Gripen News

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2165
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Nov 2018, 22:51

irt wrote:So far in Syria it seems to me JDAMs are used against isis and other terrorist groups. And whenever the US and allies have targeted Syrian "chemical factories" and air bases they have used large numbers of cruise missiles to do so. If a B2/F22/F35 could do the job with cheap JDAMs, why waste 10s of millions on cruice missiles to do it?


Well, that was one/single strike on an air base and one/single strike on chemical facilities (3 of them) or resuming two (2) "isolated" air strikes/raids.
If you're going to perform a one-off strike against targets that cannot move - buildings - which was exactly the case above then cruise missiles are indeed a good solution.
However due to what was already mentioned about cruise missiles - being much more expensive and much more likely to be shot down compared to other weapons such as the JDAM or lets not forget the Small Diameter Bomb or SDB - it means that you cannot carry a sustained warfare resorting to that sort of weapons specially by using them against semi-mobile targets like the S-300/400 (Xandercrews also provided your reasons why cruise missiles aren't good weapons for Air Defense Systems since they can be mobile).
Probably even the USA which has lots of resources available don't have the means to fight a prolonged war resorting to (expensive) cruise missiles, much less countries like Sweden and other potential Gripen (or other Eurocannards) customers.

Moreover regarding those two air strikes/raids over Syria, notice that only in one (1) of those strikes/raids were combat aircraft used which was in the strike against the "chemical facilities". The other raid/strike (the one against the airbase) was performed by ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles and strike against the "chemical facilities":
- No F-35's were used.
- No B-2's were used either (as opposed to what you mentioned/hinted on your post).
- The only Stealth aircraft used was the F-22 but these were used to provide air cover/escort to US B-1Bs (basically/likely air-to-air role).
- So all the aircraft that were used on the actual strike against the ground based "chemical facilities" were non-stealth aircraft. These included, B-1Bs (mentioned on the point above), Tornadoes, Typhoons, Rafales and Mirage 2000s. And apparently for these to have a good chance of success (as they did) they needed to use a very big number of expensive cruise missiles (36 air-launched cruise missiles which excludes the ship-based Tomahawks) and this again for a single strike/raid - now and again, imagine a prolonged war/conflict!!
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2165
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Nov 2018, 23:00

irt wrote:More complex systems like s300/400 tend to be more stationary and therfore more suited to attack with cruise missiles.


Even this, which is a "monster of a radar/system":
Image

Can be disassembled and "hit the road" in 15 minutes and assembled back in another 15 minutes.
So, now imagine how much less time a much more compact and mobile S-300/400 system requires for this (to disassemble and "hit the road"/become mobile and then to assemble again)...
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1261
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post12 Nov 2018, 23:32

mixelflick wrote:I'm confused what SAAB's value proposition for the Gripen E is?

It's expensive.

It isn't stealth.

It can carry a lot of weapons, but not very far

It can fly far, but not with many weapons.

It does have (or at least looks to have) a very powerful EW suite

So at the end of the day you have a little fighter that wants to do everything, but can't. Unless you're a tiny country only interested in defending your borders, I don't see how it fits the need of India, Canada, the UAE etc.

What am I missing?


In the recent Slovakia bid its initial cost was less then the F-16 Block 70 but was considered to have greater life cycle costs but the latter is an estimate.

viewtopic.php?p=399213#p399213

So why else would you buy it ? Maybe you like the overall kinematic performance, the 200 degree swivelling AESA, the internal IRST, the aircraft networking, Meteor capability, powerful state of the art GaN EW system, short road performance, small size both physically and in the radio spectrum. Neat set of attributes but you wouldn't pick it over a proper 5th gen stealth aircraft using any sense but against other 4th gens it's in with a good shout in competitions.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1261
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post13 Nov 2018, 00:58

Philippine Air Force (PAF) likely to acquire Swedish-made fighter jets

http://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1051097

MANILA – After a thorough study and research, the Department of National Defense (DND) is most likely to buy the Swedish-made Gripen multi-role supersonic jet fighter for the Philippine Air Force (PAF).

Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana made this disclosure in an exclusive interview with the Philippine News Agency (PNA) on the sidelines of the book launching of former President Fidel V. Ramos at the Manila Hotel on Sunday.

Lorenzana said aside from being cheaper and less expensive in maintenance cost, the Gripen has been proven to be an excellent supersonic fighter aircraft with a top speed of Mach 2 or 1,236 kilometers per hour, or twice the speed of sound.

The Gripen has a delta wing and canard configuration and is powered by the Volvo RM12. It is being used by various countries in Europe and the Middle East.

The PAF has been scouting for over a decade of what jetfighter aircraft it would buy to replace the US-made F5A/B jet interceptors that retired in 2005 due to old age and lack of spare parts.

Since the F-5s were pulled from service, the Air Force tried to acquire advanced jetfighters such as the supersonic F-16 from the United States, but no progress was made.

Lorenzana said the United States government offered anew to sell F-16 fighter jets to the Philippines.

The offer, Lorenzana added, was made by US Defense Secretary James Mattis when the DND secretary visited Washington last month.

Lorenzana confirmed the US offer, but said the F-16 supersonic jetfighter interceptors are too expensive.

In comparison, the Gripen costs less and has the same capability with other multi-role jetfighters, including the F-16.

Since F-5s were put out of service, the PAF has no multi-role jetfighters in its arsenal, although it had bought from South Korea a dozen of F-50 jets but the planes’ capability is limited compared with the Gripen, F-16 and similar aircraft.

The acquisition of multi-role jetfighters, Lorenzana said, is badly needed to protect the country’s airspace.

It may be recalled that in 1995 during the administration of President Fidel V. Ramos, Congress passed the modernization program of the Armed Forces of the Philippines that includes the acquisition of new planes, helicopters and naval vessels to replace aging ones. (PNA)
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post13 Nov 2018, 03:15

irt wrote:Then there is the pantsir systems that protect the s400, they like most modern short range sam/cwis systems have a good probability to take down incoming artillery and mortar rounds. What do you think is goining to happen to your 2000lbs -non manouvering-slow as fuck-gliding in from above -rcs like an arliner JDAM? Compared to a stealthy low flying manouvering cruise missile with built in ews and countermeasures.

F-35 can carry more than just 2000 lbs JDAM or glider bomb internally
SX0Ctsf.png

z9DSIq7.jpg

vKaBm6q.jpg

Capture.PNG

F-35B-MBDA-SPEAR-ASRAAM-Meteor.jpg

Cuda-LM-DSCN0157v2c2000.jpg

7jFg33D.png
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5995
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 Nov 2018, 04:55

ricnunes wrote:
irt wrote:More complex systems like s300/400 tend to be more stationary and therfore more suited to attack with cruise missiles.


Even this, which is a "monster of a radar/system":
Image

Can be disassembled and "hit the road" in 15 minutes and assembled back in another 15 minutes.
So, now imagine how much less time a much more compact and mobile S-300/400 system requires for this (to disassemble and "hit the road"/become mobile and then to assemble again)...



In the 80s even giant patriot missiles weren't expected to be in the same spot for more than 4 hours maximum and those are harder to pack up and move compared to Russian stuff.


It's not going to be a linear fight.


The issue isnt necessarily the cost of the uber stealthy/jamming/cruise missile it's that there will be fewer of them due to the cost. If someone goes to war with Russia the money spigot is on, the issue is how many uber cruisers you have stockpiled, how fast you crank them out, oh and BTW the ability to keep the factory from being put out of action wherever it is.

You will burn through ordnance distressingly fast and Russian mobility, Active defense, countermeasures, EW, redundancy, dummy systems etc are meant to help that happen. Another issue is BDA. Did your cruise missile take it out? Or is it still lurking?
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2165
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Nov 2018, 15:47

XanderCrews wrote:The issue isnt necessarily the cost of the uber stealthy/jamming/cruise missile it's that there will be fewer of them due to the cost. If someone goes to war with Russia the money spigot is on, the issue is how many uber cruisers you have stockpiled, how fast you crank them out, oh and BTW the ability to keep the factory from being put out of action wherever it is.


Well, I do think that cost is really important here. Like you correctly said, cost (or expensive cost) affects numbers of such expensive weapons available which are generally stockpiled in low numbers, specially compared with other cheaper weapons (such as JDAMs or SDBs for example).
Moreover, a successful Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD) usually requires a considerable (just not to say "a lot", yet) amount/number of expended ammo. This goes against the "nature of the Cruise missile" with its generally low availability in numbers.
You also brought up another interesting point which is how fast can someone produce (lots of) cruise missiles? I would say that the high cost of cruise missiles could probably mean that these weapons take a considerable amount of time to manufacture, this again and specially in contrast with other cheaper weapons.
And another reason for the high cruise missile cost could also be due to requiring a much bigger and much more complex supply line of raw materials and previously manufactured components whose supply line would likely be strained in the case of a prolonged war/conflict.

Resuming, the (cruise missile) high cost is likely a "symptom" of all the issues mentioned above.


XanderCrews wrote:You will burn through ordnance distressingly fast and Russian mobility, Active defense, countermeasures, EW, redundancy, dummy systems etc are meant to help that happen. Another issue is BDA. Did your cruise missile take it out? Or is it still lurking?


Absolutely agree! And that's another reason why I think that relying on Cruise Missiles to conduct a prolonged war/conflict - and it doesn't even have to be against Russia - and namely using them as the weapon of choice against enemy Air Defenses (which is a very hard task and requires the expense of "lots of ammo" to be successful) is a recipe for disaster.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2165
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Nov 2018, 15:50

marsavian wrote:Philippine Air Force (PAF) likely to acquire Swedish-made fighter jets

http://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1051097


Interesting, thanks for sharing the link marsavian :thumb:

So this means that the Philippine are interested in the Gripen C/D (second-hand ones perhaps?) and not on the Gripen NG.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1261
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post13 Nov 2018, 16:18

Yes, the very latest specification of C with the new MK4 radar is what is being proposed by Saab.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defe ... hilippine/
https://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/ ... gripen-cd/

The PS-05/A Mk4 is the most recent development of the renowned PS-05/A radar, originally developed for the Gripen fighter. Through continuous spiral development it has maintained its position as one of the most competent fighter radars in the world.

A new hardware configuration with a complete new radar back-end gives significantly improved radar performance and operational range, enhances the Gripen Weapon System capabilities and offers full AMRAAM and Meteor integration. It also enables significant capability growth through software upgrades to successfully counter evolving threats in decades to come.

A new Air-to-Air mode has been implemented and demonstrated which takes full advantage of the signal processing capacity and the flexible waveform generation in PS-05/A Mk4. This mode increases acquisition range with 100% at low altitudes compared to previous version of PS- 05/A. This radar mode will also be useful for detection of targets with very low Radar Cross Section. The Meteor missile downlink is optimized to maintain radar performance during long-range data linking scenarios.


https://web.archive.org/web/20151220013 ... -d-fighter

The reporting on this radar was wrong at the time as the the improvement is 40-50% not 140-150% as can be calculated from the RCS detection improvement.

The upgraded radar, designated PS-05/A Mk4, features a new hardware and software, with the primary changes being in the system's 'back end'. A mechanically scanned radar, the Mk4 will offer a 150% increase in high-altitude air-to-air detection ranges over the current Mk3 radar by the time development is complete in 2017.

As well as enhancing the detection distance, the Mk4 radar will be able to detect and track smaller targets at the same ranges. While at high altitude the in-service Mk3 radar can detect a target with a radar cross-section (RCS) of approximately 0.4 m 2 (the size of a medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft) at a distance of 'X', at the same range the Mk4 system will be able to see a target with an RCS of 0.1 m 2 (the approximate size of an air-to-air missile or 'stealth' aircraft').

In the air-to-air mode at low altitude, the Mk4 will provide a 140% improvement over current capabilities by 2017. These air-to-air modes have been implemented and demonstrated, the company said.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3446
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post13 Nov 2018, 16:44

Wow, the Phillipines select Gripen.

Well good for SAAB. I guess that makes the Phillipines the new powerhouse in that neck of the woods? LOL
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1261
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post13 Nov 2018, 16:50

The real takeaway is that Gripen will always have a chance where cost is the primary competition factor especially the C/D models.
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 551
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post14 Nov 2018, 08:32

It is being used by various countries in Europe and the Middle East.


Which one is a ME country, South Africa or Tahiland? :D

Good for SAAB to pick up some orders. The Philippines said Gripen C was cheaper than F-16, but Slovakia said it's the other way around. Proves once more how difficult it really is to put a finger on precise cost of ownership of a fighter.

Philippines sit in the place that is set to become a hotspot for a future conflict. Gripen be better up to the task, especially in the maritime domain.
Offline
User avatar

linkomart

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 406
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:30
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post14 Nov 2018, 11:26

marsavian wrote:
The reporting on this radar was wrong at the time as the the improvement is 40-50% not 140-150% as can be calculated from the RCS detection improvement.


No, there was nothing wrong with the reporting, although you have to read what the text really says.

regards
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2165
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post14 Nov 2018, 15:03

hythelday wrote:The Philippines said Gripen C was cheaper than F-16, but Slovakia said it's the other way around. Proves once more how difficult it really is to put a finger on precise cost of ownership of a fighter.


Isn't the Philippines or more precisely its leadership currently "at odds" with the USA??
Perhaps this is the reason why the Philippines selected the Gripen instead the F-16? And with that the "lower cost" is just a "manufactured excuse"?

I still don't know (perhaps I missed in it in the articles above) if those Gripen Cs are new built or second hand?
But in case they are newly build then it could also be the case (along with the lines above) that a newly manufactured Gripen C is perhaps a bit cheaper than a newly built F-16 which would likely be a F-16V which is the most advanced F-16 variant and as far as I know the only F-16 variant being newly build.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3446
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post14 Nov 2018, 15:24

marsavian wrote:The real takeaway is that Gripen will always have a chance where cost is the primary competition factor especially the C/D models.


C and D's with Meteor should still be a formidable opponent. Makes me wonder why they don't go with the NG/E though. Price? Not ready yet??

SAAB always talked up its maritime warfare capabilities. Will be interesting to see what the Phillipines does with it. Won't be going far, but for point defense it won't need to. Zippy little design, and with the Meteor should command a good deal of respect. We'll see if they can parlay this into any more orders...
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests