Gripen demonstrator rolled out

[swerve]

There should be a Gripen thread somewhere, but I can't find it. Therefore this one.

One interesting thing is that the press release says it's getting "a new Saab/Thales active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar". No word on hos much of the new gear (e.g. F414G engine, new avionics) is actually fitted to the aircraft shown today, unfortunately.


With pictures (http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/Gripen_Demonstrator_The_Future_has_Arrived.htm) - click on "Gripen image base".

I look forward to it flying.

[Aussie Digger]

There should be a Gripen thread somewhere, but I can't find it. Therefore this one.

One interesting thing is that the press release says it's getting "a new Saab/Thales active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar". No word on hos much of the new gear (e.g. F414G engine, new avionics) is actually fitted to the aircraft shown today, unfortunately.


With pictures (http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/Gripen_Demonstrator_The_Future_has_Arrived.htm) - click on "Gripen image base".

I look forward to it flying.

Without wishing to denigrate those Gripen fans out there, the "new" Gripen will be using a Thales AESA antennae in it's much vaunted AESA upgrade...

What were all those arguments a few months back, about Sweden's AESA radar capability again?

[SlyDog]

Aussie Digger: Remember this is about demonstrator program. Not the "end product". By the way, its not news to me that SAAB just go "halfway" to a full feathered AESA, as a first step.

Link (http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gripenradarroadmapka1.jpg)

[swerve]

Without wishing to denigrate those Gripen fans out there, the "new" Gripen will be using a Thales AESA antennae in it's much vaunted AESA upgrade...

What were all those arguments a few months back, about Sweden's AESA radar capability again?

All about back-end, I think. Ericsson used a Raytheon antenna for development when it started working on AESA fighter radars, & has had various joint projects, e.g. with Selex, which I suspect have been about choosing who to get an antenna from. Now we know who they've settled on. Thales, which means UMS T/R modules.

They have, of course, had an operational airborne AESA radar for over a decade, but it's not exactly suitable for a fighter.

[rattmuff]

And here we have the standard facts and so on in a pdf-file:
http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FCB6D4D6-8D7E-4824-B674-4B42B761A7F9/0/GripenNewsDemo_080414_final.pdf
My tip of the day is: Read the pdf!

[z1pp0]

Perhaps we will see all of those 100+ surplus gripens rebuilt as NG's. Another airbase (F21 Luleå) is market for disbandment. Actually the whole Swedish defence force is halfed! :rolleyes:

At one time the single seat NG was proposed to have the extended fuselage of the two seater (for greater fuel/range). But the pdf claims the same length as the C. I guess that rebuilding the older surplus airframes as NG's would seem a good way to get rid of them. :p: Considering that the Gripen Demo is an old B model, and looking at the limited detailed 3D drawings of the pdf it looks feasable. Besides I dont hink that either SAAB, Gripen international, FMV or the swedish government would just throw away perfectly good aircraft. Or maybe not.. :o

\\Dan

[swerve]

And here we have the standard facts and so on in a pdf-file:
http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FCB6D4D6-8D7E-4824-B674-4B42B761A7F9/0/GripenNewsDemo_080414_final.pdf
My tip of the day is: Read the pdf!

Good tip!

Very interesting. It reads as if this has a modification of the antenna for the RBE.2 AESA, grafted onto an upgraded PS-05/A back end with new software.

[Grand Danois]

The Ares blog has been busy. :D

The big news today was that Thales has been selected as the partner for the new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar; in fact, the selection took place in October 2007. The demonstrator radar will be a prototype combining the modified back end of the C/D's PS-05/A with a Thales array, using modules that are already flying on a test-bed as part of the Rafale AESA program. It will fly on the Demo in the summer of 2009.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a08b69f7e-cc4c-478b-a302-0b367d0b98b7

and

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a5321db4e-30b7-4acd-a0fc-86e6b41d5789

and

The chief airframe changes are a new main landing gear which makes room for 40 per cent more internal fuel, the GE F414G engine, a simple modification of the Super Hornet engine (it is actually cheaper than the RM12 that it replaces) and two extra underfuselage weapon stations. The Demo will also test a prototype active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a76e1b4a5-2302-4d04-99c9-869e490791f9

[Dr Freud]

Without wishing to denigrate those Gripen fans out there, the "new" Gripen will be using a Thales AESA antennae in it's much vaunted AESA upgrade...

What were all those arguments a few months back, about Sweden's AESA radar capability again?There are two versions: from pdf
1/ As Gripen NG is a platform for the 2015 timeframe, it is clear that many of today's technologies will have moved on by the time
the NG is avaliable. For example, active electronically scanned (AESA) radar, communications, electronic warfare and weapons development - all at the heart of Gripen NG's improved capabilities - does not stand still. Therefore, while the Gripen Demo aircraft will be invaluable in sketching out the road map for Gripen's future development, the ultimate NG systems fit will go even further. The AESA radar to be trialled on the Demo will deliver invaluable integration data and operational experience, but it will not be the final configuration for the Gripen NG.
and 2/ http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/892donqz.asp?pg=1

AESA technology is already in use in several of Saab’s products, such as the Erieye airborne early warning system, the short-range search and acquisition radar Hard, the surveillance radar system Giraffe AMB and the artillery locating radar Arthur.

[caprise]

Why Thales was chosen is explained by Peter Andersson (product manager at Saab Microwave Systems):
At present Thales is developing an AESA within a French radar programme and, like Saab Microwave Systems, is one of the world leaders within the radar field. Together we can quickly develop a demo-product that can show the markets the advantages of AESA technology. The collaboration over the antenna is also cost effective and is in line with Saab’s overall strategy of finding industrial partners for Gripen.
://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=93540&session=dae.36165695.1209037057.4Fbkq38AAAEAAAb6I0 0AAAAk&modele=release
(Add http above)

Thales is also leading the Korrigan project (If that´s alive?) with the goal "to develop a stand alone European supply chain and capability for GaN HEMT technology which will provide all major European defence industries with reliable state-of-the-art GaN foundries services." SAAB is also one of the seven "systemhouses" involved.
://www.gaasmantech.org/Digests/2006/2006%20Digests/3D.pdf
(Add http above)

At the time Gripen NG is supposed to go operational (~2015-2020) I think it´s quite possible that Europe might have catched up some (if not all) of the american antenna lead? But no need for "some" here to go thru the roof it´s just a personal guess.;)

C.

[Sintra]

Why Thales was chosen is explained by Peter Andersson (product manager at Saab Microwave Systems):

://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=93540&session=dae.36165695.1209037057.4Fbkq38AAAEAAAb6I0 0AAAAk&modele=release
(Add http above)

Thales is also leading the Korrigan project (If that´s alive?) with the goal "to develop a stand alone European supply chain and capability for GaN HEMT technology which will provide all major European defence industries with reliable state-of-the-art GaN foundries services." SAAB is also one of the seven "systemhouses" involved.
://www.gaasmantech.org/Digests/2006/2006%20Digests/3D.pdf
(Add http above)

At the time Gripen NG is supposed to go operational (~2015-2020) I think it´s quite possible that Europe might have catched up some (if not all) of the american antenna lead? But no need for "some" here to go thru the roof it´s just a personal guess.;)

C.

Caprise

The simple fact that SAAB chose a French company to develop the AESA antena in direct competition with SELEX, Raytheon and Northrop speaks volumes about the capability of THALES.

Cheers

[Aussie Digger]

There are two versions: from pdf
1/ As Gripen NG is a platform for the 2015 timeframe, it is clear that many of today's technologies will have moved on by the time
the NG is avaliable. For example, active electronically scanned (AESA) radar, communications, electronic warfare and weapons development - all at the heart of Gripen NG's improved capabilities - does not stand still. Therefore, while the Gripen Demo aircraft will be invaluable in sketching out the road map for Gripen's future development, the ultimate NG systems fit will go even further. The AESA radar to be trialled on the Demo will deliver invaluable integration data and operational experience, but it will not be the final configuration for the Gripen NG.
and 2/ http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/892donqz.asp?pg=1

AESA technology is already in use in several of Saab’s products, such as the Erieye airborne early warning system, the short-range search and acquisition radar Hard, the surveillance radar system Giraffe AMB and the artillery locating radar Arthur.

It isn't used in fighter sized FCR's that have been manufactured by Swedish company's. The fact that they've chosen a Thales antenna for their demo proves that.

As to it's capability or otherwise, I'd suggest this shows NOTHING whatsoever about the relative capabilities, other than a general inference that this antenna is potentially more capable than the existing Gripen radar that so many have raved about.

Is it really that surprising that Raytheon AESA antenna's (for example) aren't being provided to a company that is a direct competitor in multiple fighter acquisition projects around the world? :confused:

The F-414 is different. It is an engine and not a particularly special one at that. It is hardly the "game breaker" that advanced fire control radars are...

[SlyDog]

Aussie Digger: The thoughts around the AESA is that SAAB want to use a kind of simple "frequency down mixing units" (I dont know if that is the correct terminology - a "device" in the radar as bring down received signal to a frequency, possible to sampling in sufficient rate.) But it appear problem when down mixing are done in a big extent. Frequency mirroring was one problem - and that result in need of advanced filter. So - SAAB want to be able to develop a simple radar unit - but that require faster Analog/digital-converter and processors. That should simplify the radar in a very big extent!!!


Links (http://www2.foi.se/rapp/foir1043.pdf) only in swedish unfortunately

Edit: the paper are from FOI
Swedish Defence Research Agency. Not SAAB.

[swerve]

...
Is it really that surprising that Raytheon AESA antenna's (for example) aren't being provided to a company that is a direct competitor in multiple fighter acquisition projects around the world? :confused:....

The rumour is that Raytheon is happy to supply antennae (after all, it's supplied them as development tools), & was SAABs first choice, but it's been blocked. LM is, of course, strongly opposed.

Raytheon may think that having all the money from one radar, & a large part of the money from another radar, is an insurance policy when they're up against each other, not a threat. It may think it would gain more from supplying front-ends for any future SAAB sales, & for retrofits to existing Gripens, than it might lose in any hypothetical case where Gripen with a half-Raytheon radar is selected in place of a fighter with an all-Raytheon radar.

[Sintra]

It isn't used in fighter sized FCR's that have been manufactured by Swedish company's. The fact that they've chosen a Thales antenna for their demo proves that.

As to it's capability or otherwise, I'd suggest this shows NOTHING whatsoever about the relative capabilities, other than a general inference that this antenna is potentially more capable than the existing Gripen radar that so many have raved about.

Is it really that surprising that Raytheon AESA antenna's (for example) aren't being provided to a company that is a direct competitor in multiple fighter acquisition projects around the world? :confused:

The F-414 is different. It is an engine and not a particularly special one at that. It is hardly the "game breaker" that advanced fire control radars are...

Just to complement what SWERVE mentioned, there were four proposal´s evaluated by SAAB, one from Raytheon, one from Northrop, another from Selex and finaly THALES.
Whatever you may think of THALES capabilities its quite clear just looking to the "rivals" that the French offer was competitive, it wasnt just a question of the "antenna being potentially more capable" than the actual PS-05...
Far from it, Northrop would gladly contribute a SABR based antenna.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3adf6022a1-6b56-4e57-8aa8-1a63b45dc889

[Dr Freud]

It is also like buying a computer today, but start to use it 7 years later.
Noone in his right mind would do it. Just compare p4 with quad core.
Seven years is a full generation leap in radar technology.

Come to think about it, this was precisely what they repeated in the pdf:

As Gripen NG is a platform for the 2015 timeframe, it is clear that many of today's technologies will have moved on by the time the NG is avaliable.

Including, but not limited to 1) AESA 3rd gen, 2) The broadband satellite communications link fitted to the Demo is not the final production fit. 3) Not all of the extra fuel capacity of the Demo has been utilised, but it will be implemented in production aircrafts. 4) The new missile approach warning system (MAWS) fitted to the Demo is an impressive new capability, but an even more advanced system is under consideration for the Gripen NG. 5) You get the idea

[Dr Freud]

I just read that Norways condition to buy "Super JAS" Gripen is if Sweden will also buy the latest version.
According to newspaper, the Swedish government on thursday decided to buy new super jas, if Norway buy.

It was confirmed on the Demo show that Gripen will have true supercruise capability.

[rjmaz1]

It was confirmed on the Demo show that Gripen will have true supercruise capability.
Opposed to untrue supercruise?

Just another sales pitch. :rolleyes:

Only the F-22 has "true" supercruise capabilities. Even it takes a massive hit in range when cruising at supersonic speeds.

That means flying beyond the high drag transonic region in full combat configuration.

If an aircraft's combat radius is reduced by half when cruising at Mach 1.2 opposed to mach 0.8 then thats not very useful. Thats not much of an improvement on using afterburners. Cruise is meant to be dictate the speed at which the aircraft gets the most range.

Drag increases sharply either side of Mach 1. This region is called the transonic region. To get past this increase in drag all air around the aircraft must be supersonic. Usually that required an indicated air speed of between Mach 1.2 and 1.3.

This high drag region is so bad that an aircraft may have the same overall drag at mach 1.3 as opposed to Mach 1.05. So the same thrust is required to acheive Mach 1.3 as Mach 1.05.

However some aircraft can cruise at Mach 1.05 dry but not at Mach 1.3 dry. If the drag is the same then u may ask why it cant reach Mach 1.3? It all comes down to exhaust velocity. Turbofans with a higher bypass ratio has more air but traveling at a lower speed. A low bypass turbo fan has less air but has it traveling at a faster speed.

The Saab Gripen will not supercruise. It will definitely exceed Mach 1 in a clean configuration and will most likely exceed it with a light weapon load. It will not be able to exceed this high drag transonic region without afterburners with any kind of useful weapons load.

[swerve]

...
Only the F-22 has "true" supercruise capabilities......

Only according to the post-F-22 Lockheed Martin definition, tailored to what the F-22 does. I consider that an invalid definition. If LM wants to use a single word to define what the F-22 does that other aircraft do not, it should devise a new term, not redefine an existing one. It saddens me that people have succumbed to LMs sales literature so completely.

[Grand Danois]

But does the classic definition carry any meaning in operational terms? IOWs is LM right in redefining the term?

But fair enough, perhaps it would have been better if a new term had been developed.

[swerve]

But does the classic definition carry any meaning in operational terms? IOWs is LM right in redefining the term?

Whether it does or not, I object on principle to any marketing-based redefinition*. If they want a new meaning, invent a new term. The operational meaningfulness or otherwise of the real meaning of supercruise is not relevant: it exists, & has a definite meaning. Change it, & you lose that meaning, & have to use a convoluted explanation.

*Ditto for political propaganda-based redefinitions, such as Margaret Thatchers redefinition of federal to mean unitary, & the (sadly successful, in the USA) US right-wing redefinition of liberal to mean authoritarian statist.

I won't give up on this. Anyone who insists on using the LM redefinition is going to have to accept that I'll correct them.

[Grand Danois]

I won't give up on this. Anyone who insists on using the LM redefinition is going to have to accept that I'll correct them.

LOL. I have the same obsessions, also on misuse of language (but look at it from a diff perspective). The classic definition is technically right, but totally unsuited to be used in a sales pitch... this is where the LM definition fits, and is useful for discussion. Anyone have suggestions for a new term? Like "tactical supercruise" or "operational supercruise..."

And does the SAAB usage "true supercruise" refer to the classic or the LM definition, or have they invented their own?

[swerve]

LOL. I have the same obsessions, also on misuse of language (but look at it from a diff perspective). The classic definition is technically right, but totally unsuited to be used in a sales pitch... this is where the LM definition fits, and is useful for discussion. Anyone have suggestions for a new term? Like "tactical supercruise" or "operational supercruise..."

And does the SAAB usage "true supercruise" refer to the classic or the LM definition, or have they invented their own?

1. "Operational supercruise"? Agreed that some sort of term is useful. BTW, I find the obsessive niggling over minutiae sometimes engaged in when supercruise is discussed quite irritating, despite my views on meaning. For example, the EE Lightning is said to have been able to cruise supersonically on dry thrust, though not for a significant time, as its range was so short in any case, but it's reported that on the rare occasions when it did (never operationally, AFAIK), it used afterburner to accelerate through the highest drag zone around M1, because doing so actually used less fuel (a crucial consideration for a Lightning) than the much slower (as demonstrated in tests) transition on dry thrust. I've been told that therefore, it wasn't supercruising, since afterburner had been used at some point. The fact that afterburner was used (counter intuitively) for fuel economy, was rejected as irrelevant: "pure" supercruise requires eschewal of afterburners, & is forever tainted once they've been used, regardless of operational considerations. It's almost religious.

2. Interesting question . . . but at least they're using a modifier, even though I don't like the one they've chosen. Perhaps "full supercruise" would be better. BTW, I like the way they describe the current Gripen supercruising abilities - "only on a cold day in Sweden". :D Refreshing, compared to the hype one often gets.

[rjmaz1]

Perhaps "full supercruise" would be better.
How an aircraft that can "supercruise" with no weapons, less than 23% fuel, a pilot under 60kg, a 3 degree dive profile and a 30 knot tail wind? But wait it hit Mach 1 with dry thrust that means i can call it a supercruising aircraft right?

Now that wouldn't be very realistic or useful. If that meets the definition then lets say hi to the supercruising F-14/15/16!

You have to think about why Saab mentioned the word supercruise in the first place.

The whole point was to get sales by painting a false image that it is in the highest speed class and has the fuel and range to make it tactically useful. It fails on all counts.

Btw the widely regarded meaning of supersonic is when all the air around the aircraft is greater than the speed of sound. That is often as high as mach 1.2 depending on wing sweep. LM are simply educating people that Mach 1 is NOT supersonic. Being smack bang in the middle of the most ineffecient cruising speed possible, can not be associated with the word cruising.

The definition Saab should use would be "transprint". That would fit perfectly. Being able to to hit the transonic speed region with dry thrust. Sprint also fits nicely as its range would be reduced by a massive 50+% just because it decided to travel ~20% quicker.

Heres some reading for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transonic

Hang on i think i should startup my own aircraft company! I'll create my own definition of super cruise. Anything that travels over 200km/h gets the supercruise label. After all i could technically launch the aircraft into orbit on the shuttle and during re-entry it will be cruising supersonic for most of the way under its own power. Sure it cant do it normally but who cares if its good enough for Saab its good enough for me :D :D

[Ozzy Blizzard]

IMO supercruise is misleading term. Only the Concord had real supercruise. Every military platform i know of doesnt cruise at supersonic speeds, they need Mil power to achieve supersonic flight. Therefore none of them cruise.

Anyway "F22 like" supercruise is a different kettle of fish to "Eurocanard" like supercruise, which ever defintition you want to use.

[swerve]

...
Btw the widely regarded meaning of supersonic is when all the air around the aircraft is greater than the speed of sound. That is often as high as mach 1.2 depending on wing sweep. LM are simply educating people that Mach 1 is NOT supersonic. ..

No, LM accepted that definition until they realised it described what Typhoon could do, then suddenly dropped it and came up with a new definition. I don't know what LM are paying you for your support, or whether you do it for nothing because of an emotional attachment to them, but any objective analysis of the changes in LMs position tends to lead one towards the suspicion that the LM definition of supercruise is "whatever F-22 can do that Typhoon* can't do". :p:

LM isn't into educating people about Mach 1, it's trying to indoctrinate people into accepting a corporate image of LM as the most capable aerospace company in the world. That's OK, they're a commercial firm: as long as they don't tell lies, stressing the positive is playing the game within the rules. But that anyone should be so gullible as to swallow the corporate line completely makes me rather sad.

*Until another fighter, e.g. PAK FA, surpasses Typhoon: then substitute the new name.

[Dr Freud]

LOL Mach 1 is NOT supersonic.
IMO supercruise is misleading term. Only the Concord had real supercruiseWithout wishing to denigrate those individuals and/or marketing boys that want to re-define supercruise for personal opinions and/or marketing purposes, but lets stick to the classic definition here:
A supercruising aircraft is able to cruise at supersonic speeds in level flight without the use of afterburners.

List of aircrafts with supercruise capability:

Aircraft with supercruise include:

* Concorde (required afterburners to initially surpass Mach 1)(retired)
* Eurofighter Typhoon
* F-22 Raptor
* JAS 39 Gripen[4](original Gripen only on a cold day with external tank, 4 AMRAAM and 2 sidewinder)
* Tupolev Tu-144(retired)
* XB-70 Valkyrie (never entered production)
* YF-23 Black Widow II (never entered production)
* English Electric Lightning (The first aircraft capable of supercruise), (required afterburners to initially surpass Mach 1) (supposedly never operationally)(retired)

[Grand Danois]

LOL
Without wishing to denigrate those individuals and/or marketing boys that want to re-define supercruise for personal opinions and/or marketing purposes, but lets stick to the classic definition here:
A supercruising aircraft is able to cruise at supersonic speeds in level flight without the use of afterburners.

Except that this definition has little operational use, hence why the marketing boyz could have been said to have good reason to redefine the term.

Btw;

Cruise (flight)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cruise is the level portion of aircraft travel where flight is most fuel efficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_%28flight%29

Cruise is most certainly not at speeds close to M1.0 nor significantly inside the transonic regime.

Semantically, the LM marketing boys are more accurate in their usage; the classic definition just snatched the definition first.

[Dr Freud]

"Except that this definition has little operational use" -->do you have a source for this statement ? or was it just your and/or marketing boys opinion ?
hence why you and/or the marketing boyz could have been said to have good reason to redefine the term.

btw
I wasnt talking about cruise, i was talking about supercruise. cruise and supercruise has two different meanings. a blowlamp or blowfly isnt the same as blow, just because they have the word "blow" in it.
I actually was first thinking about using the anecdote of a cocktail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocktail

[Grand Danois]

I wasnt talking about cruise, i was talking about supercruise. cruise and supercruise has two different meanings. a blowlamp or blowfly isnt the same as blow, just because they have the word "blow" in it.
I actually was first thinking about using the anecdote of a cocktail.

So what does cruise mean when used in an aviation context?

And generally: please note that supercruise in the classic definition is excellent as a benchmark of achievement.

[JHC]

iam no expert here, but i think that its just a play.

I saw a program on Indian tv where a reporter compared all fighter competing in the Indian fighter program. There he said that gripen had supercruise among some of the other competitors, i mean its just for winning the public. the real buyer will know the full capabilities of the fighter. Just look in Sweden the opinion has a big voice in such matters, its been allover the news now when sweden said they were gonna uppgrade the gripen c/d to e/f, since thats a demand from Norway if the gonna buy the gripen.. its allways a fuzz when it comes to defence related matters that takes alot of the taxpayers money.

[rjmaz1]

No, LM accepted that definition until they realised it described what Typhoon could do, then suddenly dropped it and came up with a new definition.
Really.

So LM original definition for supercruise meant sustaining mach 1 without afterburners?

I find that hard to believe as LM never advertised the F-16 as having supercruising ability, when according to its "original" definition it did? Maybe the marketing boys at Lockheed missed that one.

How come Boeing when selling its F-15 to singapore never mentioned the word supercruise? If boeing had that universally adopted meaning of supercruise which is Mach 1, dry thrust with no weapons then it surely would have put supercruise on the F-15's spec sheet?

Or maybe the definition has always been in a realistic combat configuration, in realistic conditions. In which case none of the teen series could meet the supercruise criteria.

Aircraft with supercruise include:
You could add another 20 fighters to that list if your definition is Mach 1 at dry thrust without weapons.

None of those manufacturers ever mentioned the word "supercruise". Could that possibly be because Mach 1 without weapons and dry thrust doesn't fit the definition?

Dr freud maybe you should get in contact with the marketing boys at the various aircraft manufacturers so that you can educate them on your definitioon of supercruisie?

[Sintra]

Really.

So LM original definition for supercruise meant sustaining mach 1 without afterburners?

I find that hard to believe as LM never advertised the F-16 as having supercruising ability, when according to its "original" definition it did? Maybe the marketing boys at Lockheed missed that one.

How come Boeing when selling its F-15 to singapore never mentioned the word supercruise? If boeing had that universally adopted meaning of supercruise which is Mach 1, dry thrust with no weapons then it surely would have put supercruise on the F-15's spec sheet?

Or maybe the definition has always been in a realistic combat configuration, in realistic conditions. In which case none of the teen series could meet the supercruise criteria.



Swerve described exactly what happened, Lockheed Martin made a big HURRA about the "supersonic flight in dry regime" of the Raptor, also known as "supercruise", that definition was changed right after Eurofighter GMBH claimed that it´s fighter was a also a "supercruiser". The European company responded stating that the Typhoon had a 1.5 mach top speed in Dry thrusth (without mentioning the conditions of course).
And if your definition of a realistic combat configuration his 6 BVRAAM´s+ 2 SRAAM´s, five ton´s of internal fuel at mach 1.2/1.3 in dry regime for a 250 NM "dash" plus a 30 minutes flight in subsonic cruise you have just described Eurofighter oficial documents.
(h)ttp://tmor.rafale.free.fr/Eurofighter_Capability.pdf

[swerve]

Really.

So LM original definition for supercruise meant sustaining mach 1 without afterburners?

I find that hard to believe as LM never advertised the F-16 as having supercruising ability, when according to its "original" definition it did? Maybe the marketing boys at Lockheed missed that one.

How come Boeing when selling its F-15 to singapore never mentioned the word supercruise? If boeing had that universally adopted meaning of supercruise which is Mach 1, dry thrust with no weapons then it surely would have put supercruise on the F-15's spec sheet?

Or maybe the definition has always been in a realistic combat configuration, in realistic conditions. In which case none of the teen series could meet the supercruise criteria.

You could add another 20 fighters to that list if your definition is Mach 1 at dry thrust without weapons.

None of those manufacturers ever mentioned the word "supercruise". Could that possibly be because Mach 1 without weapons and dry thrust doesn't fit the definition?

Dr freud maybe you should get in contact with the marketing boys at the various aircraft manufacturers so that you can educate them on your definitioon of supercruisie?

1. Nobody except you is saying at Mach 1. Exceeding Mach 1.
2. It wasn't a marketing point in the past for good reasons. As you correctly say narrowly exceeding M1 unarmed, on internal fuel, in dry thrust, for a short time, is not operationally useful, so what's the point of using it for marketing?
3. When the F-15 was offered to Singapore, it was up against an aircraft which beat it hollow on that criterion. Why advertise your rivals strengths?

It became a marketing point when LM started pushing it, & LM had good grounds for pushing the abilities of the F-22, since it did (& does) do things that no other fighter currently can. Others then started pointing out that their aircraft could do what LM was claiming only the F-22 could do. LM then had to either change its terminology, or change the definition, to distinguish between what only the F-22 can do & what others can also do.

It looks to me as if this whole debate began with sloppy marketing talk by LM. They made claims which, to their embarrassment, they realised were false ("only the F-22 can do this"), & rather than say "Sorry, what we really meant was 'only the F-22 can do this'" (something slightly different), they redefined the term.

[gf0012-aust]

There's a few people in here who are losing their manners and need to start remembering the rules that revolve around acceptable behaviour and decorum.

The next one who steps over the line of what is regarded as civil engagement is going to the sin bin.

Leave the teenage angst at home and most definitely leave the nationalistic angst at home.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Boys this is all semantics. Who cares about the definitions? Fact is Typhoons operational "supercruise" is a different beast to F-22A's operational "supercruise". If they both want to use the term, then thats fine by me (personaly), but the distinction needs to be drawn between the two.

[Dr Freud]

I agree that supercruisers are different beasts vs non-supercruisers, and F22 is a different beast again vs other supercruisers,(for now).

And equally important to how fast they can supercruise is: how long ??

Just crunched some numbers on the exclusive club that can supercruise operationally:
F22: 390 nm supercruise combat radius. (unknown speed)
Gripen NG: 302 nm supercruise combat radius. (1 external tank) @M 1.1 #52 min
EF: 206 nm supercruise combat radius. @M 1.2 #28.5 min


for reference: in afterburner
F22 (unknown)@ M. 2+ (internal fuel only)
Gripen NG 11 min @ M. 2+ (internal fuel only)
EF Typhoon 8.7 min @~M. 2 (internal fuel only)

It is obvious that during afterburn, the aircraft burn so much fuel (~4 times as much!) so it is limited to 1) give the a2a missile highest possible initial speed, and 2) outrun an incoming missile.

Another thing i think is important is: what is their respective cruise speed ? cruise speed as in fuel efficient speed.?

If anyone know this: kindly respond

[Grand Danois]

This may somewhat clear up what SAAB means with "true supercruise".

"With an output of over 22,000lb (98kN), the F414G (below) produces 20% more thrust than the Gripen's current Volvo Aero RM12 powerplant, and will enable supercruise performance of Mach 1.1 with air-to-air weapons, says marketing director Magnus Lewis-Olsson. Ground testing up to full afterburner use has been completed, and aircraft integration took place in March."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/25/223299/saabs-demo-aircraft-to-highlight-gripen-ng-capabilities.html

A sleek jet like the Gripen should have a narrow, low amplitude, transonic regime "hump".

[Dr Freud]

Thanks for the link GD.
I noted another sentence A new main landing gear housed in the wing root has freed up space for 40% more internal fuel, and i must ask : why didnt they do this trick in the first place ??:confused:
The way i see it, endurance is as important as anything else

[JohanGrön]

The "first" Gripen 39:s where made with Swedens strategical battleplan in mind and the extended legs of most US planes was never a prerequisite.

Only relatively recently it was deemed as important by SAAB in respect to potential customers.

[Dr Freud]

Yes, but such a small thing as to re-position landing gear and gain 40% internal fuel.
It doesnt hurt to exeed a requirement, especially if its a matter of re-positioning. Even if Sweden dont need long range for attack, endurance on cap with enuff fuel for a dash is never wrong.

[JohanGrön]

Don't forget that you have to haul around all the extra fuel aswell... resulting in degraded performance!

It's not only a plus with more fuel capacity (ceteris paribus). You would need to add more thrust to compensate it and this only to an extent.

Resulting in an entirely new aeroplane than you started out with. It's not something you do unless it's required.

[Firehorse]

IMO supercruise is misleading term. Only the Concord had real supercruise.

And the Tu-144 (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-062-DFRC.html)didn't?

Saab heralds next-generation Gripen improvements (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/jdw/jdw080428_1_n.shtml)

I wonder if J-39 can be navalized to improve their sales potential?

[swerve]

Saab heralds next-generation Gripen improvements (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/jdw/jdw080428_1_n.shtml)

I wonder if J-39 can be navalized to improve their sales potential?

In theory, certainly. But unfortunately (I'd like to see it - call it Kraken?) it is probably not cost-effective. What would it cost to develop? What are the potential sales? I think the balance between the answers to those questions is unfavourable.

[swerve]

And the Tu-144 (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-062-DFRC.html)didn't?...

Not the early models, but later ones did.

[rattmuff]

Gripen Demo makes its maiden flight

Today Saab conducted the maiden flight with the Gripen Demo, the test platform for the further development of Gripen. The flight lasted for 30 minutes and went totally according to plan.

http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/Gripen_Demo_makes_its_maiden_flight.htm

Wihu! :)

[swerve]

Wihu! :)

Yaah. Pretty quick from rollout to flight. Whatever ones opinion of the aircraft, it's hard not to think the programme's well managed.

[Next_Generation]

hey.

its quite funny to read, about all the creativity to misscredit the gripen plattform. over and over againt.

first, it had to small legs, not enough payload. and so on.
and now when those things are fixed, in the Gripen NG,

they´re desperate to find something els to talk down the plattform, its like Sweden just cant make a supreme fighter. because its sweden and not america. :)

regarding the radar, its noway near to be finished yet. and i´ve a hard time to believe, SAAB goes for the second best.

i bet, when NG enter service aruond 2015, it will not be a second hand degraded less technology version of the AESA. compared to F-35
the technology is there, they just need to adapt it.

but its just my view, and honestly im not an expert on radar systems but SAAB/Ericsson aint idiots either.

:)

[Ozzy Blizzard]

hey.

its quite funny to read, about all the creativity to misscredit the gripen plattform. over and over againt.

first, it had to small legs, not enough payload. and so on.
and now when those things are fixed, in the Gripen NG,

they´re desperate to find something els to talk down the plattform, its like Sweden just cant make a supreme fighter. because its sweden and not america. :)

I think most people are astounded that a nation as small as sweeden can produce a fighter as capable as Gripen, and it is a very capable platform. But when the Sweedish fanboys come out of the woodwork claiming that its comperable (or even better in some cases) than a 5th gen platform such as the F-35 then some members tend to get a bit narky, mainly because their arguments are rarely unbiased and logical. ;)

regarding the radar, its noway near to be finished yet. and i´ve a hard time to believe, SAAB goes for the second best.


Its actually quite simple:

1) Maturity: The US have fielded 2 generations of operational AESA's on fighters as we type, such as the AN/APG-63 (v)2 a "2nd gen" AESA (1st gen, but they count PESA's), and the AN/APG-63 (v)3, AN/APG-77 & AN/APG-79 "3rd gen" AESA's, which are the most capable fighter radars operational anyware. How many fighter AESA's have SAAB/Ericson deployed to date? Sure the Erieye system means they have some experiance with AESA's, but no were near the body of experiance accumulated by the US. Therefore US AESA technology is significantly more mature than Sweedish AESA tech.

2) Software development: AESA's need hideously complex software simply to operate, however the more advanced functions like SAR mapping, communications or ECM employment need software that is an order of magnitude more complicated than a baseline operating code. The US is way ahead of the game on this one, they're allready fielding some of these technologies now.

3) R&D $$$: This one should be self explanitary. More money means more people, more equipment, more time.

i bet, when NG enter service aruond 2015, it will not be a second hand degraded less technology version of the AESA. compared to F-35
the technology is there, they just need to adapt it.

No, for the most part they need to develop the technology themselves, with less money, less experiance and arguably less expertise, and then make up a 10 year gap while the US does nothing in terms of AESA development.

but its just my view, and honestly im not an expert on radar systems but SAAB/Ericsson aint idiots either.

So you think anyone who can not produce an AN/APG-81 in the same timeframe as LM are idiots? What logic is that based on my friend? Doesn't sound like any to me.

[guppy]

hey.

its quite funny to read, about all the creativity to misscredit the gripen plattform. over and over againt.

first, it had to small legs, not enough payload. and so on.
and now when those things are fixed, in the Gripen NG,

they´re desperate to find something els to talk down the plattform, its like Sweden just cant make a supreme fighter. because its sweden and not america. :)

regarding the radar, its noway near to be finished yet. and i´ve a hard time to believe, SAAB goes for the second best.

i bet, when NG enter service aruond 2015, it will not be a second hand degraded less technology version of the AESA. compared to F-35
the technology is there, they just need to adapt it.

but its just my view, and honestly im not an expert on radar systems but SAAB/Ericsson aint idiots either.

:)

Hi,

IMHO, the Gripen airframe itself is currently only 3.5 generation. But it is one of my favorite weapon systems. You must remember that nobody fights in a vacuum and the swedish has proven themselves to be a force to be reckoned with. If you look back during the Cold War, the Soviet's preferred method of defeating the Swedish Air Force was reportedly to assassinate the pilots at home. That speaks a lot about the capability of the Swedish Air Force.

But then let's look at why the Gripen weapon system (not airframe) is so effective. First look at the support from SAAB. It was reported in one magazine (can't remember which), that they have software updates every 2 months. That, in my books, is incredible. I don't think that there are any other airframe in the world that receives so many regular software updates. This speaks volumes of the support capability and responsiveness of SAAB to fix software problems and provide progressive capability updates.

Next, the aircraft was meant to operate in tandem with the Erieye. Look at Thailand buying both systems together. They should actually be looked upon as almost a single weapon system. C2 systems like the US E-3 are good, but they are largely "immobile" and support a great deal of other combat operations and C2 functions. It seems to me that the Erieye was integrated with the Gripen, and that in itself is amazing, not to mention that there are probably other capabilities that the union will bring. Which other company has implemented something similar? Which other airborne system is so integrated?

So, the Gripen weapon system is very capable. But in its current form which was designed to meet Swedish Air Force requirements, it is not suitable for all. It is unlikely the airframe and subcomponents will reach the level of capability of the F-35 or F-22 based on scalability. However, from a system level perspective, they can definitely hold their own.

cheers

guppy

[rattmuff]

The plane is flying. Getting tested, evaluated and so on. :)

( *bump* http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showgallery.php/cat/4307 )

[wimpymouse]

Jane's looked into their Chinese calender and says that 2009 will be the year of the Gripen.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdi/jdi081106_1_n.shtml

[Totoro]

Brazil, Croatia, Denmark, India, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania and Switzerland

Well, out of the listed countries, only one or two could actually buy gripen in the next 18 months. We already know Norway opted for f-35. Netherlands is bound to do the same, they've been avid jsf supporters. Brazil and India's needs seem to be for a plane in a somewhat larger class. Croatia's economic woes recently caused their plan for the mig replacement to be postponed until 2012 or so. That leaves the swiss, romania and denmark. Personally, being a member of jsf consortium and f16 user, i see denmark going for f35, just like norway did. Concerning Romania, there was much more talk of f16 purchases than anything else. Though, granted, Gripen does have a decent shot there.

So the only country i see buying gripens is switzerland. I just dont know if it will be one-for-one replacement of their f-5s or will the ordered gripens be just a token number, a squadron or so.

[wimpymouse]

Brazil, Croatia, Denmark, India, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania and Switzerland

Well, out of the listed countries, only one or two could actually buy gripen in the next 18 months. We already know Norway opted for f-35. Netherlands is bound to do the same, they've been avid jsf supporters. Brazil and India's needs seem to be for a plane in a somewhat larger class. Croatia's economic woes recently caused their plan for the mig replacement to be postponed until 2012 or so. That leaves the swiss, romania and denmark. Personally, being a member of jsf consortium and f16 user, i see denmark going for f35, just like norway did. Concerning Romania, there was much more talk of f16 purchases than anything else. Though, granted, Gripen does have a decent shot there.

So the only country i see buying gripens is switzerland. I just dont know if it will be one-for-one replacement of their f-5s or will the ordered gripens be just a token number, a squadron or so.

Interesting, I didin't know this much, but yeah, Switzerland seems bagged. Personally I hope and see possible, with the little knowledge I have, that Brazil, Netherlands and Denmark could opt for Gripen.

But are you saying that Denmark (and the Neterlands too?) will opt for JSF out of political reasons than material, just like Norway did?

[Runi_dk]

Interesting, I didin't know this much, but yeah, Switzerland seems bagged. Personally I hope and see possible, with the little knowledge I have, that Brazil, Netherlands and Denmark could opt for Gripen.

But are you saying that Denmark (and the Neterlands too?) will opt for JSF out of political reasons than material, just like Norway did?

JSF has already been chosen for the Netherlands.

Denmark will likely chose JSF, mostly because of politcal reasons and because Norway and Netherlands also went for JSF.

It is also a great benefit when your "training freinds" have the same plane.

[wimpymouse]

JSF has already been chosen for the Netherlands.

Denmark will likely chose JSF, mostly because of politcal reasons and because Norway and Netherlands also went for JSF.

It is also a great benefit when your "training freinds" have the same plane.

OK, cheers.

[gf0012-aust]

But are you saying that Denmark (and the Neterlands too?) will opt for JSF out of political reasons than material, just like Norway did?

Norway and Netherlands picked it for capability reasons. Their responses have been pretty clear on that.

Apart from the Danish version of Kopp/Goon the professional serving pilots with the Danish AF have been persistent in their belief as well.

The partners were all in Brussels a month ago and the Danes certainly weren't even remotely considering the Gripen. If Gripen is chosen it will be political, not technical as they also have made their opinions clear.

[Dalregementet]

Brazil, Croatia, Denmark, India, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania and Switzerland

Well, out of the listed countries, only one or two could actually buy gripen in the next 18 months. We already know Norway opted for f-35. Netherlands is bound to do the same, they've been avid jsf supporters. Brazil and India's needs seem to be for a plane in a somewhat larger class. Croatia's economic woes recently caused their plan for the mig replacement to be postponed until 2012 or so. That leaves the swiss, romania and denmark. Personally, being a member of jsf consortium and f16 user, i see denmark going for f35, just like norway did. Concerning Romania, there was much more talk of f16 purchases than anything else. Though, granted, Gripen does have a decent shot there.

So the only country i see buying gripens is switzerland. I just dont know if it will be one-for-one replacement of their f-5s or will the ordered gripens be just a token number, a squadron or so.

I see India as a potentail buyer for Gripen. The MMRCA is in order to replace Indias fleet of Mig 21s. If India chooses Gripen they will get full technology transfer which is perfect for India because of Indias ambition to be self sufficient but also establish itself as a supplier of state of the art fighter aircrafts. The Kaveri engine would fit Gripen IF it good enough that is. Saab will probably have the best offset offering because of it's belonging in the Wallenberg sphere (Saab, ABB, Ericsson, Electrolux etc). This matters in India, especially now... The Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA) project is for a larger aircraft like the planned SU PAK-FA.

This article gives a lot of information of the current status of the MMRCA project.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mirage-2000s-withdrawn-as-indias-mrca-fighter-competition-changes-01989/

[Runi_dk]

Norway and Netherlands picked it for capability reasons. Their responses have been pretty clear on that.

Apart from the Danish version of Kopp/Goon the professional serving pilots with the Danish AF have been persistent in their belief as well.

The partners were all in Brussels a month ago and the Danes certainly weren't even remotely considering the Gripen. If Gripen is chosen it will be political, not technical as they also have made their opinions clear.

Yup, I have talked with some of the Danish F-16 pilots, they all want to fly JSF in the future, if they could choose.

[wimpymouse]

Norway and Netherlands picked it for capability reasons. Their responses have been pretty clear on that.

Apart from the Danish version of Kopp/Goon the professional serving pilots with the Danish AF have been persistent in their belief as well.

The partners were all in Brussels a month ago and the Danes certainly weren't even remotely considering the Gripen. If Gripen is chosen it will be political, not technical as they also have made their opinions clear.

Conserning Norway, I read this respons to their respons on why they didn't pick the Gripen.

http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/saab_comments_on_norwegian_evalution.htm

Reading just what SAAB has to say about this sertainly doesn't tell all the story as I haven't read what Norway said, but by just reading this a scent of BS is sertainly up in the air.

[gf0012-aust]

Conserning Norway, I read this respons to their respons on why they didn't pick the Gripen.

http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/saab_comments_on_norwegian_evalution.htm

Reading just what SAAB has to say about this sertainly doesn't tell all the story as I haven't read what Norway said, but by just reading this a scent of BS is sertainly up in the air.


Quite frankly, it's irrelevant what SAAB are saying. It's what the client wants, it's what the professional pilots want - and it's what their procurement and assessment team want.

The rest is marketing and sour grapes.

Case closed - and we're not going to go round and around in circles in this forum and have some kumbayah moments just because SAAB feel aggrieved and lost another sale.

[Vivendi]

Conserning Norway, I read this respons to their respons on why they didn't pick the Gripen.

http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/saab_comments_on_norwegian_evalution.htm

Reading just what SAAB has to say about this sertainly doesn't tell all the story as I haven't read what Norway said, but by just reading this a scent of BS is sertainly up in the air.
OK, this is OT, but.. trying to stop this here and now.

No doubt, the F-35 is the only plane meeting the Royal Norwegian Air Force requirements.

This seemed to come as a big surprise to the Swedes. There are several indications that the Norwegian competition was not a "real" one; however it was very important to the Norwegian DoD to make sure that this competition was perceived as a real competition. Therefore they went to great efforts to ensure Saab that yes, it was an open competition and yes, both planes could win.

When the results of the evaluation were presented it became evident that the only way to meet the requirements was with a stealthy a/c.

We may speculate why the Norwegian goverment invested so much time (and money!) into setting up such a competition? Perhaps they wanted to push LM harder on "offsets". The only way to do that could have been to arrange a "competition." However to make that work they had to convince LM that they could lose this contract. This was of course impossible without letting Saab believe that they could win... Eurofighter assessed this different from Saab and pulled out early.

Another question remains however -- why did the Norwegian DoD present Gripen in such a negative manner in the press conference? Could have been because of internal politics -- Saab did they job too well, promising some 200% offsets, and had massive support with trade unions and some politicians. Only by making it absolutely clear during the press conference that Gripen cannot fulfill the Norwegian missions the next 50 years, they could pre-empt any complaints that otherwise would have materialized.

Although I do think that Norway picked the best plane I do sympathise with the Swedes and I am not happy with the process -- I find it unetichal. I think Norway should have been more honest and open about all the requirements in the Request for Binding Information, even if this would have meant Saabs withdrawal and no competition.

Then again, my wife always complains I am "too honest" -- I am told we normally end up as losers in todays harsh society... Anyway I think Saab learned a lot from this process. As did I. If the RNAF fight wars as well as they arrange "fake competitions", then as a Norwegian I probably have little to worry about :)

V

[gf0012-aust]

OK, this is OT, but.. trying to stop this here and now.

No doubt, the F-35 is the only plane meeting the Royal Norwegian Air Force requirements.

This seemed to come as a big surprise to the Swedes. There are several indications that the Norwegian competition was not a "real" one; however it was very important to the Norwegian DoD to make sure that this competition was perceived as a real competition. Therefore they went to great efforts to ensure Saab that yes, it was an open competition and yes, both planes could win.

When the results of the evaluation were presented it became evident that the only way to meet the requirements was with a stealthy a/c.

We may speculate why the Norwegian goverment invested so much time (and money!) into setting up such a competition?

We're not going to let another thread deteriorate into a SAAB sob sesion.

Personally, I find it absolutely ludicrous that every time a vendor misses out on a sale that the defenders all start criticising the host buyer. It seems extraordinary to me that every nation electing to buy the JSF is then accused of polluting the procurement process - and that by association every professional pilot and analyst attached to the procurement teams is apparently now unprofessional and tainted because they failed to buy someones pet jet.

If there is a continuation of the "Wake for Gripens procurement death" then it will be short lived in here.

It's done, it's over - and I suggest that people who have not done procurement of weapons systems at any level consider the fact that people on those teams act in the national interest - the vendor (bless their hearts and souls) work in the commercial interest.

[wimpymouse]

OK, this is OT, but.. trying to stop this here and now.

No doubt, the F-35 is the only plane meeting the Royal Norwegian Air Force requirements.

This seemed to come as a big surprise to the Swedes. There are several indications that the Norwegian competition was not a "real" one; however it was very important to the Norwegian DoD to make sure that this competition was perceived as a real competition. Therefore they went to great efforts to ensure Saab that yes, it was an open competition and yes, both planes could win.

When the results of the evaluation were presented it became evident that the only way to meet the requirements was with a stealthy a/c.

We may speculate why the Norwegian goverment invested so much time (and money!) into setting up such a competition? Perhaps they wanted to push LM harder on "offsets". The only way to do that could have been to arrange a "competition." However to make that work they had to convince LM that they could lose this contract. This was of course impossible without letting Saab believe that they could win... Eurofighter assessed this different from Saab and pulled out early.

Another question remains however -- why did the Norwegian DoD present Gripen in such a negative manner in the press conference? Could have been because of internal politics -- Saab did they job too well, promising some 200% offsets, and had massive support with trade unions and some politicians. Only by making it absolutely clear during the press conference that Gripen cannot fulfill the Norwegian missions the next 50 years, they could pre-empt any complaints that otherwise would have materialized.

Although I do think that Norway picked the best plane I do sympathise with the Swedes and I am not happy with the process -- I find it unetichal. I think Norway should have been more honest and open about all the requirements in the Request for Binding Information, even if this would have meant Saabs withdrawal and no competition.

Then again, my wife always complains I am "too honest" -- I am told we normally end up as losers in todays harsh society... Anyway I think Saab learned a lot from this process. As did I. If the RNAF fight wars as well as they arrange "fake competitions", then as a Norwegian I probably have little to worry about :)

V

Good analysis, and thanks!

You can't bee too honest, man. Big UP

We're not going to let another thread deteriorate into a SAAB sob sesion.

Personally, I find it absolutely ludicrous that every time a vendor misses out on a sale that the defenders all start criticising the host buyer. It seems extraordinary to me that every nation electing to buy the JSF is then accused of polluting the procurement process - and that by association every professional pilot and analyst attached to the procurement teams is apparently now unprofessional and tainted because they failed to buy someones pet jet.

If there is a continuation of the "Wake for Gripens procurement death" then it will be short lived in here.

It's done, it's over - and I suggest that people who have not done procurement of weapons systems at any level consider the fact that people on those teams act in the national interest - the vendor (bless their hearts and souls) work in the commercial interest.

Ouff, what an attitude worthy of worthy of a stalag kommandant. I'm glad you have this forum so that you can play out your knowledge in a discustingly superior way. Bet you must miss your old command, though?

So, let me now get back to my posting and maybe in 8000 post I'll be just like you.

Admin: and a worthy response from someone who hasn't addresed my comment. It doesn't matter if its 8 or 8000 posts. Perhaps you could use your brains and argue the point rather than troll a comment about my views based on how procurement is done.

Command has nothing to do with it - logic and experience does.

BTW, learn some manners and read the Forum Rules.

You can have a Warning Infraction for Christmas - my first for 2008

[Aussie Digger]

Conserning Norway, I read this respons to their respons on why they didn't pick the Gripen.

http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/News/2008/saab_comments_on_norwegian_evalution.htm

Reading just what SAAB has to say about this sertainly doesn't tell all the story as I haven't read what Norway said, but by just reading this a scent of BS is sertainly up in the air.

Boo hoo.

I bought a Mars bar the other day, in preferrence to a Snickers bar.

Perhaps Snickers should call for a national inquiry, as their product is MUCH superior than those Mars bars, as I'm obviously a flawed customer according to your logic...

[wimpymouse]

Admin: and a worthy response from someone who hasn't addresed my comment. It doesn't matter if its 8 or 8000 posts. Perhaps you could use your brains and argue the point rather than troll a comment about my views based on how procurement is done.

Command has nothing to do with it - logic and experience does.

BTW, learn some manners and read the Forum Rules.

You can have a Warning Infraction for Christmas - my first for 2008

This ^^ is Newspeak!

It's not about you, nor your comment/s. I had a quesiton out that was on topic, and I'm trying to learn how things work in this area. If you hadn't been bz chest thumping you could have been a kind soul and expained it and we would have moved on. Instead Vivendi did it. There's no way in hell that a noob, like my self, could know as much as you do, so therefore some things will be repeated to those who've hung here long enough. Either you tolerate that, or eitherwise, in the end, you'll end up talking to your self.

I asked for someone to share their "knowledge and experiance", but you came out with an intollerant attitude. I mearly reacted to that attitude. Now, if you're bored with all the noobs then ignore us. It's better for the atmosphere. Let people like Vivendi help us noobs.

I've only read ->so little<- in this forum and even before this thread I thought you were a guy who's out there to prove something, now why is that?

I would PM you with this if you've had that option, but I guess you'll have to take this in the open. So, shall we move on (Gomer Pyle included)?

[gf0012-aust]

This ^^ is Newspeak!

It's not about you, nor your comment/s. I had a quesiton out that was on topic, and I'm trying to learn how things work in this area. If you hadn't been bz chest thumping you could have been a kind soul and expained it and we would have moved on. Instead Vivendi did it. There's no way in hell that a noob, like my self, could know as much as you do, so therefore some things will be repeated to those who've hung here long enough. Either you tolerate that, or eitherwise, in the end, you'll end up talking to your self.

I asked for someone to share their "knowledge and experiance", but you came out with an intollerant attitude. I mearly reacted to that attitude. Now, if you're bored with all the noobs then ignore us. It's better for the atmosphere. Let people like Vivendi help us noobs.

I've only read ->so little<- in this forum and even before this thread I thought you were a guy who's out there to prove something, now why is that?

I would PM you with this if you've had that option, but I guess you'll have to take this in the open. So, shall we move on (Gomer Pyle included)?

Good grief. The entire post has been littered with comments where national pride has obviously been wounded. I have little time for conspiracy theories etc... as often used in here to explain away why a platform was unsuccesful. The reality is that people who do work in procurement may well have more experience about the reality of this issue than some others who are driven by national pride. Experience vs unsupported commentary is a no brainer

Some of the comments used to date to defend the Gripen have been abject nonsense and defy reality.

I don't have to prove anything in here, I will bring to the debate my experience, and I am happy to debate that experience against whatever else is relevant to the discussion. I'm not interested in engaging in debate however with people who's motive is driven by nationalism and or conspiracy theories (do a search on JSF or Gripen and take your pick)

My intolerance therefore is the lack of rigour used when some find it easier to slam those in the assessment teams, professional air force pilots, those with platform assessment expertise, even cheap shots at politicians etc... and trivialise it because of some bizaare notion (eg) that the scandinavian brotherhood should triumph over buying the right platform chose by the warfighters. (and the warfighters have considerable input into this process - its not just an academic exercise on choosing a platform based on the vendors preferred numbers.)

You've had your little say now. If you need to continue the debate then take it up with Web, or email me on bounce.rubbish@gmail.com

Anything further thats off topic will be deleted. Its hard to take you seriously as being sincere when you continue to play the player and not the ball - and seeing flippant comments like "Gomer Pyle" lead me to believe that the argument is more interesting than the actual debate - and in my world that makes you look and smell like a troll.

Any further however can go offline as per my email. My Christmas spirit just ran out with you.

[shrubage]

I think previous commentators are correct when they write that the sale of the Gripen to Norway was always unlikely. In a way its not the aircrafts natural market. The Gripen is an effective, low cost, low maintainance fighter ideal for nations with a limited budget. Hence the sales to South Africa and Thailand.

With Norway the circumstances were different , the RNoAF have the infastructure to operate the F35 to its full capabilities. I really don't see the possibility for any large individual orders for the Gripen. Rather it'll continue as with South africa and Thailand with nations with limited resources placing relativley small orders.

The swedish are quite adept at marketing arms, the offset package they offered bought the Gripen tremendous political support. The Norwegian MOD should be commended for supporting the wishes of their air force and ignoring other pressures.

[Vivendi]

We're not going to let another thread deteriorate into a SAAB sob sesion.

Personally, I find it absolutely ludicrous that every time a vendor misses out on a sale that the defenders all start criticising the host buyer. It seems extraordinary to me that every nation electing to buy the JSF is then accused of polluting the procurement process - and that by association every professional pilot and analyst attached to the procurement teams is apparently now unprofessional and tainted because they failed to buy someones pet jet.

If there is a continuation of the "Wake for Gripens procurement death" then it will be short lived in here.

It's done, it's over - and I suggest that people who have not done procurement of weapons systems at any level consider the fact that people on those teams act in the national interest - the vendor (bless their hearts and souls) work in the commercial interest.
It seems you misread my post completely...

My critisism was directed at the politicans not the professionals at the Norwegian DoD. The RNAF did not see the need for a "competition" since there was no real alternative to the F-35.

However the politicians insisted on having a competition -- not only that, they insisted on "leveling the playing field". The RNAF simply followed orders, as good soldiers. They were instructed to "level the playing field", and to make sure that both competitors believe they may win. The only way to do that was to suppress information about some of the key requirements. It was this suppression of key information in the RBI that I was critizising, not the decision to choose F-35, not the evalution criteria, not the evaluation committee, and certainly not the RNAF.

If RNAF could have decided this process they would have preferred to skip the whole RBI, or alternatively as a minimum informing Saab about the real requirements.

Anyway, I will not write more about this. As you rightly point out it seems that some people don't "get" the professional angle. I would like to add however that others on this forum (some of them professionals and even moderators) apparantly don't "get" the political angle. Oh well.


V

[wimpymouse]

Any further however can go offline as per my email. My Christmas spirit just ran out with you.

Admin Edit: Nice - all that comment and yet you ignored the above.

Merry Christmas, think about it for 7 days.

It's not a competition in here - it's a private forum - hence you're subject to the rules and Mods decisions like everyone else.

You were given the opportunity to follow up with en email to me but you chose to go straight to broadcast mode and continue it on.

[gf0012-aust]

Anyway, I will not write more about this. As you rightly point out it seems that some people don't "get" the professional angle. I would like to add however that others on this forum (some of them professionals and even moderators) apparantly don't "get" the political angle. Oh well.


V

Let me make this clear, I don't have a problem with the debate - I do have some difficulty with what appears to be a trend on the decision disenfranchised to blame professional decisions made by people on the assessment teams (and that includes the warfighting community who have to use these things) as somewhat not having the technical expertise or technical objectivity to get it right just because hey have not picked a specific platform.

again, my experience with platform assessment in procurement at a number of levels has never been subject to political intervention - and I would suspect that any sniff of political direction to a member of the armed services or defence establishment would see it appear in the press.

Unless every JSF partner to date has somehow managed to be influenced by some political sleight of hand - and correspondingly every Gripen purchase has not - then that would be extraordinary.

Of course politics will have an input, but there are a myriad of reasons why the warfighters opinions, or the technical experts assessments will have greater weight.

As an example, for reasons of political opportunism the F-22 became a political football in australia, the outgoing govt rejected it on advice from the RAAF, the opposition party argued robustly for the F-22 and accused the govt of playing with warfighters lives etc.... funnily enough, when the opposition then came into power, they got the same message from the warfighters - ie we do not want or need the F-22 for our capability matrix. They were then given a more detailed briefing and came out in support of the JSF but still managing to work out how to get a free kick against the prev govts decisions.

In any Govt procurement decision I find it the height of arrogance where people will argue against a team of technical experts who do have access to the classifed assessment material - whereas public commentary is based entirely on released unclassified material - and there is a vast difference, esp when it gets down to ewarfare and sig management issues.

ie, the assessment is done on hard supportable data that is benched against the same procurement/technical requirements provided to all vendors, so that it's an even judgement of like for like capability sets. The opposing politics is based on colour and movement - and dare I say it, unremitting self interest. They do NOT get access to the rated material information because they do not have the clearances. Anyone with a modicum interest in politics has seen that they are just not that good at maintaining secrecy of material provisions when it suits their political needs - but they don't ever get into the nitty gritty because they also know that they could end up in jail for breeching security provisions. So they skate along the edges and cause havoc from the perimeter.

Me - I'l put my faith in the assessment and procurement teams (as they always include the warfighters) over politically driven comment any day of the week. A polluted decision will trigger an opportunity for review - and at that stage the Norwegian opposition (like every other democracy) would nominate especially cleared individuals to review some of the more discrete and sensitive material.

BTW, in all assessment processes, the entire process is subject to review by the stakeholders (the owning airforce) to ensure that the assessment stays on track - and its at regular benchmark periods. So at any stage the "owning airforce" can push the process back on track and make an assessment about whether its been done properly. Most politicians wouldn't even be remotely aware of these restrictions and operational guidelines.

So, I'm more than happy to see quality debate - but when I see commentary that seems oblivious to the external and internal checks and balances, then I see it as ill informed, or deliberately mischievous.

In this case, I also see a strong injection of wounded national pride by some.

I'd also point out that these kinds of posts are discussed by all the Mods when they get "heated". One of us might pull the trigger, but all of us buy the bullets and load them if we pass "strong" comment.

[Wall83]

Anyway back to the Gripen. Whatever the choice the norwegian picked Swedish Saab still has planes to sell about 200 planes.

And Saab critizm about Norweis choise of the JSF was first of all that when they announced why they just talked about what an bad arcraft the Gripen was and nothing about why the JSF would be so much better.
This and that they announced a far bigger price for the Gripen then what Saab had offerd them pist Saab of. The JSFs will be a far more costly then what the Gripen would ever have been.

Personly I think that the US put some pressure on the norwegian to pick the JSF.

[gf0012-aust]

Personly I think that the US put some pressure on the norwegian to pick the JSF.


How? The last time the US leaned on a country to buy their airplanes guess what they bought? Gripen. You think they're dumb enough to do that again?

The Swedes learnt that bribery and coercian don't work with India. The US learnt it with the Czechs

Get over it. The Gripen did not meet the RNAF requirements.

[the road runner]

Anyway back to the Gripen. Whatever the choice the norwegian picked Swedish Saab still has planes to sell about 200 planes.

And Saab critizm about Norweis choise of the JSF was first of all that when they announced why they just talked about what an bad arcraft the Gripen was and nothing about why the JSF would be so much better.
This and that they announced a far bigger price for the Gripen then what Saab had offerd them pist Saab of. The JSFs will be a far more costly then what the Gripen would ever have been.

Personly I think that the US put some pressure on the norwegian to pick the JSF.

I honestley think that the JSF was and will be chosen on its merits.Its LO,internal weapons,ASEA radar,pilots who go up against this aircraft will not fare to well.:nutkick Think about this.......The JSF will be used(and purchased in the thousands/economey of scale) by a number of nations.The technological leap for the air forces of these LUCKY nations(in my opinion) in an advanced fighter is something you want to get right.As an Australian tax payer i am more than happy that the JSF will hopefully be chosen to defend Australian skys. You may think "the JSF will be far more costly than the Gripen,"but im wondering if you think the JSF has more capability than the Gripen or the Gripen more capability than the JSF? Capability has alot to do with it. I can also understand SAAB frustration at some of the above quotes but lets face it,they have a lot to loose or gain.It seems a ruthless/frustrating industry the defence industry.Also i respect your opinion but trying to persuade you to mine:D
As some have mentioned the Gripen is a great aircraft for smaller air forces and i think SAAB will continue to market and sell the Gripen to smaller air forces.Its a good plane the Gripen, but for Norwey im thinking JSF.:p:

[Wall83]

I think that Saab and also the Swedish total defence was dispionted becouse the Gripen collabration with Norwei would have been the big start of an Scandinavien military collabiration that Sweden is seeking now when they cant rely on its own defence industry to do the job.

To bad that Sweden probably wont design any new fighters by themself. Sweden has always had the best fighters in its air force but in the future they will also buy american or european. Whatever comes after JSF or the Eurofighter will be the next fighter for sweden.

[Wall83]

how? The Last Time The Us Leaned On A Country To Buy Their Airplanes Guess What They Bought? Gripen. You Think They're Dumb Enough To Do That Again?

Yes i do. Its all about buissness deals, "If you buy our plane will give you this this and this. But if you dont buy then its all gone".

[Dalregementet]

How? The last time the US leaned on a country to buy their airplanes guess what they bought? Gripen. You think they're dumb enough to do that again?

The Swedes learnt that bribery and coercian don't work with India. The US learnt it with the Czechs

Get over it. The Gripen did not meet the RNAF requirements.

What bribery are you talking about? We should not get into accusations if we can't prove it. Regarding the issue "Saab loosing" and national pride - as far as I understand, Vivendi is norvegian and most norvegian newspapers that I've read on Internet share his opinion about the norvegian fighter aircraft selection. I only have positive feelings for my norvegian neighbours so, despite the fake selection process - a big merry christmas to Norway from Sweden! :xmas

[shrubage]

I think that Saab and also the Swedish total defence was dispionted becouse the Gripen collabration with Norwei would have been the big start of an Scandinavien military collabiration that Sweden is seeking now when they cant rely on its own defence industry to do the job.


Scandinavian military cooperation is always going to be hampered by the fact that Sweden is a non NATO country. In the event of Norway ever becoming a combatant in a future conflict, Sweden would not supply weapons material at the risk of damaging its position of neutrality. As friendly as relations are between Norway and Sweden I don't think the Norwegians have any illusions about who their security partners are.

[roberto]

Scandinavian military cooperation is always going to be hampered by the fact that Sweden is a non NATO country. In the event of Norway ever becoming a combatant in a future conflict, Sweden would not supply weapons material at the risk of damaging its position of neutrality. As friendly as relations are between Norway and Sweden I don't think the Norwegians have any illusions about who their security partners are.
You are assuming that other security partners will be better in future. In next 10 years time will come that likely Norway adversary will have more integrated economy with US/WesternEU. After all where GM can sell so many gas guzzling SUVs. It is called Share corporate interests that ultimately determine the policy.
it happened to China/India/Vietnam case. (Taiwan/Pakistan/Thailand former allies were downgraded).
JSF will become irrelevant. Norway will be better off with Sweden. Atleast share threat.

[gf0012-aust]

Yes i do. Its all about buissness deals, "If you buy our plane will give you this this and this. But if you dont buy then its all gone".

and the last time the US did this they lost an air combat contract to another platform - and it was to the Gripen. Once bitten twice shy.

[gf0012-aust]

You are assuming that other security partners will be better in future. In next 10 years time will come that likely Norway adversary will have more integrated economy with US/WesternEU.

More off topic nonsense. The EU is more significant to Norway than a scandinavian economic block - do the sums


After all where GM can sell so many gas guzzling SUVs.

More off topic - and you just can't help yourself can you. This is your last warning as I know you have multiple warnings from at least 4 of the Mods. You obviously have selective hearing.


It is called Share corporate interests that ultimately determine the policy.
it happened to China/India/Vietnam case. (Taiwan/Pakistan/Thailand former allies were downgraded).

see above

JSF will become irrelevant. Norway will be better off with Sweden. Atleast share threat.

More personal opinion based on your own bias against americans and anything involving americans. JSF is that irrelevant that its build rate is in fgures - Gripen will have nowhere near the economies of scale - and the platform support redundancy that it provides. Considering that the Swedes are getting closer to NATO and are now getting more access into US sponsored programs - there is a pretty clear view that they see the Russians as more of a problem - and having a scandinavian brotherhood just aint going to provide the same support matrix if heaven forbid, things did get ugly. Sweden is getting closer to NATO - and Swedish companies are demonstrating in real world situations that they want to be NATO compliant etc... Norway - is committed to NATO - and I'd argue that its more than a commitment to Sweden - not just in symbolic fighter purchase examples

Take note of the prev - your last warning just got issued to stay on topic.

[gf0012-aust]

What bribery are you talking about? We should not get into accusations if we can't prove it. Regarding the issue "Saab loosing" and national pride -

Sigh, and yet the professionals associated with the tests including the warfighters all want the JSF. Who cares what the general public want if they don't have any technical input into it and aren't the ones who have to fly the things.

The Swedish bribery claim is wrt to India - it's been a huge issue for over years as Bofors was banned from selling anything into India, officials were sacked and the entire tender program was subsequently shut down - its only recently been re-opened after years of closure. It's not my opinion - its the Indian Govts internal investigators. Perhaps you should argue with their own investigation people? As an issue of fraud it was common knowledge. We even referred to the case to ensure that our own programs with swedish companies were not at risk. BTW, you are aware of the reason why Sweden allowed some of its own companies to be bought out by US majority stakeholders on US military contracts? It was part of the post Bofors review process.

as far as I understand, Vivendi is norvegian and most norvegian newspapers that I've read on Internet share his opinion about the norvegian fighter aircraft selection. I only have positive feelings for my norvegian neighbours so, despite the fake selection process - a big merry christmas to Norway from Sweden! :xmas

I am happy that you have positive feelings for Norway - but what relevance has that got with a technical assessment done by systems experts and current qualified fighter pilots on what they want to go to war in? Zip. Nada, Zilch, Zero, Nothing .

I can show you media results where the general public in some countries would rather not have an air force at all and would rather see the monies used for tax breaks, schools, hospitals etc etc.... Or I can show you political parties who will argue the same principles - the Greens in Aust for example/ It's irrelevant as national interests are beyond the pervue sometimes of what the voting public think is in their interests as they don't have the expertise to make some of those calls. Its why elected Governments get professionals to do those things on their behalf.

I'm not interested in getting the opinion of the general public on what warfighting platform they think the military get - I want to get the best solution that the military recommend based on their own needs. When the general public get to be warfighters and have to go to war and get shot at on day 1 - then maybe their voice will be weighted accordingly. If I approved a platform based on what the public said, or what the vendor told me was gospel about their products capability - then the construct of the force structure would be a dogs breakfast. It's why we employ professionals at a contracts level, at the technical level, at the user level, to make professional decisions where they aren't tainted by misplaced "feelgood" or emotional commentary.

At a private company level they can make a commercial decision and buy what they want and suffer or benfit through the vagaries of the commercial outcome - military procurement is a bit more demanding.

[gf0012-aust]

Scandinavian military cooperation is always going to be hampered by the fact that Sweden is a non NATO country. In the event of Norway ever becoming a combatant in a future conflict, Sweden would not supply weapons material at the risk of damaging its position of neutrality. As friendly as relations are between Norway and Sweden I don't think the Norwegians have any illusions about who their security partners are.

and as has been pointed out, Sweden is getting closer and closer to NATO. Sweden has now been allowed into some of the restricted communications technologies that were NATO and preferred partner exclusive. I deal with a Swedish company right now that is partnered up into some future systems development. They were invited in by the americans after discussions with the other first tranche partners.

The Swedes are now taking a long view - they realise that they run the same risk as the French do with Rafale in the long term - ie the negatives of having a suitable local platform in a restricted competitive market where they run the real risk of having a commercial success orphan because the economies of scale are not viable. The parallels are very very similar, letting national pride or platform bias intervene in the assessment of this is just silly, it ignores the fundamentals and more importantly ignores the subtle sea change that the Swedish Govt recognises.