JAS-39 Gripen

last SG · 2005-12-13T20:19:14+00:00

GRIPEN MULTI-ROLE FIGHTER AIRCRAFT, SWEDEN The Gripen multi-role fighter aircraft, developed by Saab, was first flown in December 1988 and entered operationa...

^Delta^ SG

Not been here for 4 days... and the moment I come in I see a flame war Shocked

spartan6 SG

Lets gets back 2 e tend la, in my opinion why would e RSAF need Gripen when we have blk52/52+ versions F-16 liao they make very gd replacements for our T/R/F-5S

qnh1011 SG

hi shot, let's not tok abt taking sides for the sake of a meaningful discussion. anyway, this aint a school yard. But i respect your opinion and i respect the Gripen as well as the pple who fly her. it's just that the gripen does not meet our requirements. you dun have to take my word for it if you still think i'm jus' a wannabe, let time take it's natural course and let the facts speak for themselves, 'k?

jus' out of curiousity, if you highly doubt that "RSAF will procure another plane in the 40-60mil category to replace the F-5" then why guess that RSAF will "perhaps acquire more F-15SGs" which are "already in the 40-60 mil category" as you've said? afterall, your guess is "an aircraft on the low-30mil"? Note: i'm not picking here, jus' curious abt your guess.

Spart: you're rite, let's get back on track. actually the search for an F5 replacement has not formally started, so it is still pretty much anyone's guess at this point. looking at the options for the future, i'm still more keen on the F15s and the Euro-canards. hopefully, the latter would have developed well enuff to present a stronger contender.

cheers!

RussianPower SG

... of course, I know 'milk powder' through my professional line of work. Smile

You know he has set up his own company offering aerospace consultancy services? He has positioned himself quite nicely as a SME go-between.

VikingS SG

Why post the statement if you are not prepared to discuss your reasons??

qnh1011 SG

er... becos u asked me to state my alternatives... let me refresh your memory:

"You must be joking, tell me what alternatives you suggest, and why."

and i already asked to be excused cos i aint got the time to go into the full details. i've given due credit to Saab's finest. would appreciate if you could accord the same to the Eagles and Euro-carnards. Unless u feel so strongly that the Gripen is a better option for RSAF as compared to the Eagles and Euro-carnards. in which case, you can always represent Saab and put forth your proposal during our RFI/RFP in time to come.

cheers!

qnh1011 SG

hi ruskie, hmmm... u in the aerospace business? dun tell me you're his partner now Laughing anyway, how did u meet him? hmmm, perhaps we've crossed paths unknowingly? wat's your area of specialty? Avionics, comms, weapons etc?

yar, some of us still keep in touch with 'milk powder'. he's a great boss, stands up for the boys and takes good care of all of us. he was flying lead during our final sortie. the guy's a true professional and he's good at what he does (or rather used to do). u still working with him or his partners?

mebbe we better take this offline... dun think others would appreciate what we're tokking abt...

cheers!

Shotgun SG

Let me clarify what I said. I believe the RSAF will not buy another aircraft type in the 40-60mil category as they will most likely continue to procure additional F-15SG type.

I'm not gonna engage u with any more "personal" arguements. I do finally realise, that I just shouldn't be bothered, nor should I take forum comments too seriously. My apologies.

Qnh1011, could you please explain why you think the gripen shouldn't be considered at all? You made a pretty harsh comment that the Gripen shouldn't be considered by any air force at all to replace the F-5.

As a new aircraft, in the 30mil range, I believe it has what it takes to take over the F-5s. Is it a capability issue that you feel that the Gripen cannot make the cut, or is it because its "not American."

qnh1011 SG

Hi shot, thanks for clarifying altho i find it rather contradictory, but we'll leave it as that then. on my part, i'll refrain from taking forum comments too seriously too. it's just that i found your earlier reply offensive too.

It was not my intent to sound harsh. the gripen has it merits too. why else would she have international customers albeit few. i have said before that the gripen is a potent platform given the proper training, but there are other factors beyond the 'capability issue' as well. it's not just abt capability/performance on paper or "not American". choosing a suitable replacement for the F5 in the future is serious business that must factor other considerations. it's abt defence strategy, inter-operatorability (within RSAF and with our defence partners), manning, compatability, logistics, trg, operational considerations, performance, politics, economics, timeliness in delivering what RSAF requires, future growth/options/upgrades/mods and how it fits into the present and future force structures. besides, would it be worth it to establish another OTB detachment and would the swedish gov be prepared to meet our terms? it is for these very reasons that the Euro-carnards did not meet our requirements. this is not an issue of personal opinion, go ask anyone in the community and you'll get the same answers. this is also not just abt "not American" altho i do not deny that the yanks have some of the best equipment. The Euro-carnards offer a very good alternative and that's why the industry was watching the RoKAF and RSAF selection so intently. i hope you find this sufficient to whet your appetite. to go into the details of each and every single consideration is not only time consuming; it's also unwise of both of us. agreed? anyway, like what i said, let events unfold as time passes and let the facts speak for themselves.

Perhaps you would like share with us why you believe the gripen "has what it takes to take over the F-5s". I sure we can all learn and benefit from a meaningful exchange of ideas and opinions.

Viking, feel free to add in your 2 cents (or should it be kroners?) worth as well.

cheerios!

Shotgun SG

Assuming that RSAF acquires another 8 more Strike Eagles, say at 50 mil a pc. Thats another 400mil spent on aircraft. If they are gonna purchase another aircraft type to replace the F-5 which maybe in the numbers of another 12-20? (in the category of 40-60Mil), might as well just get more F-15SGs. The F-15SGs are also more than capable replacements for the F-5s.

Hence, to buy another fighter-type to replace the F-5s in the 40-60mil category just doesn't make sense to me. And besides, like you mentioned, we would already have the infrastructure, logistics as well as (by then hopefully) operational experience with the Strike Eagles.

On the otherhand, purchasing a slightly cheaper (30mil) 4th generation aircraft to replace the F-5 would definitely be cheaper, that is looking at the short term aspect. Like U said, I didn't take into consideration the cost setting up of overseas training bases. Eg if we were to buy from the swedes initially, say 12? It'll be a modest 360 mil (not inclusive of additional costs). We'd have capable interceptors to replace the F-5s, and at lower initial costs. That was why I asked if it was a performance or capability standard that prevented anyone in the RSAF from even considering the gripen.

And if the Swede Gov is willing to accede a good deal, why not? Unless it was not as capable as other aircraft the RSAF would eye on later. But yes, I do get your point about integrating the aircraft into the RSAF's defence strategy, as well as logistics. I can imagine the logistic situation already... Shocked

What I am unsure about the Gripen is, whether it is "ready." I looked at some of the sites, it seemed that there is still a lot of development and upgrade packages on the way. The one that caught my attention was that it lacked in flight refueling capability. The site may be old.. I hope..

VikingS SG

Originally posted by qnh1011:

no air force flying the F5 shld replace the latter with the Gripen. there are better options

cheers!

This was the statement is was refering to.

What i am intrested in is on what grounds you prefere those other planes ?
is it

- Strategical
- Tactical
- Economical
- Political
- Performance

I am not saying that the alternatives is bad, what i am questioning is your statement, especially when you refuse to give any reasons for it.

EDIT: Missed your post above. Embarassed

VikingS SG

First we should limit our discussion to the 60-70 surplus JAS 39A.

The difference between A and C is that A version has Swedish software and lacks OBOGS (onboard oxygen generation system),
inflight refueling system, Coulour screens, and is not NATO compatible (datalink). And a bit weaker wing that gives
less flight hours with maximum load.

on the +side we still have a 4th gen airplane with
- Low accusitions costs
- Low operating costs
- Easily uppgraded
- Adapted to conscript ground crews
- 800m take off and landing
- can operate from simple roadbases
- Swing role

So a guess would be for 1 billion USD you could get 60-70 surplus JAS 39a (about a third of the acquisition price)
and then pay for uppgrading the software and datalink (Tech transfer) This way you could have a a 2 type airforce with the F15sg
in the Strategical long range role and JAS39A for tactical defence of Singapore in Air to Air, Seastrike, Recon and CAS roles

Further uppgrades planned in Sweden for the A model was
# larger, 150 x 200 mm colour MFDs
# enhanced warning and countermeasure systems
# reduced radar signature
# an imaging IR sensor, IR-OTIS, in a ball in front of the canopy which can be used to search for, track and imagine airborne targets as well as searching for and identifying ground targets, this in conjunction with the helmet mounted sight, it also will function as a FLIR navigation sensor
# further developed PS-05/A radar
# upgraded computers and databus
# new data cartridge
# a new IR AAM missile, IRIS-T
# helmet mounted display, Guardian by Pilkington/Cumulus (Denel)
# enhancements to the RM 12 engine consisting of a new turbine, improved flameholder and new FADEC by Lockheed Martin, General Electric and Volvo Aero Corporation
# new navigation and landing system

Acording to http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/gripen/

duotiga83 SG

JAS-39C/D have IFR Probe on the left side...but is hidden Wink

duotiga83 SG

Hnngary JAS-39C

Shotgun SG

ooo there's the hidden refueling probe.

But what about the Gripen A/Bs being discussed? Would they be upgrading with refueling probes?

duotiga83 SG

METEOR and IRIS-T testing

Mk82 bombs with NATO pylons

duotiga83 SG

Maverick Missile testing

GBU-12 with FLIR/LDP and GBU12 Armaments

VikingS SG

Yes, the Hungarian JAS 39C are uppgrades A models, but upgrading with inflight refueling would mean structural changes and rising costs. JAS 39A still has a ferry range of 3000km.

My suggestion would be in the first step to only uppgrade Software, computers and screens in order to keep the cost down.

-Direct operating costs JAS/F16/Mirage

-GRIPEN: IN-SERVICE REPORT

-Aeroflight about Gripen

-Aerodynamics Gripen

duotiga83 SG

SAAB proposal for Norway JAS-39-N

before

after

more fuel

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=57677

spartan6 SG

Thinks tat something wrong with e pic e Gripen has only 1 hardpoint under it's belly, a centerline pylon Neutral

« Previous Page Next Page »