as it is.
Nic
Sign In
