CH,
The gripen is a conventional signature, 2-pylon, airframe. It can drop GBU-16 with the LITENING pods now but it can't carry an ARM or indeed more than 2 AMRAAM period while doing so. Even the U-95 pod is not serviced (or carriageable with the LITENING onboard) and the internal jammer, if it was ever installed, is just a pulse-repeater rather than a fullup deception/noise system like the ASPJ was.
If they were realistically gassed up with 400 gallon tanks on each of the inboard wing pylons to exploit the full depth of the Alaskan range space, the are probably down to a single 500-700lb store (i.e. GBU-12) on the outboards and the fact that that munition is SALH instead of PTOD makes for a lot closer approach to the target than might be considered 'useful' to the modern USAF strike doctrine (meaning we get to pay for your close approach onto a D1/R1 airfield type target).
Much of what makes the Gripen special is inherent to it's proprietary electronics suite interface with both the air and ground environment and specific pods. Given the C/D is just the Swede version of the Xport/International, it is in fact many steps back from that standard with bootstrap solutions to the current airframe to make it 'compatible with STANAG'. When in fact NATO standards are less capable than the Swedish baseline (as an example, Gripens are now compatible with an ACMI pod. But they have always had 'rangeless' ACMI inherent to their own datalink facilities).
As regards the exercise specifically: As I recall, the Swedes spent the better part of a month predeployment training up at the Vidsel weapons ranges and created a provisional 'Tango Red' squadron composed of 20 odd stick monkeys and 7 jets (two of them JAS-39Ds with presumably less operational electronics and/or fuel). Supported by two C-130H. This is not a terribly impressive logistical feat even as it suggests that the aircrew may well be picked pros in the 1,500-2,000hrs on type, 'instructor grade'.
There ARE elements of the Gripen which could be nifty. The IRIS-T (if it came with ODIN) and the BK-90/KEDP-350 (if the range space is cleared for a glide weapon) but I doubt if they will clear the cost barrier to a real leveraged use and frankly a fourship with a ramp spare is not going to be-
>>
Lt Col Ken Lindberg. “Gripen is going to be seen in every role,” including leading composite air packages with other participating nations, he says.Lt Col Ken Lindberg. “Gripen is going to be seen in every role,” including leading composite air packages with other participating nations, he says.
>>
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/27/207411/Red+Flag+to+test+Swedes.html
Simply because they don't contribute enough (numerically) to the gameplan in an airframe with enough strike warfare aptitudes to be worth the effort.
Of course I am also frankly against-
>>
“This is the most extensive and complex exercise the Swedish Air Force has been involved in to date with the JAS 39 Gripen,” Ken Lindberg explains. “Taking part will give us extremely important experience ahead of potential international missions in the future.”
>>
http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2006/gripen_at_red_flag.htm
Since this is effectively teaching your enemy your doctrines and where this is particularly relevant to NCW, we don't need to be handing out freebies to people who think of RF as an excercise in-
>>
The exercise also provides a good opportunity to demonstrate the Gripen and its capabilities to interested parties internationally.
>>
http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2006/gripen_at_red_flag.htm
Because frankly Sweden was never more than a silent partner in NATO and the Alliance itself is little more than an excuse for backstabbing and 'host fees' now that the Russian threat has gone and militarism is a Vae Victis Vickers business-in-booming.
The U.S. technically fights better alone than with anyone else and with the increase in COE tactics inherent to BVR, DEWS and Glide-IAM, I'm afraid I find much of the 'jointness' inherent to multiforce excersizes to have no point as either a propoganda (against who?) effort or a _secure_ training forum.
CONCLUSION:
IMO, the Swedes are looking for a free kudo on an airframe that is less competent overall (nm per pylon) than the F-16. Rather than indulge in fantasies like this-
>>
Saab-led Gripen International is studying future development options for its Gripen multirole fighter, including the possible installation of a more powerful engine, increasing the type’s overall size and maximum take-off weight, and the potential availability of a carrierborne strike variant.
Intended to boost the long-term export prospects for the single-engined Gripen – as competition increases from rival types over the next decade – the enhancements could result in a modification package similar to the Super Hornet enhancement to Boeing’s baseline F/A-18, say industry sources.
>>
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/27/207410/New+Gripen+variants+studied+by+Saab.html
And this-
http://www.patricksaviation.com/uploads/av_images/598.jpg
They need to start over again, exploiting their SHARC database to create something truly new and cheap enough/enduring enough to be worth the cost, particularly in ops other than war. Once they do this, their vaunted neutrality posture will go right out the window of course but if you want to export death in a wide world, you'd better be able to do it to the tune of the other customers operational issues and the first order of business there is massively cheaper than the U.S. can provide and vastly more capable of BEING THERE when a fisheries violation, smuggling or guerilla threat issue raises a nail to be hammered. While their DCO numbers are pretty good (around 2,500 dollars per flight hour with about 10-20MMH:FH), the JAS-39 just doesn't bring enough of it's literally _owned_ capabilities to the table to be competitive with anyone who can buy upmarket into a twin. Or the U.S. ordnance and total support package deals.
KPl.
