Switzerland chooses Saab Gripen


Well-Known Member
Note that Rafale does not have HMD; in addition one may question how efficient the MICA is compared to the AIM-9X.

It is interesting to note that in spite of lacking HMD, the Rafale still managed to score so well in WVR....
The Thales TopOwl HMD has been integrated with Rafale. Ir will be interesting to see what targeting pod the IAF gets for it Rafales as Damocles is reportedly not a capable as Litening, Sniper or Navflir and work is currently ongoing on a replacement for Damocles. What puzzles me is why the French AFs Rafales have only been fitted with Rafale recently, as Damocles has been around for a number of years and was integrated back in 2005 with the RMAFs Su-30MKMs.

Does anyone know if Gripen has been integrated with any pod other than Litening?


Banned Member
Reading Vivendi's link.

The rafale scores higher than both the Eurofighter, Gripen and F18 - in all categories and is the recommed aircraft for the Swiss AF and only one fully meeting expectations.
The Eurofighter was better than the F18 in all categories, but the Gripen was not better than the F18 in all categories (Defensive Counter air).

I am surprised that the politicians ends up electing an airplane that's plainly described as "unsatisfactory".


Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
You are surprised?

Since when have huge weapons purchases not been mostly political decisions? This is even more the case with weapon imports and highly visible items (like fast jets).


Super Moderator
Note the date of that report. It was completed in 2009, & relates to evaluations made in 2008/9. Flight tests were done in 2008. The Gripen evaluated was C/D, & Gripen NG was still not very well defined.

The Swiss have done further evaluations since then, including additional flight tests, looking at updated roadmaps for future developments, & the commitments to & funding of such roadmaps. This will have affected the ratings of all the contenders, & I think Gripen most of all.

For example, Gripen was rated as unsatisfactory due to endurance & aircraft performance - but there was a note that "These weak points will most probably never improve during the entire life of the the Gripen C/D aircraft but rather be addressed within the concept of the new Gripen NG." Back then, Switzerland was looking at buying Gripen C/D, but has since done flight tests of the Gripen NG prototype, & that is the model which has been selected.

The relevance of that report is therefore limited.


The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Also note how 90% of the report is missing, and the published pages have been selected specifically to portray the performance of Gripen C/D. We're talking political agenda there.


New Member
To recap:
- An official report was leaked and published in a thoroughly edited form, that discredits the Swiss fighter selection outcome by indicating a very low performance of the selected aircraft, the Gripen, and finding the Rafale to be better even than the Typhoon.

This puts the Government under pressure and jeopardizes the acquisition programme.

Upon deeper analysis and even assuming the document is authentic, it emerges that:

- The assessments in the report refer to 2008 test flights involving models differently fitted out and the Typhoon was at an earlier stage of development than the Rafale.
- In particular the Gripen tested was the C version and not the more advanced NG version which was selected.
- Performance weighed only for 60% of the decision. Other major considerations were economic and those clearly favor the Gripen.
- The report re emerges after the Rafale's selection in the Indian competition and therefore strengthened in its image, especially among the non-experts.

Doesn't this smell of foul play?

How's the investigation going? Have they ascertained how the document was obtained?

Why don't the Swiss simply denounce the manipulation attempt? I mean even without pointing fingers (presumably they can't trace back the operation to its originators with certainty). After all it doesn't take a genius to know who's behind it.


Super Moderator
It may not be Dassault, but disgruntled Swiss Air Force personnel who'd rather have the bigger, sexier, aircraft.


New Member
It may not be Dassault, but disgruntled Swiss Air Force personnel who'd rather have the bigger, sexier, aircraft.
If it had been the work of a disgruntled officer one would think he would have leaked a document favoring the Typhoon not the Rafale. As for Dassault, I don't think they recruit agents. I was actually referring to the French intelligence services.
In any case it doesn't matter, here and to us, who did it and why. My point is to propose a course of action and purely for the intellectual challenge it presents.
For anyone who may have an interest to uphold the Gripen decision it might be possible to:

First, argue convincingly the irrelevance and fallacy of the report and its omissions.
Second, have someone note the convenience of the leak to the French for its timing, its carefully selected content not only for the editing but also in the face of presumably hundreds of documents of contrary content (if there really are publish some)
Third, have someone start insinuating an intelligence connection.
Fourth, leak news of an ongoing investigation (real or not) into the involvement of an unspecified foreign intelligence service.
Fifth, of course conduct the real investigation to find the leak and fix it.

If later on more leaks follow of the same sign it will just prove your point. A genuine new leak might help identifying the information path and the source.
If no official accusation is made to the French they couldn't respond officially (one doesn't yell their innocence without being accused first) and so it shouldn't compromise relations.

And yes, yes, of course it is pretty lurid. But it's always better than having disloyal civil servants or foreign countries dictate policy by manipulating public opinion. Also you can modulate the strategy according to your tolerance level for filth. I'm sure the professionals can come up with better variations.
Now, all of this might seem to somebody like a smart thing to do; actually it isn't. It represents a disruption of democracy. The best defense against such foreign interferences would be to prevent them by improving security, discouraging treason and foreign operations in the first place. These however do require raising the level of awareness and raising the risks for the perpetrators. So the proposed strategy is really a short term fix.
Last edited: