dark light

signatory

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 226 through 240 (of 457 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The F-22 as a strike aircraft. #2543977
    signatory
    Participant

    I should think that the F-22’s main A2G role is always going to be SEAD, once the air defences have been dealt with the less stealthy types can then wade in to carry out the other types of aerial strikes. I take it that the ALR-94 gives the F-22 a certain “Wild Weasel” ability – does it?

    ALR-94 is a self-defense system and nothing like a wild weasel or SEAD capable aircraft. Otoh F-22A plan to use the radar for some SEAD business.

    Just how effective that radar solution would be against home-on-jam SAMs compared to the conventional jammers is of course a deep secret. It should be no worse anyhow. But remember, if you emit. You’re visible.

    in reply to: Rafale and guests in flight #2544124
    signatory
    Participant

    Last week the Swedish Airforce was in France. Exercising with Recon F1’s and Rafale F2 and Mirage 2000.

    Got one photo from the Swedish article. Maybe there’s more at the French defense web? The French AF will return to Sweden later this year for the Nordic air meet, the USAF will also arrive.. I wonder what they will bring.

    http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/3872/fransktdivutbyte1107fd3ab1.jpg

    in reply to: The F-22 as a strike aircraft. #2544150
    signatory
    Participant

    Just a question… from what base or refueling point would F-22A’s attacking Moscow (or other examples) be operating out of ?

    Or do they just miraculously appear from the great heavens..

    in reply to: Lithuanian Air Force to buy new fighters #2544927
    signatory
    Participant

    Have read that the Baltic states would create a common air policing system around the time the article talk about (2012).

    For the last 3 years the Gripen sales folders have included a export prospect 12 Gripen jets on lease to the Baltic states.

    Their economies are doing great and I think they should bite the bullet and get the same kind of upgraded A/B Gripen to C/D standard Sweden is getting. If Hungary can do it then all 3 Baltic states can too in a joint lease.

    They would get a 30+ year solution for their airforces, traning and logistical center just a few minutes away in Sweden, the same standard other Gripen users fly and much lower operating costs than second hand F-16s.

    in reply to: METEOR missile trials in Scotland #2545736
    signatory
    Participant

    Does someone know why they do these trials in Scotland ? Gripen comes from much nothern countries…

    I would say the number one reason is jobs in the UK. Also the base is not free to use by MBDA, they pay the UK state just like they pay Sweden when they use our bases. So putting the work in the UK means returning money the UK as lead-nation has put into the Meteor project.

    It was originally planned for the Eurofighter to take on much if not most of the Meteor work.

    It’s actually not much further to fly to Scotland or Wales than to fly to the Swedish Vidsel base where the other Meteor tests get done. (From the SAAB R&D center in Linkoping where they also test the missile)

    in reply to: METEOR missile trials in Scotland #2545790
    signatory
    Participant

    http://www.gripen.com – from Meteor tests over in Scotland.

    Hires

    http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/3579/dsc9376hangar1qs9.th.jpghttp://img95.imageshack.us/img95/5145/dsc9456gnd1zv8.th.jpghttp://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1463/dsc9477flght1ux5.th.jpg

    http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7615/meteorgripen430br6.jpg

    Zoomed.

    http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8436/dsc9376hangar1closexc7.jpg

    http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/3878/dsc9456gnd1closeus6.jpg

    in reply to: METEOR missile trials in Scotland #2546164
    signatory
    Participant

    Does the Meteor not have mid-mounted fins? I thought it was like an AMRAAM as far as fin layout goes….

    On old PR material it used to have mid-fins. But in more recent material the same pics have been photoshopped with no fins.

    I guess it’s the modification done to accomodate F-35 acceptance?

    http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/2845/meteor26f9fe1td9.jpg

    http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7999/meteorgripyl8.jpg

    Meteor folder from Saab:

    in reply to: METEOR missile trials in Scotland #2546351
    signatory
    Participant

    I don’t think it’s all that much larger than an AMRAAM insofar as length and body diameter (minus the ramjet intakes) are concerned. The issue here is that the Gripen is pretty freakin’ small! 😀

    Yes it’s the ramjet intakes that make up the eye-catching difference.

    http://212.75.68.165/images/200.1c3432a100d32b833b800092/89K31429.jpg

    http://212.75.68.165/images/200.1b9e7fcfd57a30f468000272/Dig02943.jpg

    http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/3944/meteorloadtt4.jpg

    Not that Gripen is exceptionally small for its class. F-16 and Rafale is only slightly larger. But F-15, F-22A and Su-27 is of course huge mofos. :diablo:

    Good going Saab!

    in reply to: Gripen in South Africa #2547365
    signatory
    Participant

    Silly.

    The Hawk and Gripens is only part of a large modernization project to replace alot of old equipment. Some dating back to the 70s.

    Such as 3 German Class 209 Submarines, 4 frigates, 60 odd Helicopters etc. The Gripen make up less than 1/5th of the investmentplan.

    It’s not expensive. About 4 billion Euros of new equipment that will last for 30+ years.

    in reply to: SAAB Car Commercial #2551030
    signatory
    Participant

    Thought SAAB was owned, at least in part by GM, not Ford?

    Correct. My bad.

    Ford owns Volvo cars. GM own Saab Automobile…

    in reply to: SAAB Car Commercial #2551257
    signatory
    Participant

    saw a car commercial from TV from the SAAB company but showing quick clips of the Super Hornet & the Raptor but with no SAAB fighters. what’s the catch??

    Unusual, but SAAB Automobiles is a US owned company (Ford) and not related to SAAB AB the Swedish owned defense and security corp.

    So they don’t really ‘need’ to use Swedish jets to fly the ‘born from jets’ slogan..

    in reply to: Rafale news #2555756
    signatory
    Participant

    OK. It’s just common sense.

    They bought a initial 12 F-15SG in a 1 bn package. If training, support and infrastructure is 30-40% the jets land at USD 50-60 Million. No surprise as jets at the end of their production line often come with nice rebates.

    Yes I doubt any political reasons, Singapore use a vaste amount of French equipment and even bought La Fayette based stealth frigates from France even before the jet tender was complete. The navy have also bought 6 or so subs from Sweden, the Army has a very large amount of French weapon systems and so on.

    So no I don’t doubt that Rafale was better in concept. I also don’t doubt they were more costly. Just like the French Ministry, Dassault and the aforementioned Colonel has said. As well as Mr Bob Kemp of the Gripen campaign who was on the inside of the procurement tender.

    Singapore buy what can get the job done at the best cost within the required time frame. Had it been a much larger tender the outcome is likely to have been different. Now they got a handful of modern jets at a good price, operative from 2008.

    So be it.

    in reply to: Rafale news #2555771
    signatory
    Participant

    Signatory,

    I love Bob Kemp like a brother, but I wouldn’t count him as any kind of impartial witness, while the Mackenzie article in which Moussez was quoted was written by a general (non-specialist) aviation reporter who may have been less discerning than you or I might have been in weighing up what she was told.

    I have no reason to doubt the information laid out in the Mackenzie article for the IHT. No ridiculous claims were made nor any attempt to prove either jet was a better solution for Singapore or South Korean Air Force.

    If at one point Mr Moussez is credible enough to use as a source on Rafale beating Typhoon on technical evaluations then he is credible enough to use as a source as to why he think the Singapore campaign was lost due to financial reasons.

    Can’t have it both ways.

    in reply to: Rafale news #2556003
    signatory
    Participant

    Money.

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/16/business/rairfight.php

    Yet it lost to the F-15 in competitions to sell to South Korea and Singapore. Moussez said it was outflanked in the former case on political grounds and in the latter case on costs, noting that the dollar had depreciated 30 percent over the period of the Singapore competition

    (Colonel François Moussez)

    Kemp said both aircraft (Rafale and Typhoon) had been offered to Singapore and South Korea at about $95 million each

    (Bob Kemp, director of sales for the Gripen)

    in reply to: Polish MiG-29 atacked!!! #2556459
    signatory
    Participant

    That can happen if you violate Thor’s airspace…

Viewing 15 posts - 226 through 240 (of 457 total)