Gripen NG

[swerve]

So, the T/R Modules Numbers released for the APG-79 and APG-80 are not official???
Sources, please. :D

[Crusader2000]

Sources, please. :D

The U.S. Naval Institute


The Naval Institute guide to world ... - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=4S3h8j_NEmkC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=apg-79+aesa+radar+1100+T/R+Modules&source=bl&ots=hHVuRR23f0&sig=XlxzhFP38FCIy3ECyQsw8Ly2mBo&hl=en&ei=3kY0SteGJIaNtgev7uzGCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9)


Plus, here's another source.......


Of the current generation of US AESA radars, the only one which is well technically documented in the open literature is the APG-79, which will therefore be used as a baseline for comparison against the Flanker radars. Of the current generation of U.S. AESA Radars, the only one which is technically well documented in the open literature is the APG-79, which will therefore be used as a baseline for comparison against the Flanker Radars.

The APG-79 was initially sold as a block upgrade to the legacy APG-73, itself an incremental upgrade to the APG-65. The APG-79 was initially sold as a block upgrade to the APG-73 legacy, itself an incremental upgrade to the APG-65. The APG-79 however ended up being much more than a simple block upgrade, adding not only a powerful AESA, but including additional processing capability and tight integration with the ALR-67 radar warning and emitter locating system, and requiring forward fuselage changes to the aircraft. One of the key design considerations was to improve the capability to detect and engage anti-shipping cruise missiles, a major problem for the US Navy Carrier Battle Groups. Given the relatively modest footprint to be defended, the poor supersonic performance and payload range of the Super Hornet was less important than the ability to lift an X-band radar above the horizon of the shipboard defences. The APG-79 however ended up being much more than a simple block upgrade, adding not only a powerful AESA, but including additional processing capability and tight integration with the ALR-67 radar warning and emitter locating system, and requiring changes to the forward fuselage aircraft. One of the key design considerations was to improve the capability to detect and engage anti-shipping cruise missile, the major problem for the U.S. Navy Carrier Battle Groups. Given the relatively modest footprint to be defended, the poor performance supersonic range and payload of the Super Hornet was less important than the ability to lift an X-band radar above the horizon of the shipboard defense.

There is enough unclassified data available at this time to perform a reasonable estimation of performance bounds on this radar, with the caveat that evolving transistor technology over the life cycle of the design will see shifts in performance. The radar is known to have ~1100 modules , which assuming like per module power rating, cooling and X-band wavelength would result in around 70 percent of the power rating of the APG-77 . This puts the radar broadly between 10 kW and 20 kW peak power ratings . There is enough unclassified data available at this time to perform a reasonable estimation of performance bounds on this radar, with the caveat that evolving transistor technology over the life cycle of the design will see shifts in performance. The radar is known to have ~ 1100 modules , which like assuming per module power rating, cooling and X-band wavelength would result in around 70 percent of the power rating of the APG-77. This puts the radar broadly between 10 kW and 20 kW peak power ratings. Public data comparing the APG-71, APG-73 and APG-79 yields an indication that the radar has similar power aperture product performance to the 10 kW rated APG-71, which for half the antenna area yields a peak power rating of the order of 20 kW. Public date comparing the APG-71, APG-73 and APG-79 yields an indication that the radar power aperture product has similar performance to the 10 kW rated APG-71, which is half the antenna area yields a peak power rating of the order of 20 kW. This data supports the proposition that the radar is a 20 kW peak power class design . This data supports the proposition that the radar is a 20 kW peak power class design.

In general, the peak power rating of an AESA is determined by the per module power rating multiplied by the number of elements, with some reduction resulting from the taper function which is used to weight power output per module, so that sidelobes and mainlobe shape can be optimised. A 20 kW peak power AESA with a 15% allowance for taper function yields for instance a per module rating, for 1100 modules, of around 21 Watts. The average power output of the radar is then limited by the duty cycle of operation, and power consumption overheads incurred by drivers, and phase and control elements in the modules. In general, the peak power rating of an AESA is determined by the per module power rating multiplied by the number of elements, with some reduction resulting from the taper function which is used to weight output power per module, so that sidelobes and mainlobe shape can be optimized. The EFSA 20 kW peak power with a 15% allowance for taper function yields for instance the rating per module, modules for 1100, of around 21 Watts. The average power output of the radar is then limited by the duty cycle of operation , and power consumption overheads incurred by drivers, and phase and control elements in the modules.

The latest engineering literature on AESAs puts the state of the art for radiated X-band power intensity at about 4 Watts/cm2 which for the X-band is around 16 Watts/module. This would put the total peak power at about 17.6 kW . The latest engineering literature on AESAs puts the state of the art for X-band radiated power intensity at about 4 Watts/cm2 which is the X-band is around 16 Watts / module. This would put the total peak power at about 17.6 kW.


Many sources available..........


Sorry, I am done playing........

Raytheon APG-79 AESA (U.S. Navy image).

[Grand Danois]

Haha. Your source is speculating on the number, from above:

The radar is known to have ~1100 modules

[Crusader2000]

Haha. Your source is speculating on the number, from above:

The radar is known to have ~1100 modules


Haha, they're a great number of sources that state the APG-79 has 1100 T/R Modules............:rolleyes:

[Grand Danois]

Haha, they're a great number of sources that state the APG-79 has 1100 T/R Modules............:rolleyes:

Apparently the sources make educated guesses and deliver generalities - you recognise that?

And please, you wanted specifics on capability beyond number of modules - don't try to dodge and change your argument.

[Crusader2000]

Apparently the sources make educated guesses and deliver generalities - you recognise that?

And please, you wanted specifics on capability beyond number of modules - don't try to dodge and change your argument.



Sorry, both are very reliable sources and the second even gives specifics. Further, they're a great number of sources on the web that back up the number of T/R Modules of the APG-79.............(plus the debate is about the Vixen 1000E not the APG-79)


Regardless, I have no interest is continuing to restate my position over and over again. You are free to agree or disagree with it...............


BTW Its intersting the Gripen NG has the smallest Radome Size. Yet, has more T/R Modules than fighters of the same size and even as many as some larger aircraft???

Gripen - 500mm (PS/05 family)
Miragle - 500mm (RDM,RDI, RDY)
F-20/T-50/IDF - 500mm (APG-67)
Rafale - 600mm (RBE)
MIG-29 - 624 mm (N019, N010)
F-16 - 660mm (APG-66, APG-68, APG-80)
F-18 - 700mm (APG-65, APG-73, APG-79)
Typhoon - 700mm (ECR-90/Captor)
F-35 - 700mm (APG-81)
F-22 - 900mm (APG-77)
F-15 - 950mm (APG-63, APG-70)



One last word the Gripen NG in my opinion will not will the MMRCA nor any major contract. As a matter of fact it may not even win any export orders at all. Which, has much to do with its performance as it compares to the competition......

IMO

[Grand Danois]

Sorry, both are very reliable sources and the second even gives specifics. Further, they're a great number of sources on the web that back up the number of T/R Modules of the APG-79.............(plus the debate is about the Vixen 1000E not the APG-79)

Yet none of the two sources state this as fact. Obviously I can only take a statement signed by Mr Swanson (Raythein CEO) as proof. Until you can provide such a thing I would dismiss any source from you as speculation. ;)


Regardless, I have no interest is continuing to restate my position over and over again. You are free to agree or disagree with it...............

Your position is untenable.


BTW Its intersting the Gripen NG has the smallest Radome Size. Yet, has more T/R Modules than fighters of the same size and even as many as some larger aircraft???

No it hasn't - Rafale has the smallest of the current fighters in production.


Gripen - 500mm (PS/05 family)
Miragle - 500mm (RDM,RDI, RDY)
F-20/T-50/IDF - 500mm (APG-67)
Rafale - 600mm (RBE)
MIG-29 - 624 mm (N019, N010)
F-16 - 660mm (APG-66, APG-68, APG-80)
F-18 - 700mm (APG-65, APG-73, APG-79)
Typhoon - 700mm (ECR-90/Captor)
F-35 - 700mm (APG-81)
F-22 - 900mm (APG-77)
F-15 - 950mm (APG-63, APG-70)

You'll have to go over the entire list again, some are way off.

[swerve]

Haha, they're a great number of sources that state the APG-79 has 1100 T/R Modules............:rolleyes:
Official sources, as you demand? You haven't given an official source yet. Your only source says "The radar is known to have ~ 1100 modules". It is a secondary source, giving an approximate (& explicitly approximate - that's what the ~ means), i.e. exactly the same as the sources which you reject as inadequate for other radars.

[Crusader2000]

Official sources, as you demand? You haven't given an official source yet. Your only source says "The radar is known to have ~ 1100 modules". It is a secondary source, giving an approximate (& explicitly approximate - that's what the ~ means), i.e. exactly the same as the sources which you reject as inadequate for other radars.

I said quote........


Yet, I prefer to see something more official or at least more reliable.....


Sorry, not a hard concept...........

[Crusader2000]

Yet none of the two sources state this as fact. Obviously I can only take a statement signed by Mr Swanson (Raythein CEO) as proof. Until you can provide such a thing I would dismiss any source from you as speculation. ;)


Your position is untenable.


Again my quote.......

Yet, I prefer to see something more official or at least more reliable.....





No it hasn't - Rafale has the smallest of the current fighters in production.

Could be as I didn't research it in any great length.............don't have the time.



You'll have to go over the entire list again, some are way off.

Could be..............Yet, if the Gripen NG does have 1000 T/R Modules. That would be the same as the larger F-16's APG-80???

[swerve]

I said quote........
Yet, I prefer to see something more official or at least more reliable.....
Sorry, not a hard concept...........

No, you actually said -
... I want to see a official number. ...

.... When a official source states it has "X" amount of T/R Modules. I'll be happy to accept number whatever it is...........
You've repeated this a few times. Not "more reliable": you say, over & over again, "official". You claim that the numbers of TRMs in US radars has been officially announced, but you cannot provide the official sources you claim to exist, only approximate (& stated to be so) numbers from unofficial sources.

As already said, your position is untenable. You are inconsistent, & demand a higher standard from others than yourself.

[Grand Danois]

Could be..............Yet, if the Gripen NG does have 1000 T/R Modules. That would be the same as the larger F-16's APG-80???

The APG should physically be able to fit more modules than the Gripen, there may be a history behind the lower module count that I am not aware of.

[Crusader2000]

The APG should physically be able to fit more modules than the Gripen, there may be a history behind the lower module count that I am not aware of.



I could accept that............

[Crusader2000]

No, you actually said -

You've repeated this a few times. Not "more reliable": you say, over & over again, "official". You claim that the numbers of TRMs in US radars has been officially announced, but you cannot provide the official sources you claim to exist, only approximate (& stated to be so) numbers from unofficial sources.

As already said, your position is untenable. You are inconsistent, & demand a higher standard from others than yourself.



Your reading what you want and discounting what you don't..........


I did in fact say......

Yet, I prefer to see something more official or at least more reliable.....(though I admit not everytime)


Sorry, considering we only have one Gripen NG source that recently claimed the New AESA Radar will be based on the Vixen 1000E.(Which, many conclude it has 1000 Modules because of its designation) Yet, the source does not mention of the number of T/R Modules at all? I hardly see my position as "untenable" nor requesting "something more official or at least more reliable" as unreasonable!


Regardless, I see no futher reason to debate this................You can believe what you like and I will do the same.

In short agree to disagree.......


Respectfully

[swerve]

Could be..............Yet, if the Gripen NG does have 1000 T/R Modules. That would be the same as the larger F-16's APG-80???
So? What matters is the size of the nose, not the fighter. Rafale, for example, has a small nose relative to the size of the aircraft. The Grifo radar variant for the L-159 has the same size radar antenna as the version for the larger F-5E. In each case, it's the largest that can be fitted.

The Grifo brochure (http://www.selexgalileo.com/EN/Common/files/Galileo_Avionica/Relazioni_Esterne/Scheda_Prodotto_2/Radar_2/GRIFOFAMILY.pdf) is a good source of antenna sizes for several aircraft (in cm, diameter unless otherwise stated).
L-159 & F-5E: 56 x 37
Mirage III/V: 47
Mirage F.1: 52
F-7P & F-7PG: 35
F-16: 74 x 48
JF-17: 60
AMX: 38

From other sources -
F-18A/C: 68
F-15E: 90

[swerve]

... Regardless, I see no futher reason to debate this
You've been saying that for a few pages, but each time, you've given the lie to it.

................You can believe what you like and I will do the same.

In short agree to disagree.......
Fine. I'll agree to be right, & you can agree to be wrong. No problem.

[Scorpion82]

Gripen - 500mm (PS/05 family)
Miragle - 500mm (RDM,RDI, RDY)
F-20/T-50/IDF - 500mm (APG-67)
Rafale - 600mm (RBE)
MIG-29 - 624 mm (N019, N010)
F-16 - 660mm (APG-66, APG-68, APG-80)
F-18 - 700mm (APG-65, APG-73, APG-79)
Typhoon - 700mm (ECR-90/Captor)
F-35 - 700mm (APG-81)
F-22 - 900mm (APG-77)
F-15 - 950mm (APG-63, APG-70)


I know you will respond with your usual thumb down, name calling bla bla, fact is you are either dishonest, ignorant or simply to pride to admit you are wrong! Over at keypublishing you argued that the F-16 has a larger nose diameter cause the aircraft is larger than the Gripen. People provided you a couple of sources which explicitely said 60 cm. Than you claimed it will be the Vixen 500 with just 500 modules, as both were mentioned in one article though not linked to each other. You had no difficulty to believe the number stands for the number of modules. People provided official, albeit sometimes older sources which clearly stated that Saab and its partners aim at a ~1000 TRM antenna for the Gripen. When the Vixen 1000E was stated explicitely you started to doubt that the number in the name stands for the number of modules, you later admitted that it might be the case, but of course you want more sources. Now running out of arguments you come up again with a wrong figure (500 mm), albeit you have been provided with a couple of sources which claim it otherwise. So you are playing by a double standard. Oh you could accept that F-16 has a larger nose diameter, what a surprise for a supporter of US weapon systems, not to say fanboy. Sorry but that is nothing else than trolling, change your argument on purpose and if you run out of arguments as you have been proven wrong a 1000 times, you simply start over again with the first argument, which was proven wrong long ago.

[swerve]

Hi Paul,

I can confirm that the number prefixes of the vixen fire control radar
(i.e. 500E/850E & 1000ES) refer to the number of Transmit Receive
Modules (TRMs) used on the system.

Do not hesitate to contact me over any further questions or queries you
may have on this.

Kindest Regards,

Donna McGrory
Press Officer UK & USA
SELEX Galileo

T: +44 (0)131 343 5115
F: +44 (0)131 343 5716
M: +44 (0)7793 423082
E: donna.mcgrory@selexgalileo.com

Selex GALILEO (http://www.selexgalileo.com)
P Please consider the environment before printing this email

Prima di stampare questa comunicazione consideratene, per favore,
l'impatto ambientale

[Beatmaster]

So regardless or The Gripen has a market or not, how good is this plane anyway? because we got the JSF, Gripen, EF and a few more new western and non western good planes out there ready to be sold, and it seems to me that each plane/brand has its advantages and disadvantages.
So i do believe that eventually a buyer will pick the one that suits him the most.
But before you acctually buy a new plane like the gripen or jsf or ef you will need some hard data to know what you new toy is capable off right?

[gf0012-aust]

So i do believe that eventually a buyer will pick the one that suits him the most.
But before you acctually buy a new plane like the gripen or jsf or ef you will need some hard data to know what you new toy is capable off right?

Vendors have to respond to a capability and requirements definition which details things like support, typical mission profiles, scenarios and vignettes to establish utility, costs, training costs, support costs, through life support, life cycle upgrades, response profiles against an established "red" comparitor etc....

so yes, they have specific requirements to meet. just as a final. "top speed" requirements died with Gen 3 fighters. We now look at systems/platform/systems, capability, not platform/platform capability

[Beatmaster]

Vendors have to respond to a capability and requirements definition which details things like support, typical mission profiles, scenarios and vignettes to establish utility, costs, training costs, support costs, through life support, life cycle upgrades, response profiles against an established "red" comparitor etc....

so yes, they have specific requirements to meet. just as a final. "top speed" requirements died with Gen 3 fighters. We now look at systems/platform/systems, capability, not platform/platform capability

I see aha...
As you know for example the dutch goverment is willing to buy the JSF but due the costs and unclear factors they might go for the gripen right?
But my question here is: The JSF is a state of the art plane with some very nice features but what can the Gripen offer against the JSF or EF because to my understanding the JSF and EF are a class apart compared to the Gripen, i mean the Gripen is a fantastic plane no doubt but can it match the EF or JSF?
Perhaps that the prize tag of the Gripen is its biggest feature whahaha naaah just kidding.
What can the Gripen offer that akes it a good choice to buy if you consider buying the JSF or EF?

[gf0012-aust]

.
As you know for example the dutch goverment is willing to buy the JSF but due the costs and unclear factors they might go for the gripen right?

in short - wrong. They don't have an interest in the Gripen. The most they will do is defer some of their delivery slots with JSF. They are a committed JSF partner - certainly the airforce is focussed on JSF as its future solution

.But my question here is: The JSF is a state of the art plane with some very nice features but what can the Gripen offer against the JSF or EF because to my understanding the JSF and EF are a class apart compared to the Gripen, i mean the Gripen is a fantastic plane no doubt but can it match the EF or JSF?

The plane is assessed against the requirement. The requirements can be significant. I've seen tender submissions that were loaded onto a pallet. Its completely outside the scope of an internet discussion. Hence why a lot of the internet debate re the merits of an aircraft boils down to very simplistic or academic comments.

[QUOTE=Beatmaster;177140].Perhaps that the prize tag of the Gripen is its biggest feature whahaha naaah just kidding.
What can the Gripen offer that akes it a good choice to buy if you consider buying the JSF or EF?[/QUOTE\

I have a lot of time for the Gripen, but I think its just not pitched at the right market - I think it has huge potential, but I don't think it addressed the right selection criteria - the Swedish Defence minister more or less indicated the same when he commented on why it missed out in Norway.

This is not a simple process - most of the reqs are (naturally) classified due to mission sensitivity, threat sensitivity, planning sensitivity issues. Having worked on a few tender evaluations I can quite truthfully say that a lot of the things that you see people get excited about when discussing their fav planes on the internet are dealt with pretty early in the piece. There are far more significant issues which have appropriate weight.

[Beatmaster]

in short - wrong. They don't have an interest in the Gripen. The most they will do is defer some of their delivery slots with JSF. They are a committed JSF partner - certainly the airforce is focussed on JSF as its future solution.

Its true what you say the airforce is certainly into the JSF but the goverment is not 100% sure or they gonna buy the whole package.
Currently the newspapers show a little shift in favor to the gripen, the dutch remain partner of the JSF program and they eventually gonna buy a few.
But they also have arranged a deal to buy the Gripen at least they have a option to it see this link (http://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/politiek/article2732798.ece/Saab_doet_ultieme_poging_om_de_Gripen_te_slijten.h tml)

Fact remains that both the JSF and the Gripen are fantastic replacements of the current F-16 fleet.
Its due the fact that the JSF has not a final prizetag yet otherwise the Gripen would lose against the JSF, but because the fact that Gripen has a ready to go product the goverment might change its policy and buy a few.
Still they stay comitted to the JSF and i do believe that the JSF program offers alot to the Dutch industry aswell the Dutch airforce, but i also think that we should face the fact that Gripen NG offers a real nice package for a acceptable prize 85x Gripen NG for 4,8 miljard euro and another 4,8 miljard euro for the next 30 years for services/repair and updates.
The goverment is willing to buy the JSF but as we all know the costs are not clear and in this case the Gripen has a clear advantage, all major news papers show small favor for the Gripen NG due the fact that Saab made i pretty nice offer.
Its still to uncertain to say that they do gonna buy the JSF or Gripen but if the partners of the JSF cannot hand over a fixed prize tag very soon than, saabs offer might be to mutch for the dutch goverment and they might buy the full Saab package.

[gf0012-aust]

all major news papers show small favor for the Gripen NG due the fact that Saab made i pretty nice offer.

thank goodness we make evaluations based on requirements - and thats something that newspapers have got no idea of how and what the assessments are done on. No offence intended, but a good example of how newspapers get things obviously wrong because they don't understand the complexity of whats involved are legion. In australia we had to suffer almost tooth pulling pain watching the media jump all over the Collins Class subs, Abrams tanks, JSF and the F-111 debate. Newspapers are the last places of reference to support acquisition claims. :)

again, no offence, they can speculate as much as they like, but none of that detail is released as it gets down to fundamental issues of security, and that includes actual meaningful detail about the Gripen (as well as the JSF). I'd also add that vendors are debriefed when they are unsuccessful, as was the Swedish Defence Minister with the Norway JSF decision. He understood and accepted the principles of decision - he also made it clear that although the Swedes would have preferred a different outcome, he stated that he also thought that SAAB may not have addressed RNAF concerns in their entirety. He also clearly stated that it would not impact upon country to country relations. The umpire wins.

We can all talk about what we think are the merits of individual aircraft etc... but the actual evaluation material is often and obviously very far removed from what people in the public domain assume is important.

again, I like Gripen, and I hope it works out as a market participant, but I think that its opportunities lie elsewhere.

[Beatmaster]

thank goodness we make evaluations based on requirements - and thats something that newspapers have got no idea of how and what the assessments are done on. No offence intended, but a good example of how newspapers get things obviously wrong because they don't understand the complexity of whats involved are legion. In australia we had to suffer almost tooth pulling pain watching the media jump all over the Collins Class subs, Abrams tanks, JSF and the F-111 debate. Newspapers are the last places of reference to support acquisition claims. :)

again, no offence, they can speculate as much as they like, but none of that detail is released as it gets down to fundamental issues of security, and that includes actual meaningful detail about the Gripen (as well as the JSF). I'd also add that vendors are debriefed when they are unsuccessful, as was the Swedish Defence Minister with the Norway JSF decision. He understood and accepted the principles of decision - he also made it clear that although the Swedes would have preferred a different outcome, he stated that he also thought that SAAB may not have addressed RNAF concerns in their entirety. He also clearly stated that it would not impact upon country to country relations. The umpire wins.

We can all talk about what we think are the merits of individual aircraft etc... but the actual evaluation material is often and obviously very far removed from what people in the public domain assume is important.

again, I like Gripen, and I hope it works out as a market participant, but I think that its opportunities lie elsewhere.

No offence taken buddy:)
I know that news papers are crap at this point and i share the same idea as you have and iam fully aware that the JSF is the right replacement of the F-16 but on the otherhand see my point ok?
You and some others have really lots of knowlegd about army related stuff, and most visitors and members come here to have fun and learn something just like i do our info comes from public webpages and newspapers.
My point here is... there are so many factors that tell differend story's about these kind of things that is hard to see what is true and what is not.
Fact remains that regardless or Gripen NG/JSF wins this selling race, the media and other parties create a huge labyrint of bullsh*t and thats very confusing.

[IPA35]

Someone said the NG version can't take off from very short strips (roads, ect) like the normal version, I need more info on that.

[Crusader2000]

It likely the Gripen NG can take-off in a shorter distance than the older Gripen. Of course the difference in not likely great.........That said, neither of the SAAB fighters. Could match the Harrier (AV-8B) or Lightning (F-35B) in very short take-offs.

[IPA35]

Ok thanks, someone states it cannot take of from a road, thanks.

@ Norse person in the JSF thread.

Hmmm...
So the budget for the new fighter is 5.7 Billion. (multiple sources google)
And the SAAB asking price is 4.8 billion + 10 billion for 30 years of maintainance.
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/Saab_OfferGripenNG_170409.pdf

The JSF price was budgetted by the MoD as 5.5 billion + 14.4 billion for 30 years of service...
Bedrijven - Saab corrigeert De Vries over Gripen-aanbod - Z24.nl (http://www.z24.nl/bedrijven/artikel_58283.z24/Saab_corrigeert_De_Vries_over_Gripen-aanbod.html)

And that article is about SAAB dissing the state secretary of defence when he told the SAAB offer is without VAT and thus not cheaper, but that's untrue as it is a VAT-less goverment to goverment sale, according to SAAB.

And the offer includes 100% compensation orders for the dutch economy, the JSF only includes dutch companies working on it.

About JSF price increase, and production numbers dropping.
I suggest a translator, but it is about the english part and the numbers...
JSF Nieuws.nl Beloften uit 2003 en realiteit in 2009 (http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=449)

Exploitation costs:
2001 2.9 billon
2005 5.3 billion (+ 82%)
2008 6.9 billion (+ 137%)
(not including fuel)

As for noway, a price of over 150 billion a plane is quite high.
For example (and not very representative) 4800000000/85=57 million.
And don't see this example as proof ofcourse but for the dutch situation the gripen is jus alot cheaper.
But we are deep with our neck in the JSF project, so it would be money destruction to quite it.

So I say buy both for a slightly higher price, but it will give you more capability.

F-35
-High end strike aircraft.
-Stealth (this is IMO a bit overrated, but ok).
-Larger payload.
-Longer range.

Gripen NG.
-Newest european weapon like METEOR (when completed) and Taurus.
-Proven platform
-Alot cheaper (especcialy when you count fuel consumption)
-Can take of from a road or something similar and can be rearmed and refueled.
See wiki quote:

[edit] Expeditionary capabilities
One interesting feature is the Gripen's ability to take off and land on public roads, which was part of Sweden's war defence strategy. The aircraft is designed to be able to operate even if the air force does not have air superiority.

During the Cold War, the Swedish Armed Forces were preparing to defend against a possible invasion from the Soviet Union. Even though the defensive strategy in principle called for an absolute defence of Swedish territory, military planners calculated that Swedish defence forces could eventually be overrun. For that reason, Sweden had military stores dispersed all over the country, in order to maintain the capacity of inflicting damage on the enemy even if military installations were lost.

Accordingly, among the requirements from the Swedish Air Force was that the Gripen fighter should be able to land on public roads near military stores for quick maintenance, and take off again. As a result, the Gripen fighter can be refueled and re-armed in ten minutes by a five man mobile ground crew operating out of a truck, and then resume flying sorties.[24]

In the post-Cold War era, these dispersed operation capabilities have proved to be of great value for a different purpose. The Gripen fighter system is expeditionary in nature, and therefore well suited for peace-keeping missions worldwide, which has become the new main task of the Swedish Armed Forces.

And that is usefull during an invasion, not that that is likely but it is much more easy to maintain a capable military then building one when it is needed (as WW2 has proven.)

And both operate most of the same weapons.

[longbow]

Still they stay comitted to the JSF and i do believe that the JSF program offers alot to the Dutch industry aswell the Dutch airforce, but i also think that we should face the fact that Gripen NG offers a real nice package for a acceptable prize 85x Gripen NG for 4,8 miljard euro and another 4,8 miljard euro for the next 30 years for services/repair and updates.
The goverment is willing to buy the JSF but as we all know the costs are not clear and in this case the Gripen has a clear advantage, all major news papers show small favor for the Gripen NG due the fact that Saab made i pretty nice offer.

This is a similar situation to that in Norway(before the government selected the F-35). Groundswell support for the Gripen, the papers reporting that the Gripen would be super-cheap etc.

IMHO the newspapers display a poor version of journalism on this subject. They accept the claims of the vendor far too easily!:(

What is not included in the "fixed" price is major upgrades. The Gripen NG has yet to be built and yet to receive any orders. Being a 4. gen platform/system, it would need a hefty MLU to stay relevant on the future battlefield. If the Dutch were to be the only Gripen NG users, then those upgrades would probably have a hefty price. The Norwegian government actually concluded that the Gripen would be more expensive than the F-35 - How can Saab know the full price of operating the Gripen when they have no idea about how many units they can divide the costs on???

[Crusader2000]

This is a similar situation to that in Norway(before the government selected the F-35). Groundswell support for the Gripen, the papers reporting that the Gripen would be super-cheap etc.

IMHO the newspapers display a poor version of journalism on this subject. They accept the claims of the vendor far too easily!:(

What is not included in the "fixed" price is major upgrades. The Gripen NG has yet to be built and yet to receive any orders. Being a 4. gen platform/system, it would need a hefty MLU to stay relevant on the future battlefield. If the Dutch were to be the only Gripen NG users, then those upgrades would probably have a hefty price. The Norwegian government actually concluded that the Gripen would be more expensive than the F-35 - How can Saab know the full price of operating the Gripen when they have no idea about how many units they can divide the costs on???


When the whole package is looked at. Every member of the JSF Program reaffirms the F-35 is the best choice.......Which, speaks volumes in my opinion.

[energo]

Hmmm...
So the budget for the new fighter is 5.7 Billion. (multiple sources google)
And the SAAB asking price is 4.8 billion + 10 billion for 30 years of maintainance.
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/Saab_OfferGripenNG_170409.pdf

The JSF price was budgetted by the MoD as 5.5 billion + 14.4 billion for 30 years of service...
Bedrijven - Saab corrigeert De Vries over Gripen-aanbod - Z24.nl (http://www.z24.nl/bedrijven/artikel_58283.z24/Saab_corrigeert_De_Vries_over_Gripen-aanbod.html)

I'll grant you that the ability to operate from a roadbase can be a vital asset. In Norways case it wasn't, partly because there are in principle 30+ airfields with a sufficiently long runway for fighters.

With respect to the above it does not correlate with the official Dutch statement claming that the JSF was cheaper in the long run. It's a fact noone can dispute without providing some qualified information that shows otherwise.

The caveat with "leaked" or incomplete information is that one can not know the exact premises behind the numbers. Aircraft life cycle cost calculations are hugely complex and each nation will have its own set of conditions which provides a different cost picture.

Consider the cost breakdown in the report from the Dutch Court of Audit:

http://www.rekenkamer.nl/9282000/d/p463_report.pdf

85 aircraft cost: € 3.636 million
Total procurement cost: € 5.667 million
Of this VAT: € 897 million

Operating cost: € 9.134 million
Of this VAT: € 584 million

At this point one can see that the figures are different and that there are many conditions and factors which must be taken into consideration if one is to have a reasonable basis for a comparison.

In general caution is advised whenever a journalist or "expert" not part of the program or without a relevant professional background provides contradicting claims about matters as complicated as a fighter purchase. They are likely inaccurate and in some cases even deliberately ignore facts, as the Norwegian fighter issue has illustrated clearly.

For meassure, however, in Norways case the cost analysis showed only a small difference between the Gripen NG and JSF, about NOK 20-30 bn. or 15 percent of the total LCC estimate. Should currency rates have turned out very favorably for the Gripen - however unlikely - then the difference would even have been smaller still.

Just for the record, I absolutely second our aussie friend gf0012-aust that the Gripen is a fine aicraft. If SAAB can pull through the NG program it might even have a bright future. I look forward to seeing its display at RIAT in a couple of weeks and hope for some nice pictures.


B. Bolsøy
Oslo

[Scorpion82]

When the whole package is looked at. Every member of the JSF Program reaffirms the F-35 is the best choice.......Which, speaks volumes in my opinion.

Yes and no. All of the partners are level 2/3 participitians and have already spent quite some money which would be lost in the case of a different choice. Others like the brits don't have a choice if they want to maintain their STOVL capabilities which no other new combat aircraft, spare the F-35B provides.

[IPA35]

We have 2 fighter bases and 1 former fighterbase used as helicopter base.
And a small number of other and or closed bases.
But you can't just switch airfields, a convoy of trucks is quite vulnerable.

And IMO self defence is more imprtant that being expeditiorairy.
So that's why I belive a combination of both planes is best.
And I don't really see it being so much more expensive.
The only thing you would need are 2 different courses for both pilots and ground personell.
But then again, the F-35 training could take place in the USA for the biggest part, as it is with the F-16's currently I believe.
Gripen training could take place in Sweden for example.
The problem is that nobody has ordered it yet...

[Vivendi]

For meassure, however, in Norways case the cost analysis showed only a small difference between the Gripen NG and JSF, about NOK 20-30 bn. or 15 percent of the total LCC estimate. Should currency rates have turned out very favorably for the Gripen - however unlikely - then the difference would even have been smaller still.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
I hate to go into this again, but cannot let Energo go un-answered...

The Swedes were briefed extensively after the Norwegian decision. They were briefed on both capabilities and cost estimates. Whereas the Swedish MoD has said something like "Gripen NG did not meet the Norwegian requirements" and clearly stated that they accept the decision from a capabilities point of view, they never understood the Norwegian cost estimates.

I agree these things are very complicated and difficult for laymen like myself to understand; however:

For JSF they used a surprisingly low exchange rate -- instead of using historical mean they used one that "just happened" to be very low. The "unlikely" change in exhange rate may be very likely.

High estimated price for replacement Gripens in combination with high attrition rates. Saab has stated that they were never asked about costs for replacement Gripens, which Saab says would be much lower than for the original ones.

According to the Norwegian estimates the costs of Norway to purchase and operate 48 NG would have been roughly the same as the total Swedish development and purchase program for ca 200 Gripen, starting from the first prototype, through A/B, and C/D (which can be considered an MLU in its own right).

The gap in the Norwegian and Swedish estimates was around 78 billion NOK, according some documentaries.

There are also other things I find strange but difficult to argue without more info, like fuel consumption. A clean NG will use very little fuel and presumably much less than a much heavier and larger F-35; the difference will obviusly shrink when NG goes dirty but I don't know how often they train with a lot of heavy ordnance, compared to flying with just a center tank. Swedish fuel consumption seems quite reasonable, but just like attrition rates and general maintainance there may be differences between countries.

Energo, surely you can use the "complexity" argument -- to me what was rather telling was the exchange rate they chose for the JSF. It was very favorable -- for the JSF. Also I find it interesting that the Swedish MoD that presumably have the experts that you talk about, left the briefings rather puzzled.

Having said that, there is no doubt that Norway chose the right a/c, based on capabilites.


V

[Haavarla]

I hate to go into this again, but cannot let Energo go un-answered...

The Swedes were briefed extensively after the Norwegian decision. They were briefed on both capabilities and cost estimates. Whereas the Swedish MoD has said something like "Gripen NG did not meet the Norwegian requirements" and clearly stated that they accept the decision from a capabilities point of view, they never understood the Norwegian cost estimates.

I agree these things are very complicated and difficult for laymen like myself to understand; however:

For JSF they used a surprisingly low exchange rate -- instead of using historical mean they used one that "just happened" to be very low. The "unlikely" change in exhange rate may be very likely.

High estimated price for replacement Gripens in combination with high attrition rates. Saab has stated that they were never asked about costs for replacement Gripens, which Saab says would be much lower than for the original ones.

According to the Norwegian estimates the costs of Norway to purchase and operate 48 NG would have been roughly the same as the total Swedish development and purchase program for ca 200 Gripen, starting from the first prototype, through A/B, and C/D (which can be considered an MLU in its own right).

The gap in the Norwegian and Swedish estimates was around 78 billion NOK, according some documentaries.

There are also other things I find strange but difficult to argue without more info, like fuel consumption. A clean NG will use very little fuel and presumably much less than a much heavier and larger F-35; the difference will obviusly shrink when NG goes dirty but I don't know how often they train with a lot of heavy ordnance, compared to flying with just a center tank. Swedish fuel consumption seems quite reasonable, but just like attrition rates and general maintainance there may be differences between countries.

Energo, surely you can use the "complexity" argument -- to me what was rather telling was the exchange rate they chose for the JSF. It was very favorable -- for the JSF. Also I find it interesting that the Swedish MoD that presumably have the experts that you talk about, left the briefings rather puzzled.

Having said that, there is no doubt that Norway chose the right a/c, based on capabilites.


V


Well, there are many people in Norway including my self who don't understand s***t about those cost estimates made by the Norwagian goverment.
The Norwegian finance minister was on a tv program where she was faced with som tough question regarding the whole deal, safe to say she didn't come out of it very well:(

Don't get me wrong, i do think the JSF prob are the best choices for Norway, but the cost estimates Gripen NG vs JSF stink!



Thanks

[energo]

The Swedes were briefed extensively after the Norwegian decision. They were briefed on both capabilities and cost estimates. Whereas the Swedish MoD has said something like "Gripen NG did not meet the Norwegian requirements" and clearly stated that they accept the decision from a capabilities point of view, they never understood the Norwegian cost estimates.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that the Swedes haven't understood the cost estimates, but it is true they don't have access to full cost picture. Nor do they agree with the premises, which is not uncommon between a customer and supplier.

Basically the scope of the Norwegian calculations goes far beyond simply buying and flying the aircraft. It includes all direct and indirect costs associated with establishing and operating the wings, including basing and infrastructure, weapons, training and education, operations, personell, saleries, logistics, consumables etc. Most are factors that SAAB for obvious reasons can not have access to.


I agree these things are very complicated and difficult for laymen like myself to understand; however:

For JSF they used a surprisingly low exchange rate -- instead of using historical mean they used one that "just happened" to be very low. The "unlikely" change in exhange rate may be very likely.

This is not correct. It is clearly outlined in the Reccomendation and Quality Assurance reports, publizised with the Nov. 20 press conference last year, that the currency rate used is "an average exchange rate over the period in which the aquisition is due to be paid". That is: over the aircrafts 5 year delivery schedule from approximatly 2016-2020.

The erronous claim was put forward by some journalists in the Norwegian news media and as a response the Government released the exact figure on that: NOK 6.64 to the dollar.

Exerpts from the QA report:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=154240#154240


According to the Norwegian estimates the costs of Norway to purchase and operate 48 NG would have been roughly the same as the total Swedish development and purchase program for ca 200 Gripen, starting from the first prototype, through A/B, and C/D (which can be considered an MLU in its own right).

The gap in the Norwegian and Swedish estimates was around 78 billion NOK, according some documentaries.

Again, the scope of the Norwegian calculations goes well beyond what the Swedes have done themselves.

Quote from the Governments fact rebuttal: (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=no&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.regjeringen.no%2Fnb%2Fdep%2Ffd% 2Ftema%2Fanskaffelser_til_forsvaret%2Fkampfly-til-forsvaret%2Fkampflysaken---fakta.html%3Fid%3D568032) [Note, Google translation]


It will, therefore, not be possible for Swedish authorities or SAAB to be directly familiar with the basis for the total life cycle cost calculations.

We have no relations to the "alternative" life cycle cost calculations that from time to time is reported by the media.

Further, it is important to emphasize that in the calculations of life cycle costs, exactly the same premises are assumed for both candidates.


There are also other things I find strange but difficult to argue without more info, like fuel consumption. A clean NG will use very little fuel and presumably much less than a much heavier and larger F-35; the difference will obviusly shrink when NG goes dirty but I don't know how often they train with a lot of heavy ordnance, compared to flying with just a center tank. Swedish fuel consumption seems quite reasonable, but just like attrition rates and general maintainance there may be differences between countries.

It's a valid point, the Gripen is likely to consume less fuel, but you'd be surprised of how fuel efficient the modern engines are under cruise conditions and, as you point out, in a clean or near clean state.

Currently in Norways case most flying is with done with dollies (370 gal. tanks) and air-to-air live or training ordnance. A typical fuel flow, depending on where you are in the flight profile, might be around 3000-3500 pph while estimates are around 4000-4500 pph for the F-35. These are not accurate numbers, by any means, nor do they realisticly reflect normal operations. For instance, the F-35s initial climb in MIL is as good as the F-16s in AB.


Energo, surely you can use the "complexity" argument -- to me what was rather telling was the exchange rate they chose for the JSF. It was very favorable -- for the JSF. Also I find it interesting that the Swedish MoD that presumably have the experts that you talk about, left the briefings rather puzzled.

Having said that, there is no doubt that Norway chose the right a/c, based on capabilites.
V

I think that if one keeps in mind that SAAB is trying to sell an aircraft their reaction is a bit more understandable. And also, that it was important for the Norwegian government to send a clear message to the public and down its own ranks, which explains the rethorics used in the press conference. I don't believe this was much of a surprise to the Swedes, they are well versed in the though business of defence contracting.

The F-35 program director, Pål Bjørseth is pragmatic and recently made this comment (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=no&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.regjeringen.no%2Fnb%2Fdep%2Ffd% 2Faktuelt%2Fnyheter%2F2009%2Fkampflysaken---vi-har-gjennomfort-en-gru.html%3Fid%3D568025&sl=no&tl=en&history_state0=): [Note, Google translation]


- I can assure that none of us in the F-35-program believe that the acquisition and introduction of the F-35 will be trouble-free, says Bjørseth [F-35 program director].

- 18 years in the industry has taught me that there is hardly such things as problem-free projects.

However, we have to the best of our ability - and using recognized methods - sought to identify all possible factors of uncertainty and calculate the cost of these, so that decision-makers at various levels should have a best possible fundation.

But, we are neither naive nor absolutely certain. Delays may occur, currencies can change dramatically, and costs may increase. However, it is hoped that the thorough process we accomplished in the uncertainty analysis will cover such eventualities, says Bjørseth.

I recommend reading the full Norwegian fact rebuttal.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

[Crusader2000]

So? What matters is the size of the nose, not the fighter. Rafale, for example, has a small nose relative to the size of the aircraft. The Grifo radar variant for the L-159 has the same size radar antenna as the version for the larger F-5E. In each case, it's the largest that can be fitted.

The Grifo brochure (http://www.selexgalileo.com/EN/Common/files/Galileo_Avionica/Relazioni_Esterne/Scheda_Prodotto_2/Radar_2/GRIFOFAMILY.pdf) is a good source of antenna sizes for several aircraft (in cm, diameter unless otherwise stated).
L-159 & F-5E: 56 x 37
Mirage III/V: 47
Mirage F.1: 52
F-7P & F-7PG: 35
F-16: 74 x 48
JF-17: 60
AMX: 38

From other sources -
F-18A/C: 68
F-15E: 90


Interesting article......................So, how many T/R Modules with the Selex / PS-05A have????

Saab: Gripen Still in Race for Indian Contract
By GERARD O'DWYER (Defense News)
Published: 8 Jul 2009 18:21



HELSINKI - Saab has rejected a July 5 report by the Jerusalem Post that the Sweden-based company has been eliminated from India's multibillion-dollar combat jet competition.

The newspaper reported that the United States refused to allow Israel to supply an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for Saab's Gripen fighter jet, prompting the elimination.

"Our AESA focus is on our partnership with Selex Galileo, which we reached in March," a Saab spokesman said. "Together, we will jointly develop a new radar based on Selex's AESA Vixen and PS-05/A technologies. Saab is not involved in other AESA programs."

Selex Galileo, part of Italy's Finmeccanica group, is a defense electronics firm with operations in the United Kingdom, Italy and the United States.

The newspaper report claimed that, under pressure from the Pentagon, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) was forced to back out of a partnership with Saab due to U.S. concerns that American technologies, used by Israel, could be integrated into the Gripen-NG fighter offered to India.

"There is no AESA relationship between Saab and IAI, and there has not been one regarding any tender involving India," the spokesman added.

The Saab joint venture with Selex Galileo aims to offer a Gripen NG equipped with an AESA radar to India's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) procurement program, as well as to a similar contest in Brazil. The partnership brings together Saab Microwave Systems, Saab Aerosystems and Selex Galileo.

The Gripen NG is a considerably improved version of the in-service Gripen C/D multirole fighter. It has been updated to operate in diverse combat situations, including net-centric warfare environments.

Selex Galileo's Vixen 500E is a compact AESA radar for use on small, lightweight combat aircraft. The radar, which consists of some 500 transmit-receive modules, currently does not have any customers. A variant with 750 modules is under development. The range of the Vixen 500E is given as 35 nautical miles.


Personally, is sounds like the number of T/R Modules in the Gripen NG. Is still very much in question................IMO

[gf0012-aust]

Newsflash:

SAAB is seeking support from the Swedish Govt to get easier export access to onselling "used" fighters.

[Crusader2000]

Newsflash:

SAAB is seeking support from the Swedish Govt to get easier export access to onselling "used" fighters.



So, Sweden has surplus Gripens available for export???


BTW I wonder if secondhand Gripens would be upgraded to NG Standards???

[Grand Danois]

Newsflash:

SAAB is seeking support from the Swedish Govt to get easier export access to onselling "used" fighters.

That was not unexpected. :But who would need special clearance? :D

[Sintra]

Interesting article......................So, how many T/R Modules with the Selex / PS-05A have????

"Selex Galileo's Vixen 500E is a compact AESA radar for use on small, lightweight combat aircraft. The radar, which consists of some 500 transmit-receive modules, currently does not have any customers. A variant with 750 modules is under development. The range of the Vixen 500E is given as 35 nautical miles. "


Personally, is sounds like the number of T/R Modules in the Gripen NG. Is still very much in question................IMO

Scooter

The Selex 750E is a known quantity for atleast two years and it has never been linked to any Gripen development.
That GERARD O'DWYER, the journo that has written the defense news story, doesnt have a clue about the Selex Vixen family is irrelevant to this discussion.
It´s highly amusing that you bring this to discussion again, and again, and again, using an article with factual errors, just for the records, unlike what this Gerard O´Dwyer wrote, the Selex 500E has been sold to the US Customs and Border Protection Agency.
You have already been pointed, in two diferent fora, to official documents from SELEX stating how many T/R modules there are in the Vixen 1000ES.
You´re wrong, Get over it:

[swerve]

Interesting article......................So, how many T/R Modules with the Selex / PS-05A have????
...
Personally, is sounds like the number of T/R Modules in the Gripen NG. Is still very much in question................IMO
What are you - trolling, or incapable of reading? The number is 1000. No ifs, buts or maybes. No doubts. I posted an email from Selex here, but for those who find reading back a couple of pages beyond their abilities, I'll re-post it.

Hi Paul,

I can confirm that the number prefixes of the vixen fire control radar
(i.e. 500E/850E & 1000ES) refer to the number of Transmit Receive
Modules (TRMs) used on the system.

Do not hesitate to contact me over any further questions or queries you
may have on this.

Kindest Regards,

Donna McGrory
Press Officer UK & USA
SELEX Galileo

T: +44 (0)131 343 5115
F: +44 (0)131 343 5716
M: +44 (0)7793 423082
E: donna.mcgrory@selexgalileo.com

Selex GALILEO (http://www.selexgalileo.com)
P Please consider the environment before printing this email

Prima di stampare questa comunicazione consideratene, per favore,
l'impatto ambientale

[Crusader2000]

What are you - trolling, or incapable of reading? The number is 1000. No ifs, buts or maybes. No doubts. I posted an email from Selex here, but for those who find reading back a couple of pages beyond their abilities, I'll re-post it.

Were does it say the Gripen NG AESA Radar is going to be called a Selex 1000???:confused:

[Crusader2000]

I stand corrected.................I found a source from a June 15th Article that does refer to the Selex 1000ES as equiping the Gripen NG. Yet, the Defense New source at least implies 750 T/R Modules??? Which, just adds to the confusion....:(

[swerve]

I stand corrected.................I found a source from a June 15th Article that does refer to the Selex 1000ES as equiping the Gripen NG. Yet, the Defense New source at least implies 750 T/R Modules??? Which, just adds to the confusion....:(
Absolute nonsense. There is no confusion. If you are confused, it is due to addling of your mind, not the available information.

You have just read an absolutely unequivocal official statement from Selex that the Vixen 1000ES/Raven ES05 has 1000 T/R modules. You have also read other absolutely unequivocal statements from SAAB & Selex that this is the radar for the Gripen NG.

All references to the Vixen 750E, or other radars, as intended for the Gripen NG demonstrate only the ignorance or stupidity of those making them. Any person choosing to repeat them is proving himself to be a fool, or - as with you - dishonest.

If I find you repeating your trolling on any other forum, I will register there, & post this exchange, to show you up for the troll you are. Now go away & get a life, you sad creature. I dread to think how empty your life & narrow your horizons must be, to find this pathetic little game entertaining.

[Crusader2000]

Absolute nonsense. There is no confusion. If you are confused, it is due to addling of your mind, not the available information.

You have just read an absolutely unequivocal official statement from Selex that the Vixen 1000ES/Raven ES05 has 1000 T/R modules. You have also read other absolutely unequivocal statements from SAAB & Selex that this is the radar for the Gripen NG.

All references to the Vixen 750E, or other radars, as intended for the Gripen NG demonstrate only the ignorance or stupidity of those making them. Any person choosing to repeat them is proving himself to be a fool, or - as with you - dishonest.

If I find you repeating your trolling on any other forum, I will register there, & post this exchange, to show you up for the troll you are. Now go away & get a life, you sad creature. I dread to think how empty your life & narrow your horizons must be, to find this pathetic little game entertaining.


Well, I believe most would take "Defense News" as a reliable source (its recent BTW) and all I did was post it. So, the members of the forum are free to make up there own minds. Regardless, as always instead of just providing a respectful counter point. You reply with name calling and sarcasm...........how typical.:P4

[Satorian]

If I find you repeating your trolling on any other forum, I will register there, & post this exchange, to show you up for the troll you are. Now go away & get a life, you sad creature. I dread to think how empty your life & narrow your horizons must be, to find this pathetic little game entertaining.


You know, and I've been wondering where Scooter went. Seems he's here and continuing his ways.

[Crusader2000]

Funny, that I just posted an article from a reliable source. (i.e. Defense News) Yet, if some don't like what it says. They try to intimidate the source.....

[Satorian]

Scoot, on KeyPub you at least had the decency of bowing out of the discussion. Just accept the 1000 TR figure as confirmed by Selex and move on.

[Crusader2000]

Scoot, on KeyPub you at least had the decency of bowing out of the discussion. Just accept the 1000 TR figure as confirmed by Selex and move on.


I already stated that I found a source that said the new AESA Radar for the Gripen NG was to be called the Selex 1000 ES. That plus another member provided a source from Selex that stated the number (i.e. 500, 750, or 1000) represented the number of modules. Which, would seem to support that it indeed does have 1000 T/R Modules.

YET, I recently found another reliable (Defense News) source that at least implies 750 Modules??? So, I posted it.............So, why can't I post it and why can't the other members of the forum. Make up there own minds???


Note: That I didn't speculate or claim said article was "FACT".

[Scorpion82]

I already stated that I found a source that said the new AESA Radar for the Gripen NG was to be called the Selex 1000 ES. That plus another member provided a source from Selex that stated the number (i.e. 500, 750, or 1000) represented the number of modules. Which, would seem to support that it indeed does have 1000 T/R Modules.

YET, I recently found another reliable (Defense News) source that at least implies 750 Modules??? So, I posted it.............So, why can't I post it and why can't the other members of the forum. Make up there own minds???


Note: That I didn't speculate or claim said article was "FACT".

You yet come up with it over and over again. So what's you intention? It is a defence site, the 1000 figure was confirmed by its manufacturer. So who is more likely to be correct?

[swerve]

I already stated that I found a source that said the new AESA Radar for the Gripen NG was to be called the Selex 1000 ES. That plus another member provided a source from Selex that stated the number (i.e. 500, 750, or 1000) represented the number of modules. Which, would seem to support that it indeed does have 1000 T/R Modules.

YET, I recently found another reliable (Defense News) source that at least implies 750 Modules??? So, I posted it.............So, why can't I post it and why can't the other members of the forum. Make up there own minds???

Note: That I didn't speculate or claim said article was "FACT".
You can post what you like. My objection is to you deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of what you post - and that is something you routinely do.

BTW, I will claim the article is "FACT" (sic), apart from being out of date. But it does not say that the Vixen 500E or 750E are to be used on the Gripen. It quotes SAAB as saying (& I quote) "we will jointly develop a new radar based on Selex's AESA Vixen and PS-05/A technologies" - i.e. neither the 500E nor the 750E. Separately, at the end of the article, there is a note on the Vixen radar series (but an out of date one - it fails to mention the 850E & the author is clearly unaware of the sale of Vixen 500E to the USA) to give some background. That note mentions the 500E & 750E, but nowhere does the article suggest either is the "new radar" mentioned by SAAB. Only someone with very poor reading comprehension or very low intelligence could think it does.

By suggesting that the article (link) (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4178191) casts any doubt on the number of TRMs in the Vixen 1000ES, you are being deliberately dishonest, unless you are very, very stupid.

[swerve]

Funny, that I just posted an article from a reliable source. (i.e. Defense News) Yet, if some don't like what it says. They try to intimidate the source.....
Nope. There's not very much wrong with the source, or what it says. It's badly structured, but the only fault in the content is the background information being very old, & therefore no longer accurate (sloppy, sloppy). The real problem here is your pretence that it says something other than what it does.

[gf0012-aust]

Thread Closed pending decision and discussion by the Mods.