Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Discuss all things 'aviation' that do not fit into a more appropriate forum
Post Reply
User avatar
CH2
Posts: 1657
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 1:04 pm
Location: somewhere next to st24
Contact:

Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by CH2 »

May be of some interest to you.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13641934

There's also another video on the pilot walk round with the ETPS example.
Cheers,

Chris

ben mccarthy
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu 06 Jan 2011, 5:49 pm

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by ben mccarthy »

Personally, i think this is the perfect fighter for the U.K - capable and cheap to buy and opearate. I cannot see any advantages in the F-35 (apart from its stealth). Does the U.K need a stealth fighter? I'd rather have Gripen's or Rafale's than the Lightning. If only there was a Sea Gripen :wall:

PeterR
Posts: 4852
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 12:43 pm

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by PeterR »

F-35 is worth the money as it's a 5th generation aircraft and has so many capabilities that current aircraft don't have and that we will need in the future.

ben mccarthy
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu 06 Jan 2011, 5:49 pm

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by ben mccarthy »

The F-35 costs about 85 million pounds and with the amount were buying we won't be able to use them affectively. I do agree though about the F-35's capabilities but the RAF pilots are some of the best rained in the world so its not all down to the aircraft. The Gripen and Rafale are 4.5 generation jets so it will be fairly similar to the F-35 in some ways. The program is over budget and more costs will be inevitable, if we pursied the F-35 we would'nt have any carrier capable strike aircraft unitl around 2020. Whereas the Rafale is ready now. They need to think this through - were trying to cut cost's and yet we buy the most expensive fighter around....that does'nt make sence to me! :facepalm:

User avatar
Russ
Posts: 5592
Joined: Wed 23 Jul 2008, 6:51 am
Location: UK

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by Russ »

ben mccarthy wrote:I cannot see any advantages in the F-35 (apart from its stealth).

Then you don't know much about the F-35 at all.

ben mccarthy
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu 06 Jan 2011, 5:49 pm

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by ben mccarthy »

Russ wrote:
ben mccarthy wrote:I cannot see any advantages in the F-35 (apart from its stealth).

Then you don't know much about the F-35 at all.

Maybe I dont know much but I certianly know its not cheap! :biggrin:

User avatar
Russ
Posts: 5592
Joined: Wed 23 Jul 2008, 6:51 am
Location: UK

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by Russ »

Which modern fighter is cheap? When we decide to buy the F-35 it'll be in full rate production and cheaper than the current low-rate production estimates, because they are being mass-produced - 3,000+. To even compare the Gripen to the F-35 is laughable. The US Navy has recently admitted they are considering replacing the Super Hornet with F-35C's after 2025 - Lockheed F-35C emerges as candidate for future US Navy contract

You are basing your opinions on what you feel is right today, not what is likely to be right in 7-10 years when the CVF and F-35C are ready and the UK economy *should* be back to it's former strength.

ben mccarthy
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu 06 Jan 2011, 5:49 pm

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by ben mccarthy »

Russ wrote:Which modern fighter is cheap? When we decide to buy the F-35 it'll be in full rate production and cheaper than the current low-rate production estimates, because they are being mass-produced - 3,000+. To even compare the Gripen to the F-35 is laughable. The US Navy has recently admitted they are considering replacing the Super Hornet with F-35C's after 2025 - Lockheed F-35C emerges as candidate for future US Navy contract

You are basing your opinions on what you feel is right today, not what is likely to be right in 7-10 years when the CVF and F-35C are ready and the UK economy *should* be back to it's former strength.

Have to admit, you do make a good point there - never thought about that. :oops:

User avatar
Heidfirst
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 1:26 am
Location: Glasgow

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by Heidfirst »

ben mccarthy wrote:If only there was a Sea Gripen :wall:

it's under development & it's being designed in the UK http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... in-uk.html

jon93
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu 06 Aug 2009, 10:36 am

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by jon93 »

Interesting read that article will be interesting to see which countries choose it in the future, on the JSF side of things by the time that thing gets into service we could be onto sixth genertaion and apparently the russians have made a radar using short waves that can already detect it so there goes the stealth, don't know if its true, read it in an air forces monthly feedback page I think. :smile:

User avatar
bigfatron
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon 06 Jul 2009, 11:40 am

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by bigfatron »

jon93 wrote:Interesting read that article will be interesting to see which countries choose it in the future, on the JSF side of things by the time that thing gets into service we could be onto sixth genertaion and apparently the russians have made a radar using short waves that can already detect it so there goes the stealth, don't know if its true, read it in an air forces monthly feedback page I think. :smile:


IIRC the last I saw about this was that range was poor and you also ended up picking up alot of other crap as noise? Suffice to say stealth isn't totally infallible against a well organised opponent, but every edge you have counts and you'd probably rather be in the very capable stealthy plane than the quite capable but not-stealthy plane.

As for sixth generation, I doubt it given everyone else seems to have only got to the 5th generation prototype level and so far its a long way from a given that the Chinese and Russian designs (both of which are first attempts at low observable, whereas the US is now on their 4th proper stealth platform) are actually any good or not.

TomTwin
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri 11 Jun 2010, 7:37 pm

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by TomTwin »

ben mccarthy wrote:The F-35 costs about 85 million pounds and with the amount were buying we won't be able to use them affectively. I do agree though about the F-35's capabilities but the RAF pilots are some of the best rained in the world so its not all down to the aircraft. The Gripen and Rafale are 4.5 generation jets so it will be fairly similar to the F-35 in some ways. The program is over budget and more costs will be inevitable, if we pursied the F-35 we would'nt have any carrier capable strike aircraft unitl around 2020. Whereas the Rafale is ready now. They need to think this through - were trying to cut cost's and yet we buy the most expensive fighter around....that does'nt make sence to me! :facepalm:


And people say the Typhoon is expensive..... It's a bargain compared to that! What has the F-35 got that the Typhoon hasn't?

User avatar
Russ
Posts: 5592
Joined: Wed 23 Jul 2008, 6:51 am
Location: UK

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by Russ »

TomTwin wrote:And people say the Typhoon is expensive..... It's a bargain compared to that! What has the F-35 got that the Typhoon hasn't?


- It's a 5th generation fighter.
- Unparalleled sensor fusion ("iPhone on speed" according to British pilots that have flown it).
- AESA radar from day one.
- Multi-role platform from day one.
- The worlds only 360 degree DAS, which also includes long range BMD capability, as standard.
- Stealth technology - RCS similar to the B-2's allegedly and including IR shielding.
- Built in Electro-Optical Targeting System - this gives the aircraft an internal Sniper XR targeting pod without the external drag or compromising the LO.
- CVF compatible.
- Does not suffer external drag issues from weapons pylons.
- A single F-35 F135 engine produces more thrust than both the Typhoon's EJ200 engines.
- Larger combat radius on internal fuel.
- A true modern day design, not one from the early 1980's.


So all in all, a lot more. Don't be under the illusion the Typhoon is "cheap" either. It's cost twice the amount it was supposed to (£107m per UK Typhoon), was in service a decade later than planned and won't reach it's full operational capability until 2015 at the earliest - 21 years after the first flight.

User avatar
aviodromefriend
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat 26 Jun 2010, 2:22 pm

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by aviodromefriend »

TomTwin wrote:What has the F-35 got that the Typhoon hasn't?
stealth. For what that is worth in real conflict (personally, I think it is way overestimated, and every country that is capable of funding it also has radar that is good enough to counter it already).
A weather forecast is a forecast and just that

Mike Moses, Launch Integration Manager Space Shuttle Program

Timmy!
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 8:56 pm

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by Timmy! »

Russ wrote:
TomTwin wrote:And people say the Typhoon is expensive..... It's a bargain compared to that! What has the F-35 got that the Typhoon hasn't?


- It's a 5th generation fighter.
- Unparalleled sensor fusion ("iPhone on speed" according to British pilots that have flown it).
- AESA radar from day one.
- Multi-role platform from day one.
- The worlds only 360 degree DAS, which also includes long range BMD capability, as standard.
- Stealth technology - RCS similar to the B-2's allegedly and including IR shielding.
- Built in Electro-Optical Targeting System - this gives the aircraft an internal Sniper XR targeting pod without the external drag or compromising the LO.
- CVF compatible.
- Does not suffer external drag issues from weapons pylons.
- A single F-35 F135 engine produces more thrust than both the Typhoon's EJ200 engines.
- Larger combat radius on internal fuel.
- A true modern day design, not one from the early 1980's.


So all in all, a lot more. Don't be under the illusion the Typhoon is "cheap" either. It's cost twice the amount it was supposed to (£107m per UK Typhoon), was in service a decade later than planned and won't reach it's full operational capability until 2015 at the earliest - 21 years after the first flight.



All very good points however all can be reasonably argued against if we`re honest in the example of Tiffie being an early 1980`s design i think your talking bout EAP which was a technology demonstrator and proved the theory of the delta wing, canards etc in 1986 but the typhoon was designed from this so strictly not the same aircraft.

JSF on the other hand hasn`t been without its issues and lets be honest the JSF program is from 1993/5 so although ye its 10 years newer it`ll be in service i dare say ten years later than Tiffie so there its still the same timeline for both projects. And the "modern" design is all relative regards to the full in service operational date ie yes it maybe modern today but if its not fully operation until say 2016 its then not quite so modern and other aircraft may have recieve upgrades to systems/avionics which equal or surpass JSF.

Ye mention alot about range however i`ve been reading on the RR intranet recently that there are issues with JSF`s range, namely that it doesn`t even match the originally required spec! As a result it`ll have to carry drop tanks there for it will suffer external drag issues from pylons of course if this is only if the issues persist however to be frank i think the whole project is at such an advanced stage that it will remain an issue. It comical in a way because as a replacement for Harrier its really following the lines of the Harrier ie "thou shall have range or thou shall have weapons and never shall the two meet".

As for the AESA radar Sensor fusion etc yes all good however things that can indeed be added to currently available aircraft through mid-life upgrades etc again the fit of an aircraft can and does change through its life as has happend with Harrier, Tornado and the list goes on.

As for stealth, yes its a great thing to have ye you`ve got reduced radar cross section etc. But your not untrackable someone will find away to track you as was the case with B-2. The only real way to be untracable is for the enemy to have no radar ie jamming for which you`d look to Prowler or as now EA-18G Growler.

As for multirole platform as has already been mentioned before JSF`s weapons bays are a limiting factor here, ie the number of weapons or size of weapons you can employ. For example if a weapons bay is X-dimension then only weapons of X-dimensions can fit and then only Y-number of these weapons.

Now you mention cost and this is a huge issue for JSF and its partner nations with a few having muttered about pulling out or cancelling orders most recently Canada. Its not just the initial financial cost per unit of the jet but also what will be rather sizeable operating costs as well with the special tools that will be required for groundcrew to properly maintain the jet. But for me another issue is that JSF is designed with a very limited life of i think 5000 flying hours, for me this rings alarm bells because if you plan out that you intend to operate JSF for X years at Y hrs per airframe per year therefore ensuring that you have the number of airframes operational to the OSD. Then suddenly you end up committed to 2 conflicts in which your JSF`s are heavily committed and so hemeraging their life by flying above your predicted flying hours per year. So as a result you`ll potentially have to retire the fleet much earlier than you want to because you can`t life extend it which has been done to Harrier and Tornado.

In short to conclude its horses for courses really, what are you going to use your air force for? what roles do you forsee being forfilled and likely mission profiles in different situations that you`d envisage being forfilled.

User avatar
CH2
Posts: 1657
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 1:04 pm
Location: somewhere next to st24
Contact:

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by CH2 »

Chox has returned. :ninja:
Cheers,

Chris

Timmy!
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 8:56 pm

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by Timmy! »

CH2 wrote:Chox has returned. :ninja:


I am really hurt by that comment i demand satisfaction! Why isn`t there a slapping gauntlet in someones face smiley?

Pistols at dawn sir? :grin:

User avatar
Russ
Posts: 5592
Joined: Wed 23 Jul 2008, 6:51 am
Location: UK

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by Russ »

Timmy! wrote:Ye mention alot about range however i`ve been reading on the RR intranet recently that there are issues with JSF`s range, namely that it doesn`t even match the originally required spec! As a result it`ll have to carry drop tanks there for it will suffer external drag issues from pylons of course if this is only if the issues persist however to be frank i think the whole project is at such an advanced stage that it will remain an issue. It comical in a way because as a replacement for Harrier its really following the lines of the Harrier ie "thou shall have range or thou shall have weapons and never shall the two meet".

The F-35C (the one we are getting) still exceeds the original spec and that's from the recently revealed preliminary data about range. Certainly don't think you'll see drop tanks on an F-35 regularly, except for ferry flights.

Timmy! wrote:As for the AESA radar Sensor fusion etc yes all good however things that can indeed be added to currently available aircraft through mid-life upgrades etc again the fit of an aircraft can and does change through its life as has happend with Harrier, Tornado and the list goes on.

It does of course, but it's not exactly plug-in and play. It would be costly and time consuming to get it to work in another platform. The F-35 sensor fusion suite is again, designed to work in the F-35 from day one.

Timmy! wrote:As for stealth, yes its a great thing to have ye you`ve got reduced radar cross section etc. But your not untrackable someone will find away to track you as was the case with B-2. The only real way to be untracable is for the enemy to have no radar ie jamming for which you`d look to Prowler or as now EA-18G Growler.

Don't recall anyone tracking a B-2, if you're referring to FI 1996 - as they said at the time "The B-2 is stealthy when it wants to be", similar to the F-117 and F-22. The USMC want the F-35B to be their Next Generation Jammer and the APG-81 fitted to all three variants of the F-35 has already been able to jam the F-22 radar in tests, no less.

Timmy! wrote:As for multirole platform as has already been mentioned before JSF`s weapons bays are a limiting factor here, ie the number of weapons or size of weapons you can employ. For example if a weapons bay is X-dimension then only weapons of X-dimensions can fit and then only Y-number of these weapons.

It carries the the same amount of munitions that the aircraft it's replacing does, which is what was originally asked for. Munitions are getting smaller and more deadly too. There's also some talk of modifying the weapons bays in the future too.

Timmy! wrote:But for me another issue is that JSF is designed with a very limited life of i think 5000 flying hours, for me this rings alarm bells because if you plan out that you intend to operate JSF for X years at Y hrs per airframe per year therefore ensuring that you have the number of airframes operational to the OSD.

Would love to know your source for the 5,000 flying hours? The US are expecting to operate the F-35 for a 50 year period, so it seems dubious.

User avatar
krustydave
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue 12 Apr 2011, 7:17 am
Location: Yeovil, UK

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by krustydave »

Imo, from the UK perspective, i dont think we NEED the JSF, and all of the things it brings to the table.
Take the stealth issue...
Way I figure it is that if we are going to go in anywere, we're probably going to strike first with our tomahawk missiles and with alot of help from the US. As we know they are 100% commited to JSF and already have a capable first strike stealth fleet in the B2 so they can do the first and most difficult bits for us...eliminating the main air defences, just as was the case over Libya. Also over the next 10-15 years UCAVs are going to assume more and more of the roles currently undertaken by manned platforms. Obviously much less risky for dangerous missions.
For almost everything else, like continuing ops in Afgh, Libya or in the future Yemen, you just need long loitering bomb trucks which is what any 4th-5th gen a/c like the typhoon can do quite well enough.

Lets face it...The only countries who we would REALLY need the steath capabilities against are probably China and Russia, The Chinese have NOTHING to gain by fighting the west, they can just continue along the current path and become pre-eminent in the world using purely aggressive economic but ultimatey peaceful means. Russia...equally unlikely as they have far more to gain by exploiting our need for their oil and gas.

Iran is a possibility but nothings' going to get done there without US and maybee Israels' help.

Unforseen flare ups like the falklands are equally likely not to be against any air defences so advanced that
JSFs' capabilities are essential.

I would rather we put the money into a much larger and well ballanced RN and RAF fleet of 4th-5th gen a/c like
Gripen, Rafale or Typhoon. For the RAF more Typhoons, coz we already operate them, and for the RN, Rafales rather than Gripens becaue their off the shelf (3-5 years) and the country in which they are built and could be maintained in, is only just over the channel from the bases in the SW (not to mention the fact that we are new defence best buddies :up: ). We could also invest the savings in a larger A2A tanker fleet with which to support them and getting the 2nd flat top into comission. We could then have enough airframes and ships to match all our dubious but probably; ultimatlely necessary commitments, with some spare capacity, rather than squeazing everything out of the few airframes/platforms we can afford. Serviceability would be better, pressure on the whole force, training and operational options would be better and we wouldnt eat up the fatigue hours so quickly. Its not like todays newest aircraft are UN-upgradeable either.

Of course the REAL elephant in the room, costwise, is the Trident replacement which I also think is un-necessary.

We might lose our place at the top table without JSF but lets face it, we arnt REALLY that important any more are we!

:topbombing: FLAMING COMMENCE! :topbombing: lol
Nikon D3100
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR DX
150-500mm Sigma f/5-6.3 OS

davedogman
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu 25 Sep 2008, 3:07 pm

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by davedogman »

Gripen NG will have better sensors than JSF (at least until a MLU), superiour datalink sharing, far better BVR-missiles that offsets a larger rcs, a much more modern and revolutionary architecture. True fighter agility and snappy climb rates, longer range.

As for the signatures, it has very likely a lower heat signature which is becoming increasingly important as IR-sensors become better. Radar signature is low and actually we have yet to see the final airframe configuration and other points on this topic. Gripen NG is getting both larger radar dimensions and lower signatures together with the added fuel and thrust. The final configuration depends on WHEN the production order comes in. The Swedish airforce has a desire to wait a while for a greater leap while Saab is offering less capable versions for near-term on export.

If we're looking at a jet that is just 80% "as good" overall as JSF but at 30-50% the costs to buy and 25-30% the cost to fly...

User avatar
Russ
Posts: 5592
Joined: Wed 23 Jul 2008, 6:51 am
Location: UK

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by Russ »

Presumably that's a joke right? Made me chuckle anyway, particularly the claim about having better sensors and datalink.

User avatar
Wes_Howes
Posts: 3801
Joined: Wed 03 Sep 2008, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by Wes_Howes »

krustydave wrote:Rafales rather than Gripens becaue their off the shelf (3-5 years) and the country in which they are built and could be maintained in, is only just over the channel from the bases in the SW


I agree with most of your points Dave apart from the above. Having to send the aircraft to France for maintenance is not a good idea. If we were to buy Gripen NG instead then RN techies could at least be trained up, creating/saving more jobs.

User avatar
krustydave
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue 12 Apr 2011, 7:17 am
Location: Yeovil, UK

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by krustydave »

i'll conceed that would indeed be better than outsourcing the maintenance.
I was thinking more along the lines of the big jobs / heavy or deep maintenance etc...
AFAIK isnt that a bit like what happens with BAE systems and the Typhoons atm?

Either GripenNG or Rafale would be ok though...Im not fussy lol :lol:

Im not going to try and suggest that either are better than the JSF, im just coming at this more along the lines of...

If we're looking at a jet that is just 80% "as good" overall as JSF but at 30-50% the costs to buy and 25-30% the cost to fly...


Seems to make alot of sense to me....is that extra 20% really worth sacrificing numbers etc...
Nikon D3100
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR DX
150-500mm Sigma f/5-6.3 OS

TomTwin
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri 11 Jun 2010, 7:37 pm

Re: Saab Gripen; Sales push article

Post by TomTwin »

Russ wrote:
TomTwin wrote:And people say the Typhoon is expensive..... It's a bargain compared to that! What has the F-35 got that the Typhoon hasn't?


- It's a 5th generation fighter.
- Unparalleled sensor fusion ("iPhone on speed" according to British pilots that have flown it).
- AESA radar from day one.
- Multi-role platform from day one.
- The worlds only 360 degree DAS, which also includes long range BMD capability, as standard.
- Stealth technology - RCS similar to the B-2's allegedly and including IR shielding.
- Built in Electro-Optical Targeting System - this gives the aircraft an internal Sniper XR targeting pod without the external drag or compromising the LO.
- CVF compatible.
- Does not suffer external drag issues from weapons pylons.
- A single F-35 F135 engine produces more thrust than both the Typhoon's EJ200 engines.
- Larger combat radius on internal fuel.
- A true modern day design, not one from the early 1980's.


So all in all, a lot more. Don't be under the illusion the Typhoon is "cheap" either. It's cost twice the amount it was supposed to (£107m per UK Typhoon), was in service a decade later than planned and won't reach it's full operational capability until 2015 at the earliest - 21 years after the first flight.


Fair enough! I was put firmly in my place! :grin:

Post Reply