signatoryWell, should Sweden be the mystery buyer, it’ll be because of the slowness of SAC, which really should have moved on by now.
Yeah Sweden is pissed at the SAC negotiations.. 20 months since the LOI and negotiations is seen going nowhere. The Swedish development chief said some countries were in it just for show and prestige… basically they want everyone else to pick up the bill.
In the budget review released yesterday, SAC was not even mentioned but I noticed one sentence that translates sort of into:
“Carried out a requirements analysis that has among things created a initiative with the United States to collaborate on strategic airlift capacity.”
Don’t know what it could mean but also I don’t believe Sweden would buy C-17s under current circumstances but I could see something like a joint lease with some partners (Norway/Denmark/Czechs etc..) if SAC is still stuck…
signatoryi will go on record as saying i think one of these would pwn a gripen the majority of the time.
Why ? Because the AESA has most likely better range ? The Gripen still has the superior agility, the less than 1/10th rcs, and more or less the same weapons. The AESA advantage is seriously crippled by the short range of missiles and the large RCS of the F-16. But either way the Gripen to India would also use a AESA so eh. No, I don’t see the F-16 as “pwn”-ing the gripen a whole lot.
signatorySweden is a partner nation in the proposed SAC arrangement. So I’d rule them out unless they have changed their minds and want their own independent airlift capability.
True and I see no imminent change here. As the pevious minister put it.. “we have told the Armed forces to grab a taxi not to buy a new car.”
14 November 2007
Ministry of DefenceThe US is sending a C17 aircraft to take part in the Nordic Battle Group´s (NBG) final exercise. The aim is to demonstrate and practice a `transport lift´.
This is why Sweden is conducting negotiations on a multinational resource for strategic transport aircraft called Strategic Airlift Capacity (SAC). It is intended to secure Sweden´s long-term needs for air transport.
What got me curious is the talk about a customer with a previous delivery slot… I can’t really think of anyone..
signatoryNice photos there. But you forgot their space rocket 😀
signatoryThe Czech Defence Minister is visiting Sweden today Thursday for talks with both the Swedish government and FMV the procurement office. Gripen is one of the topics. But the press release didn’t specify anything.
Btw It’s possible to rebuild the C/D Gripens into a NG (E/F) which the roll out of the Gripen Demo in 3 months will demonstrate so IF the Czech were to sign a order for Gripen they could in theory do a 24 jet order and use the 14 C/D’s until 10 Gripen NG arrive then send in the old jets for a rebuild. Don’t need to convert pilots again as if they would go to JSF or something.
Or maybe they will just extend the lease and stay with 14 gripens for the next 30 years.. you never know with politicians. :confused:
signatoryThat assumes the dollar will remain weak. Let’s assume the NG could be delivered in 6 years time; go back 6 years & you got 1.1 Euros to the dollar. Exchange rates aren’t forever.
Not “assuming”. A factor on the price. Saab has diversified the Gripen to make it less vulnerable to currency fluctuations. And Sweden don’t use euros so I’m not sure why you wrote that.
For the sake of the thread…
Austria signed deal with Eurofighter
15 x EF2K Tranche 1 single-role air defense jets
EUR 1.63 billion
Hungary signed deal with Gripen
14 x 39C/D LGB capable Multi-role jets with electronic warfare suite and upgrades every 3 year
EUR 0.81 billion
Saab Offer to Denmark
48 x Gripen Next Generation
20 years free service (life cycle costs)
Training, SimulatorsEUR 2,95 billion
Scaled down Approx:
24 x Gripen NG
EUR 1,48 billion
12 x Gripen NG
EUR 0.74 billion
Saab also say to Danish media the price is well above a final price and even higher exchange rates and raw material costs will be picked up by the company.
Just as an indication on the Gripen NG price since some people seem to worry it would be high.
signatoryI don’t see why Swiss would need the Gripen NG to replace the F5, if they need a bigger plane (hence more expensive) with longer range, then why not go straight to the Rafale or EF or F18E/F? Are you sure the Gripen NG will be less expensive than a Rafale or an EF? I’m not.
Nic
Gripen NG will be same price class or even cheaper than the C/D.
The engine is cheaper by quite abit and there’s also more US origined components in the avionics. Don’t need to remind people about the weak US dollar.
But it’s not likely going to be available in time for the Swiss requirement. And the C/D has more commonality with the F-18 Hornet.
signatorybut then why is Dassault not even heard of in the Romanian and Bulgarian competitions? the Gripen and Typhoon are there, and if the Typhoon is there, then the Rafale should definitely be fielded.
Nah, Dassault is active in Romania.. I follow that campaign (and the Danish/Norwegian) quite a bit.
Romania could go anywhere.. they had a meeting before xmas and the President wanted to pick up surplus F-16s but the Prime Minister want to buy European jets. These guys of course has no idea of the capabilities, it’s their political stance.
The Defense minister otoh try to please everyone but usually talk about Eurofighter or Gripen. They also need to decide on 48 or 24 jets..
Bulgaria is Gripen or F-16. They signed 2-3 MoU’s with Sweden already.
Btw I understand why Eurofighter left Norway for the pro-us climate but not leaving Denmark.. it’s a whole different story there. IMO why they did, it’s for another reason such as not being able to sign up local partners.. the Danish defense industry’s largest customer year after year is actually Saab.
signatory49 aircraft, it wasn’t mentioned how many fighters or what type exactly, but I assume most were fighters, the source is a RAF Group Captain in AFM.
“had shot down 49 enemy aircraft to the loss of one… Exceeding expectations”
AFM November 2007 page 7
EDIT: The Eurofighter was shot down in Italy??? Then this must have been a different exercize, the 49 aircraft comes from the Skylance exercize in the UK. :confused: Sorry for the confusion, if there was any. But it doesn’t matter much, saying in Italy it was 1-0 and nothing else is rather weird. 😎
In Italy it was… eh well let me paste the article.. and no sweat if wasn’t the RAF! 😎
Exercise Spring Flag 2007, held at Italy’s Decimomannu air base in Sardinia, was a major NATO event involving combat assets from France (E-3), Germany (F-4F ICE), Italy (AV-8B, F-16C, Tornado ECR and Eurofighter Typhoon), NATO (E-3) Turkey (F-16C). Electronic warfare support was provided by the dedicated Falcon 20 jammers of the NATO MEWSG (multi-service electronic warfare support group). Tanker support came from Italy, the UK and the US.
The Gripens flew as part of the hostile ‘Red Force’, largely conducting beyond visual range air battles with the ‘Blue Force’. Colonel Kilian recalls, “We flew 24 sorties over the two-week exercise, and we launched every day with our two planned Gripen Ds. We were the only participants to have a 100% operational record with the scheduled aircraft.”
“In Hungary we just don’t have large numbers of aircraft to train with, but in Spring Flag we faced COMAO (combined air operations) packages of 20, 25 or 30 aircraft. The training value for us was to work with that many aircraft on our radar – and even with our limited experience we could see that the Gripen radar is fantastic. We would see the others at long ranges, we could discriminate all the individual aircraft even in tight formations and using extended modes. The jamming had almost no effect on us – and that surprised a lot of people.”
“Other aircraft couldn’t see us – not on radar, not visually – and we had no jammers of our own with us. We got one Fox 2 kill on a F-16 who turned in between our two jets but never saw the second guy and it was a perfect shot.”
“Our weapons and tactics were limited by Red Force rules, and in an exercise like this the Red Force is always supposed to die, but even without our AMRAAMs and data links we got eight or 10 kills, including a Typhoon. Often we had no AWACS or radar support of any kind, just our regular onboard sensors – but flying like that, ‘free hunting’, we got three kills in one afternoon. It was a pretty good experience for our first time out.”
http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/SuccessStories/070918_hungary.htm
But Gripen and Typhoon was the only really good A/C out there, I thought it was good of the Hungarians anyway in their first exercise to knock down about 10 jets using only sidewinder/gun. Would have been nice to know how many times they died but they also flew just two jets together with two italian F-16’s vs. many more on the blue side.
About the Romanian MOD, I am not happy with his comments. I mean he can have personal opinions that I don’t care about, the reason I react is because he is the bloody minister of defense trying to influence a ongoing tender process that’s supposed to be transparent. In most nations this would be a warning flag.
Gripen development: The NG is not a new jet it’s a demonstrator for continued development of the C/D model. The new gear, weapon stations and 40% more fuel on the NG is just options that may be included on JAS39C/D and for marketing reasons can be given unique product names. Like “Gripen N” or “Gripen DK”.
Gripen 39C empty 6800 kg
Giving a fueled 39C jet with 22Klbs F414G a T/W of 1.10
Gripen ‘NG’ empty 7100 Kg
Giving a fueled 39 “NG” with 22Klbs F414G a T/W of 0.97
They want to increase the thrust on the F414G but I’m not going to post rumours.
Official Sources:
http://www.ntva.no/seminarer/manus/eddy-270207.pdf
http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/Pressreleases/2007/070619_demo.htm
There. Enough of the Gripen and SU-35 cr4p IMO.
signatoryJAS 39 and EF has with very small differences the very same capability in radar, in instantaneous turn rates, in the type of AAM, in HMD, even the gun.
Some differences yes but nothing to really set them apart in air combat against a SU-35. Nothing to validate such a claim by the MOD.
More power on the EF which can be helpful at some altitudes, but smaller size, smaller IR image, integrated EW jammer and better autonomous datalink on Gripen. And the Hungarians claim a close combat JAS 39 kill on a Typhoon so if they can on a sleek EF than why not on a gigantic radar and IR target called SU-35. I don’t see how TVC is going to be any savier vs a modern BVRAAM or TVC enabled Fox 2 queued from the enemies HMD.
You can argue what might be slightly better, EF or JAS 39 but to claim one is capable to 60% to kill SU-35 and the other 0% capable is just moronic.
signatoryThe Gryppen has been involved in many PR coups here in Romania including taking a ride with famous tv journalist. However, the Minister of Defence, has recently expressed his opinion in favor of the Eurofighter. He told the Prime Minister and the Press that the TYphoon is the only fighter that can defeat modern Russian fighters such as the su35. He gave a 60 % chance of success against the Su35 which seemed pretty low to me but he also added that the Gryppen stands no chance against modern russian fighters. The f16 seems out of the race for now as well as the rafale so it will probably be a Grypen or Typhoon
The MOD comments doesn’t make sense at all. Gripen has at least as good avionics package as EF and both have excellent maneuverability in the AA role. Gripen is only a smaller jet but that is actually an advantage in air combat as the visual ID is more difficult. And the jets carry the same weapons packages, IRIS-T and METEOR or the US alternative. And EF only 60% chance against the school bus target SU-35.. ? come on! He’s pulling cr4p out of his pants. Jeez man. Start looking at who’s paying his dinners.
signatoryso……
http://www.thenews.pl/archives/1346-Emergency-landing-of-Polish-F16s.html
Emergency landing of Polish F16s
Created: Tuesday, October 2. 2007
F-16 jet fighters stationed in a military base in Krzesiny (western Poland) have twice had to make emergency landings due to avionics failures.
Both aircraft managed to blind-land safely thanks to the pilots’ skills. According to “Newsweek Polska”, a catastrophe was avoided only by luck.
Since the Polish air force began operating the F-16s in December last year, dozens of faults and defects have been detected in the fighter planes’ equipment.
All repair costs are borne by the Polish military, because the Polish government failed to include clauses on guarantee repairs and services in the purchase agreement.
As of today, the defence ministry has ordered spare parts for the F-16 jets for 123 million USD that are to satisfy demands until 2010.
The list of problems with the Polish F-16 also includes a lack of a comprehensive IT system. Currently, all of the flight details, including fuel consumption, are recorded in an Excel spreadsheet.
“Without [the IT system], effective F-16 program management is impossible. We have two choices: either a team of air force experts will develop it by themselves or we’ll organise a bid”, Jacek Kotas, deputy minister of defence responsible for the implementation of the F-16 program told “Newsweek”.
signatorySo explain how, give sources evidence and figures then explain why your sources evidence and conclusions are better than scorpions. Otherwise you above post is useless.
I have posted source and evidence that contradict his claim. A sheet from:
http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00089/2_Eurofighter_capabi_89302a.pdf
Otoh, I have not yet seen any official source supporting his.
Thus “rubbish”.
300 m with a AA combat load. Source plz.
500 m with a heavy combat load. Source plz.
signatoryWhy should I? What was wrong with my post?
@Signatory,
300 m is official too, thoug it can be seen as the shortest takeoff distance with the pilot pulling the stick hard. The data from the graphics are typical operational values with more relaxed stick pull.
Rubbish.
signatory700 m is the required runway length for a heavier loaded Typhoon. Takeoff distance is given with 300 m with AA combat load and with 500 m for heavier configurations, though it is likely that the aircraft needs a longer run at MTOW. Landing distance is given with 500 m with a normal load. No closer details are known.
@Eagle,
but you have also to take into account that the Rafale only carries 4 AAMs, while the Typhoon carries 8.
Adjust your info using offical data.
Sign In
