my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Genre)   » Jets   » Swedish fighters (Page 1)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Author Topic: Swedish fighters
zebra
Member
Member # 8236

posted 11-28-2000 08:11 AM     Profile for zebra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The topics are more or less always about the American/Russian jets. Not to forget that there are jets produced in other countries outside the Nato. I am curious about the knowledge outside our borders about the Swedish fighter JAS-39 "Griffin". It's acutally a 4 generation jet that is capable to shake most competitors in the sky. SO FOLKS,,,, WHAT DO YOU KNOW??
Posts: 11 | From: Helsingborg, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jedi Master
Member
Member # 3223

posted 11-28-2000 10:01 AM     Profile for Jedi Master   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I know it's in service, with about 60 delivered so far, and possibly another 100 or more on the way, depending on budget realities. BAe and SAAB are jointly marketing it abroad, though so far the SAAF is the only taker, and that's still in the deal-making stage.
It's a lightweight, single-engined fighter with an engine based on the F/A-18C's GE F404. Carries IR and radar-guided AAMs (I forget the Swedish designations, Rb. something) and multiple ground attack weapons in addition to some recon ability, hence JAS.39 for fighter/attack/recon.
The old Jane's Fighter Anthology let you fly it, but there was never a reason to as it had a smaller payload than many other fighters when you needed to carry as many missiles as possible!
When talk about its ability, I'm assuming you mean in a dogfight. While that's important, it's really only material in a 1v1 battle. BVR capability is the current important area, along with ECM and ECCM, and those things have been kept fairly quiet, other than acknowledging that yes, of course, they exist.
The Jedi Master

Posts: 477 | From: Coral Springs, FL, USA | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Kurt Plummer
Member
Member # 358

posted 11-28-2000 11:34 AM     Profile for Kurt Plummer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The jet is distinctly underpowered, it has had it's AOA limits 'reset', twice to prevent roll ratchet and deep stall pitchups into fullout departure with minimal 'bio stick shaker' input for-cause. In process it has gone from publically stated 'twitchy' to benign losing the edge-inbewteen that is established FBW coding database (did you REALLY think we let Calspan give you the goods the first time round? The second? Bwuahahahahahaha!).

At home, it is equipped with only about 100 AIM-120B (RB.99 I think) and /still/ makes use of the RB.74=AIM-9L/S. IRIS-T is a promise unfullfilled and one which may or may not be available for all exports (where competition with 1/3 German Typhoons also is a consideration).

It lacks many of the proposed equipment fits like a targeting pod, ODIN/OTIS and it's 'finalized' EW suite is actually rather pitiful. Dependance on Maverick (now out of motor-production for nearly five years) as the primary point-strike precision weapon is dubious.

Weapons Or Gas... JAS carries something like 4.5-5K worth of gas which means it can never win a war, only prolong losing it.

Furthermore, for each 400 gallon (draggy as hell) external tank it carries it loses one 'independent strike' capability, be that layered BVR/WVR AAM or (the currently nonexistant) ARM that is -mandatory- for all non-VLO penetrators operating as strike.
BK.91 helps this to some extent and the proposed landattack version of RBS.15 (or KEPD-350) might actually /solve the problem/, but nobody will buy half million dollar per-pylon weapons.

At the same time, some if not MOST of those very 'self defending' strike enablers simply are not available for export, being dependant on American licensing technology that will continue to favor 'By from U.S.' F-16's and then JSFs.

No AMRAAM (for instance) for successful export advertising without a backup BVR is downright _stupid_ and though it's been seen with MICA in airshow 'Yes, it fits the rack' situations, the French weapon also comes with too many specialist interface and weapons system 'hooks' that the Swedes can neither afford nor /want/ (proprietaries) to let inside their WCS. Meteor/EURAAM is at least 10 years out at current rates.

The vaunted BAS-90 scheme is so much pap and pablum in an era of cruise missiles and LDSD+AWACS. Even if it worked, defensively, it costs megabucks make logistically work and the basic export package does NOT include the secure STRIL datalinks needed to make it effective.

The JAS-39C with EJ-200/220/230 is a pipedream whose funding remains locked up in a vaporware AVEN test program and for whom SAAB IG is in a catch-22 situation. They can't get JAS-39C in blk.3 or 4 or whatever it is now until they get some fairly major sales (SAAF is a done deal but will be nearly all converted into local industry offsets). Yet they cannot 'give away' SweAF jets at sufficient profit to finance even a basic NATOization mod package (if Poland and Czechoslovakia will buy 10 year old jets) for everything from consumeables to AAR to pylon lug spacing.
Gripen-C/D will have features full-function (send recieve, secure) /airborne/ datalinks with Strike UCAV and Combat Controller-twincabs as well as AESA/AMSAR and other goodies which makes it a wait-and-buy-late preferred option anyway.

Stinks of the F-20 for a lot of similar reasons and to be frank, I would be very careful what I said about it 'shaking most competitors from the sky' as well.

Given I have to come to you and I get to pick the EW suite and engine, I would /far/ rather be aboard an F-16C.50/.60 which, especially with MATV FCS/DEEC integration, remains the premiere close in combat jet with better (consistent, coded without 'blank spots') energy+angles fighter across the envelope. It nothing else, I can bring a helluva lot more of them to the party.

Sorry Svarlie, it may work in the far North and against a decrepit has-been-bear and there are indeed elements of it's 'coming soon' avionics configuration that are intrigueing (coming from such a small country) to say the least.

But overall, Gripen is itself a 40 million dollar relic of Cold War 'defensive' beliefs and 1970's design concepts.

And two highly public crashes don't help a bit.


Kurt Plummer


Posts: 672 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 11-28-2000 01:53 PM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Originally posted by Kurt Plummer:
"The jet is distinctly underpowered,"

Not really. Compared to up and coming twin engined fighters, yes but most definately not when compared to what's flying today.
Again, if you really find yourself in desperate need of those extra kp's, you're probably deep in the you-know-what already.

"At home, it is equipped with only about 100 AIM-120B (RB.99 I think) and /still/ makes use of the RB.74=AIM-9L/S."

May I ask you where you get your info from?
Anyway, what stops us from acquiring more missiles if the **** hits the fan? The yanks?


"It lacks many of the proposed equipment fits like a targeting pod, ODIN/OTIS and it's 'finalized' EW suite is actually rather pitiful."

Where do you get such ideas from? Tell me, exactly what do you know about its electronical capabilities?


"Dependance on Maverick (now out of motor-production for nearly five years) as the primary point-strike precision weapon is dubious."

I don't know about dependant... I've heard that's it's not much good in our terrain anyways...


"Weapons Or Gas... JAS carries something like 4.5-5K worth of gas which means it can never win a war, only prolong losing it."

It has about the same (though a little tad shorter) action radius as the F-16. Also, in the case you want it, IFR equippment can be installed.
The only current major user of the plane not using it, because there's no reason for it where you'll probably find an airbase closer than any refueler, is another thing.

Given that it'll only have to defend our skies, sink the enemy's invasion fleet and then harras the enemy at the border bottleneck up in the north enough to convince him that the whole idea was crap, I don't see the point.


"BK.91 helps this to some extent and the proposed landattack version of RBS.15 (or KEPD-350) might actually /solve the problem/, but nobody will buy half million dollar per-pylon weapons."

The "Taurus" cruise missile is coming, I've heard...

I've never heard of a land attack version of the Rb 15.


"No AMRAAM (for instance) for successful export advertising without a backup BVR is downright _stupid_ and though it's been seen with MICA in airshow 'Yes, it fits the rack' situations, the French weapon also comes with too many specialist interface and weapons system 'hooks' that the Swedes can neither afford nor /want/ (proprietaries) to let inside their WCS. Meteor/EURAAM is at least 10 years out at current rates."

I think the whole system has been designed from outset with simple upgrades in mind.

Anyway, according to our crystal balls, nothing will happen in the next 10 years.

Remember that while our army has downsized with a bizarre 50 or something percent, there's still political motivation to keep a first class airforce.


"The vaunted BAS-90 scheme is so much pap and pablum in an era of cruise missiles and LDSD+AWACS."

Given the real "efficiency" of cruise missiles in recent conflicts, I doubt that.


"Even if it worked, defensively, it costs megabucks make logistically work and the basic export package does NOT include the secure STRIL datalinks needed to make it effective."

Are we trying to export the BAS-90 system? It's even being replaced...


"The JAS-39C with EJ-200/220/230 is a pipedream whose funding remains locked up in a vaporware AVEN test program"...

Well, you're probably right about that...


"Gripen-C/D will have features full-function (send recieve, secure) /airborne/ datalinks with Strike UCAV and Combat Controller-twincabs as well as AESA/AMSAR and other goodies which makes it a wait-and-buy-late preferred option anyway."

While I'm not following that last part entirely, there's already a datalink system (supposed to have colour displays mounted)
on the JA-37 (or was it on the AJS?) and I'm pretty sure the Gripen already has a vastly improved version of this.

"I would be very careful what I said about it 'shaking most competitors from the sky' as well."

Have you thought in terms of bang per buck?


"Given I have to come to you and I get to pick the EW suite and engine, I would /far/ rather be aboard an F-16C.50/.60 which, especially with MATV FCS/DEEC integration, remains the premiere close in combat jet with better (consistent, coded without 'blank spots') energy+angles fighter across the envelope. It nothing else, I can bring a helluva lot more of them to the party."

Again, where do you have the info on which to judge that on? Remember that if there's one thing that has *always* been top-notch in our A/C, that's the electronics.

How about a radar comparision?

You do know that the Gripen has a data link "JTDIS"-like system linking with AWACS (or Airborn STRIL as we call it) and GCI.

"Sorry Svarlie, it may work in the far North and against a decrepit has-been-bear"

That's its intended use. Plus it makes impressive airshows.

"But overall, Gripen is itself a 40 million dollar relic of Cold War 'defensive' beliefs and 1970's design concepts."

But then, what 4th generation fighter isn't?


"And two highly public crashes don't help a bit."

But it can't be as bad as three F-16s crashing in the same week (same day?)?


------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site: http://fly.to/lead-head

[This message has been edited by LeadHead (edited 11-28-2000).]


Posts: 775 | From: Piteå, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Akulashaker
Member
Member # 148

posted 11-28-2000 02:52 PM     Profile for Akulashaker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"Given that it'll only have to defend our skies, sink the enemy's invasion fleet and then harras the enemy at the border bottleneck up in the north enough to convince him that the whole idea was crap, I don't see the point."

That's exactly Kurt's whole point (I think): It's good enough for you, but doesn't cut it for just about anyone/anywhere else. Makes you wonder about all the export hoopla campaign.

------------------
___________________________________________
The Europe-88 Project: World War III in Germany
www.geocities.com/akulashaker/E88/


Posts: 488 | From: Greece | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Top Gun
Member
Member # 7586

posted 11-28-2000 03:03 PM     Profile for Top Gun   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Kurt, not to be a smart ass but what do you do to know so much about aircraft??

It's pretty amazing the info you give. I never thought I would learn so much from a forum on sims.

Thanks for the info!

TG out

[This message has been edited by Top Gun (edited 11-28-2000).]


Posts: 99 | From: rochester, nh usa | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
Kurt Plummer
Member
Member # 358

posted 11-28-2000 08:17 PM     Profile for Kurt Plummer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hey Leadhead,

Power,
Yes, even compared to most singletons though with the success of the 16 there is a fair paucity of these in a similar roles, Mir2K, MiG-21 Lancer and Centauro coming to mind as equally 'poor seconds'...

It's not just in the absolutes of turn rate but in the sustained thrust:altitude _mil_ curve, for getting you there, with a load, at optimum cruise height and speed, if need be with passed gas before ingress, that matters.

Missiles and Such,
Could be wrong on the designations, I believe Urban Friedrickson has a good page on the Gripen and indeed SweAF inventory in general.
His would be the main source for RB sequencings.

However; it's not the name but the /game/ that counts and it takes years and years to 'get good' with any particular weapons systems.

In the case of say IRIS-T and ODIN/OTIS for instance it's not just about Seek Eagle clearances of basic airframe/weapon interaction but getting three disparate borelines to overlap and making sure Wingnut doesn't 'play through' on a weapon that covers at least the front 180` cone.

Then you can think about all the tactical benefits that an oblique-fire weapon pol gives you.

With the Swedish control system and AMRAAM there is also a lot of potential for using distributed BVR shooter-eyeball tactics across 20-60nm (or more) of airspace but you /need/ to be able to hose off weapons now and again to give the pilots confidence in the pol overlaps and passive vectoring. You can't do that if with 100 rounds and CATMs are not enough, IMO.

Buying late is a losers proposition on _time_. Though I must admit there is little to impress me as a threat to Sweden at this moment, no-pay cleared weapons capabilities will have a direct effect on potential buyer interest.

EW,
IIRR the Gripen fleet is in-process on equipping with BOP-B outboard and already has C in the fuselage. But all told there are only perhaps 20 slots with some admittedly housing multielement EXCM but still /nowheres near/ say the 'Israeli Requirement'. And expendables are the one (cheap) items that most airforces can afford, in useful baseline (pure mechanical) quantities.

Internal active RF jamming is minimal (and carrying a draggy external pod is stupid, we should know!) while the 'copper top' BO2D towed decoy is /late/.

There is no 360` lookthru evasion/expendables cueing MAWS, there is no hunting RHAWS to cue ARM or loitering decoys.

Admittedly, many of these shortcomings can be applied to our fighter force as well and it -does- worry me, a great deal.

But then again, we can sell an F-16 for 23-25 million each, should we choose to (USAF). Gripens run 40.

Fuel.
It's not as simple as radius:radius comparison. IIRR, the F-16 has closer to 6-6.5Klbs of internal gas (though a 110 will admittedly suck it down faster) and again, if you give it the _correct_ (ASPIS, ASPJ or similar) internal EW suite, it can add a 300 gallon centerline tank to it's paired 370's or even 600's. Plus a mixed BVR/WVR weapons bag.

And /still/ have heavyweight pylons for the primary mission ordnance atop this.

You literally cannot say the same of the Gripen.

Because it is a smaller jet (lower, slower, responses to weapon mass effects) with a weaker powerplant that has less total thrust in mil to hold a gross:altitude airspeed margin for penetration.

And fewer pylons to start with.

Knots:nm has a direct effect on how much AB you use to penetrate with various synchronicity lag between mission elements and /that/ is the true measure of both tactical penetration depth and AAR 'radius off the boom' so to speak.

Most nations cannot afford a realistic tanker force and civil conversions are, believe it or not, one of the most proliferation-controlled of all GTW items.
For these it is better to cheat with fighter:fighter capability or simply Big Tanks and here too, while the baseline Falcon design is robusts enough to have several options (camel-CFT, probe-in-tank, 600's etc.), the Gripen, a 10 year veteran, doesn't even have a homeforce experience base in basic chase-the-panty. And 'expeditionaries' (sales 'force') aside it never will.

Datalinks.
The datalink function has indeed been built into Swedish fighters since the Stril-60's system, aboard Draken or attack Viggen I believe. The problem comes when you want to do both 'local' (fighter:fighter) and 'broad horizon' (outside 20nm) with hands of ground target imagery, AAM/AShM target assignements and realtime ESM stuff. There you start to hit both bandwidth and controller difficulties wherein the signal cannot be channelhop/PN hid, the datastream cannot be crypted totally secure and the cost of 'all doing' throughput is /enormous/.

It is, effectively, what killed ATARS as a realtime drone+manned strike handling system and what keeps target-foldering 'near realtime' through several ground agencies and using a large percentage of our MILSTAR to make work (on a very small scale) even today.

OTOH, Sweden is investigating the kinds of aided/adaptive cockpits with cued 'giant screen' operator controls and indeed a /specialist/ rear seater as part of their workup to the 39D. It is (IMO) thought that this will at last give them the kind of offensive tool at bargain basement prices to be at least 'fill' to the manned force if not totally remote-replacing (GStream or similar) it. Given the size of our prototype UCAV C2 console for the X-45 program, I would be very interested in seeing how the ingenious engineers in Sweden manage there concept of 'force forward' integration aboard a combat fighter.

Easy Exports.
First rule of FMS: _There Is No Simple Fixup Sale_.

Some idiot will demand some platinum plated diamond dice to hang from his rear view mirror to 'meet a need' he dreamed up in the local crack house and then find he can't pay for the added cost during the extended development phase (or some variant thereof) is usually the problem. Often it can be externally exacerbated by the 'other side' upgrading to better own capabilities (or advertising that they will) on an established threat system which then forces an upgrade in own-baseline to match. Back and forth, and the budget window gets narrower and you're holding up lots that can no longer be fully purchased.

BVR weaponry and the ability to 'kill without skill' but a high win-or-flee certainty of small-force preservation is seen as key among the new sextoy gottahaves.

And there is basically no weapon-without-warplane available to Vai Victis Vickers with.

MICA goes with 2000-05 and Rafale, Meteor is so ambitious it's certain to be wringered with any economic or political changes, in it's decade long bid for a new bar height. AMRAAM is a NATO weapon and though produced in Europe, will always be subject to restrictions on useage outside the Defense Region dictated by the U.S..

Adder could work but would break all the rules and imply a Western Airframe/Eastern Weapon mix that might actually /compromise/ some conflict areas with dual-weaponeering understanding of threat capability.

Promising but relatively simple weapons like MMW-ASRAAM, Active Skyflash, Idra-ARH and Alto/Derby have either been ditched for a long time or technology folded into other 'Marconi Monster' programs, irreversibly.

Again, ARH allows you to play at being warriors without commiting through the visual merge or indeed across a border that has SAM traps written all over it. Even if it's only a prestige weapon it is tops of the shopping list and nobody wants an SRM-yesterday shooter instead (or if they do, they want a Chinese MiG or IAI mod-Tiger that is a lot cheaper than the Gripen).

Winning battles sequentially.
Can't be done. You take the fight to the bad guy and smack him from ten different mission overlaps if not actual compass points as rapidly-close to simultaneous as you can.

All in hopes of killing his ability to /generate force/, not defeat it in-field.

If you wait to respond to his attacks, even from distributed basing, you are giving yourself the activity marker needed to be blasted in-detail bits. The CM problem is real but also one for which everybody knows the solution: active targeting with inflight TOT throttleups and GPS presets if not 'resets', in flight. To be further aided in future by hypervelocity, '8 minutes to 800 miles' weapons like ARRMD and Fast Hawk. deploying hunting submunitions on mobile or camo'd/intraurban conflicted targets.

There were three reasons why the Serbs lived to tell a tail about their sorry ass Air Force:

1. The Air Chiefs ran a propoganda war 'in spite of reality'. Just like always, ignoring the little nigglers in of the JATO/CAOC blackhole who were looking looking at the actual BDA.

2. The Serbs did a magnificent job of low-tech decoyment which a combination of ****** weather and our over reliance on shooter-airframe radar/gen-1 EO targeting gear could not discriminate for being what it was.

3. _They Didn't Fly_
This last condition is the only one that really matters and it can only be partially abated through dispersal basing and an active datalink control system that allows geographically diverse fighter teams to 'come together' behind or needle-thru established BARCAP lanes.

It put's a helluva gambited dependance on the defense scoring decisive attrition in a single sortie while ignoring the basics of multiaxis lookin, LDSD, and just /dumb luck/ in eventually netting the intercept team in the miles of cordoning airspace between home and target and whatever passes for a return strip.

Generally, such tricks work once if the enemy has no AEW to point the escort apertures into lane (and keep everybody on the same side of the BVR fence) and then somebody smacks their forehead with a Bolo type op and if nothing else, attrition is waged on the supply units by backtrailing the threat to home and creating zones of OCA base eradication that the enemy cannot field forces to between sorties.

And for export, dictator-X isn't usually thinking about holding onto his property anyway. He want's to steal someone elses. And for that, the non-seller BAS and datalink system doesn't really matter as much as multishooter, fluid, control of XX# of DMPI counts.

Maverick Is??
An old weapons concept that was outdated, even as the D, many moons ago. The fact that the surface threats have done so little to overreach the slant with 'hovering' counterthreat or even to criticals-mask the their own cueing signatures says much for how retarded the weapons development game has become. Given a choice, I would stick with Hellfire or Brimstone as a replacement. More rounds, LOAL and at least some blank-matrix target recognition for shooting into a box of mobile (beachhead defense) random threats.

Sooner or later, especially with Swede UCAV, you will need to back these up with 'heavyweight' (ca. 100-500#) unitary blast weapons using the cheapest possible powered-parabola or glide kits of their own.

The key will be determining how much intelligence to put into the autopilot and rack interface vs. how much 'front end' seekering/endgame kinematic you can afford to do in terminals. I would not waste time on multi-hundred thousands on purpose built 100nm KEPD/Taurus mods if I could sell to export 100 more basic SSBREX type weapons with very simplistic terminal basket toss from say 10-20nm. Exports Rule.


Posts: 672 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Calix
Member
Member # 6562

posted 11-29-2000 09:33 AM     Profile for Calix   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
LOL! Kurt is about as right as people were in the early 20th century when they claimed everything that could be invented had been.

Leadhead... Don't argue with him. The less people outside Sweden know about Gripen the better. If all that is what he believes then fine with me. I'm happy, though a bit disappointed in his knowledge.

/Calix

Cadet Swedish Army
2nd Lt Swedish Air Force


Posts: 9 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jedi Master
Member
Member # 3223

posted 11-29-2000 11:19 AM     Profile for Jedi Master   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Calix, are you actually active in 2 services simultaneously? I didn't know anyone did that, for reasons of training currency.
Sometimes I get the feeling Kurt isn't human, just a PC with Jane's whole library plugged in and Mavis Bacon typing lessons.
The Jedi Master

Posts: 477 | From: Coral Springs, FL, USA | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 11-29-2000 11:54 AM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well Kurt and others. I wrote off to some people on a small Swedish defence newsgroup.
Anyway, quite a few people came in with opinions about you being generally careless and such.

Urban Fredriksson, the guy with that great site about Swedish air-power sent some replies (he didn't bother to register) and I will post some of them.

----------------

Kurt Plummer wrote:
=====
The jet is distinctly underpowered, it has had it's AOA limits 'reset', twice to prevent roll ratchet and deep stall pitchups into fullout departure with minimal 'bio stick shaker' input for-cause.
-----

As for power I guess you refer to the thrust:mass ratio? Perhaps not as great as for some designed earlier, but it's got low drag, so it needs less. Exactly what thrust related performance do you think should be improved and how is it today compared to what?
The alpha and beta limits have been increased for service aircraft and I don't think it's less than what was the goal. That you're beyond that during testing is quite normal.
I don't think you've got a handle on the US-Swedish cooperation.

=====
At home, it is equipped with only about 100 AIM-120B (RB.99 I think) and /still/ makes use of the RB.74=AIM-9L/S. IRIS-T is a promise unfullfilled and one which may or may not be available for all exports (where competition with 1/3 German Typhoons also is a consideration).
-----

That AMRAAM actually always was an _interim_ purchase always was clear, but it's not nice to say that (and it really was and is the best thing in service). The major reason why we don't have ASRAAM or Python 4 now is mainly that Gripen _first_ replaced the attack Viggens, so the priority was to see to that it could use its weapons.
Of course IRIS-T will be available to those who want it. And in the WEAG everyone follows the same export rules, so you don't have to think Swedish regulations will prevent something British, German etc won't.
It's interesting you'd mention EF Typhoon is 1/3 German (not that you should think of IRIS-T as a German missile) (Germany markets the EF Typhoon in Norway; Italy in Brazil; Spain in Turkey, Chile and South Korea; UK in the Middle East and Australia), because conversely to BAE Systems this means that it might not matter all that much if it's Gripen or Typhoon which gets exported, particularily if the same amount is spent. And the US aerospace industry of course favours a Gripen sale over a Rafale or Typhoon every day.

=====
Furthermore, for each 400 gallon (draggy as hell) external tank it carries it loses one 'independent strike' capability, [...]
-----

Right, but as opposed to F-16 it actually seems like the inner pylons actually are useful for weapons as well as tanks and if you don't need three it doesn't have to be the centre line you leave at home.

=====
[...] but nobody will buy half million dollar per-pylon weapons.
-----

Well, most air forces nowadays are purchasing systems, so it's not really the right way of counting, even though cost of course isn't immaterial. A JDAM kit isn't all that expensive, but how much is a JSOW or AGM-129?
(And we _do_ have examples of Singapore buying 100 AMRAAMs for 85 million, Taiwan 200 + training equipment for 150 million. Greece obviously got a better price since they bought more, if we figure 350k then they payed 150k for each of their BLU-109s. OK, but not dirt cheap. If we figure a Mica cost about the same as an AMRAAM -- no, let's figure it costs twice as much, then their SCALPs cost around 4 million per copy. And they obviously thought it was worth it.
And for Gripen it's rather KEPD 150 than 350.


Akulashaker wrote:
=====
That's exactly Kurt's whole point (I think): It's good enough for you, but doesn't cut it for just about anyone/anywhere else.
-----
In short: No, it's not custom made to a specific situation the way some of our fighters have been (which is an interesting story in itself), exactly because it was clear the world could change, and this time we'd _have_ to keep it in service a long time. It _does_ have short field and quick, low manpower turnaround capability which we do, but not everyone else may need. But for the rest it's pretty open ended, it wasn't even clear which way the C/D improvements would go from the start!

Kurt Plummer wrote:

=====
[...] EXCM but still /nowheres near/ say the 'Israeli Requirement'.
-----

Interesting you should mention Israel. Don't you think South Africa has a pretty good idea of what they consider necessary (I think we do too, actually)? Good reference customer from this point of view.

=====
But then again, we can sell an F-16 for 23-25 million each, should we choose to (USAF).
-----

Why don't you choose to, then? (I presume you refer to new aircraft.) Seems like they never go under 40 million in recent export deals.

=====
[On F-16] it can add a 300 gallon centerline tank to it's paired 370's or even 600's. Plus a mixed BVR/WVR weapons bag.
And /still/ have heavyweight pylons for the primary mission ordnance atop this.
You literally cannot say the same of the Gripen.
-----

No, not quite, the centreline tank has to go for that, but it's not far from it.
On a JAS 39C/D: Twin AMRAAMs (for example) under the fuselage and two IR missiles on the wingtips, tanks on stations 3h and 3v and the primary mission ordnance on 2h and 2v -- which I at present don't know exactly what they'll handle, it might be the 600+ kg of Mjölner and RBS 15, but I don't think it's totally unreasonable that it'll be for Torgos and KEPD 150 which weigh in at 980 and 1050 kg respectively (otherwise the MTOW don't add up unless you figure on something really, really big on 3h/3v). Not quite the 1130 kg on an F-16(A?)

----------------

I know, it feels cheap posting somebody else's arguments but heck, I do not have infinite time, nor knowledge...

Jedimaster:
If the guy (Calix) is the one I think he is, the reason for the double services lies within our conscription system.

You can do your military service in any of the three arms (Army, Marine (Navy and Coastal Artillery), thus become, for an example, a conscripted Ensign (or any other group, platoon or company level commander) and then apply to become an "officer in air duty", that is, an air-driver (or pilot as we civilians usually call it).


------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: Piteå, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
zebra
Member
Member # 8236

posted 11-29-2000 01:05 PM     Profile for zebra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
GENTLEMEN!!
First of all I wish to thank you all for participating in this discussion that I initated. It is amusing and interesting to follow skilled people with such a profound knowledge though I wonder sometimes where Mr "Plumber" o sorry,, "plummer" gets the information. My purpose was to see the reaction and how much people abroad knows about JAS-39. Even if I am very interested in this subject I don't know near as much as many of you since I am neither a pilot nor a engineer. However it's my strong believe (based on my humble knowledge) that IG-Jas has the competence in developing a fighter with at least some capacity, which is expected from a modern jet fighter. It is interesting to see that some Americans brings up that parts of the JAS are American and some of the weapons as well are American. However not everything is made in USA and there are countries capable to produce high tech without involvement from USA. I will leave it here hoping that the discussion will continue.....

Posts: 11 | From: Helsingborg, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged
zebra
Member
Member # 8236

posted 11-29-2000 01:16 PM     Profile for zebra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
CALIX

DET SKULLE VAR INTRESSANT ATT HÖRA VAD DU BASERAR DIN KRITIK PÅ MOT "PLUMMER"
FÖRMODAR ATT DU TILLHÖR CALIX-FLOTTILJEN. ÄR DET F21, ELLER DEN KANSKE LIGGER I LULEÅ?


Posts: 11 | From: Helsingborg, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jedi Master
Member
Member # 3223

posted 11-29-2000 01:34 PM     Profile for Jedi Master   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
zebra, the reason American components are important is for the reason Kurt mentioned ie US gov't approval is needed to export the plane with those components. Otherwise, a costly program to de-Americanize it is necessary and makes it far less attractive to possible export customers.
Look at the failed F-16/79 with an older turbojet for countries that didn't qualify for the better, newer turbofan. Only one country signed up for it, and as soon as the US relaxed its stance they jumped for the better one.
Personally, if I was a foreign country I wouldn't want any US help in making my own weapons. Straight out buy US stuff, fine, but let them get their hands on MY stuff and tell me who I can or can't sell to?
The US Congress is a bunch of self-serving hypocrites. Screw them all.
The Jedi Master

Posts: 477 | From: Coral Springs, FL, USA | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Kurt Plummer
Member
Member # 358

posted 11-29-2000 05:49 PM     Profile for Kurt Plummer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
>>
As for power I guess you refer to the thrust:mass ratio? Perhaps not as great as for some designed earlier, but it's got low drag, so it needs less. Exactly what
thrust related performance do you think should be improved and how is it today compared to what?

The alpha and beta limits have been increased for service aircraft and I don't think it's less than what was the goal. That you're beyond that during testing is quite normal.

I don't think you've got a handle on the US-Swedish cooperation.
>>

Parasitic drag is the numero uno of subsonics consideration and 'pylon anything' is the pen-max-ultra of contributorship to this factor.

Look at that shot of the JAS-39B with the twin 400's underwing and then add BK.91 or KEPD-150 (another boxy huge) weapon to the equation. _IF_ they will even share the same wing together, you can now add stores interaction/tunneling effect to the equation.

People tend to measure T/Wr only as a function of max-AB to pittance'd combat weight: A/A. And that's just stupid, because especially at 40 mill a-pop, fighters don't exist to kill airplanes but to bomb and because /especially/ with 4.5Klbs internal you don't run around in even zone-1 for very long!

If the RM-12 is putting out somewhere between 12 and 14K dry and the aircraft has a nominal A/A takeoff of 21-22Klbs you're /already/ at .54-.57 T/Wr. If you start lumping up to a nominal 32-33Klbs MTOW with gas-to-go-anywhere, a podded EW suite, 2-4 'selfdefence' weapons at 250-350lbs each and a minimum 1,000lb primary mission munition per side, /while remaining at 12Klbst/ you are now down around .34 T/Wr. A litte above airliner class.

And that's where any increment of drag just starts to cut you up for reach off the tanker and sustained penetration speed/evasive G.

And you WILL be eating that drag with those tanks and that weapon.

Compare this to a 129 or 132 engined Viper and you see, despite a noticeable increase in empty weight in most C-110'd configurations, a /dry/ T/Wr that is close to empty weight and still in the region .7-.8 for most takeoff conditions.

I reserve the right to laugh at anyone who thinks that their aerodata isn't 'closely examined' with other than contractor relevant performance maximimization in mind.

OTOH, I also agree with those who espouse 'the best place for a canard is on somebody elses' aeroplane'. And this too must be factored into your 'low drag' configurational superiority statement.

>>
[...] EXCM but still /nowheres near/ say the 'Israeli Requirement'.
-----

Interesting you should mention Israel. Don't you think South Africa has a pretty good idea of what they consider necessary (I think we do too, actually)? Good reference customer from this point of view.
>>

You need a minimum 400 count on EXCM /with/ a specialist SOJAMer to be penetrable with conventional, direct delivery, munitions. This goes up and down depending on the terrain and the threat sophisitication and the additive rollback (decoys, ARM's Cruise) factoring but overwater against even a light surface dual-threat, let alone what the Soviets 'had planned' when Gripen enterred design requirements phasing.

And the current BOP installations are insufficient on merits, even with a sophisticated techniques towbird to handle the RF threat.

One thing that continues to puzzle me is the listing of BOL in the JAS defensive suite shortlist (on JED) when this doesn't show up in any pictures.

In anycase, if the threat is (surface) dual-optical CG with radar 'snapshot' only for height find and fuzing or vectored quiet/midcourse silent RF/staring IR (air) then you cannot count on simplistic mechanical decoys, at least as a function of pilot-cued terminals evasion. MAWS and sophisticated signal characterization RWR cross coverage are a mandate and this just isn't being tailored for in the JAS system spec. Despite having a dedicated 'defensive systems' computer/bus architecture to handle things.

>>
Well, most air forces nowadays are purchasing systems, so it's not really the right way of counting, even though cost of course isn't immaterial. A JDAM kit isn't all that expensive, but how much is a JSOW or AGM-129?
(And we _do_ have examples of Singapore buying 100 AMRAAMs for 85 million, Taiwan 200 + training equipment for 150 million. Greece obviously got a better price since they bought more, if we figure 350k then they payed 150k for each of their BLU-109s. OK, but not dirt cheap. If we figure a Mica cost about the same as an AMRAAM -- no, let's figure it costs twice as much, then their SCALPs cost around 4 million per copy. And they obviously thought it was worth it.
And for Gripen it's rather KEPD 150 than 350.
>>

The U.S. still dominates with some of the best weapons in the business in terms of contractor spec'd shelf lives and ranged-proven envelopes -at cost- after stocking our own AOD warchest.

At the same time, folks outside the U.S. are going for minicruise as a leftover from the old MSOW development back in the 80's and also because, with a small force, you cannot afford massive penetrations by package size or depth. However; nobody who thinks that 10-20-50 cruise missiles are going to win a war or even /stave off defeat/ has really looked at the numbers of aimpoint overlaps that an even an 85% 'success rate' implies. Instead, they are either selling The Latest Toy or a system which allows dictator-X to throw political handgrenades at dictator-Y without the risk of losing his ability to do so again (and again and again) in the typical border/island squabbles that these backass nations have. And yes, the things Turkey and Greece fight over are small potatoes, NATO or no.

If they were at all serious, they would 'skip the middle man' and make all CM's big enough and tubularized enough /and cheap enough/ to be easily ground launched to range-x. Using an airplane as a strategic weapon launcher, even it it is only for random sniping is paying for a gold armored archer shooting platinum arrows. Dumber than dirt.

The fact that the Euro-PTOD (inertial) programs are late getting started and most of the user nations caught up in the flurry of 'oooh Desert Storm LGB' are now stuck paying for the /targeting pods/ to employ the theory doesn't help (in terms of giving a viable another choice on real-war mass stocks of precision delivery). Which is why Raytheon is closing out PII and selling P3 for cheap as a means of offering 'secondary upgrade' (where we allow it) to GPS strapon semiprecision while we go to real-JDAM with autono-DAMASK as needed.

AMRAAM is a different story. For one it is a 1:1 'direct' weapon to be used against air threats which are both dynamic, numerous, and /coming at you/.

Again the need to preserve the strategic counterforce comes into play though for for countries like Taiwan and Singapore it is simply the difference between life and death sovereignity over their own airspace vs. overwhelming numbers of Chinese.

For other nations in the ME, it is the ability to play 'shoot the F-4' nuissance strike with such definitive geometry and pol advantagement (shoot look shoot) that reliance on unlikely U.S. intervention for petty crap doesn't have to be considered as a function of too-late 'well the **it's hit it now' on a major escalation.

And here too there is some degree of ' I want the best toys dammit!' Especially since if we wish to sell them 1970's airframe technology ante'ing up 1980's weapons becomes a mandatory warcandy requirement.

>>Right, but as opposed to F-16 it actually seems like the inner pylons actually are useful for weapons as well as tanks and if you don't need three it doesn't have to
be the centre line you leave at home.
>>

If the EW is internal you can use the 310 centerline and while /any/ tank below about 600 gallons is questionable on 'half the gas to carry itself' used fuel, as stated previously you can go to overwing options and buddy buddy if you need to. The F-16C.50 has a 'Wall Of Justice' configuration for instance that uses the inner pylons for HARM and simply ditches the ALQ-131 for it's nuissance factoring on HTS function.

And we're looking at a couple variations of lowdrag multiracking (BRU-57 and SWARMER) that should also help. The JAS specifically went towards 'smart' weapons /because/ it was recognized that the Viggens MER-4 was both too draggy and too long to be easily carried for the threat's (usefully) faced.

I mentioned racks /and/ interface design sophistication with a cause, though again, it helps if you have good, small, weapons to employ from them.

>>
But then again, we can sell an F-16 for 23-25 million each, should we choose to (USAF).
>>

The last sale to the USAF was like 21 mill a piece. Other nations get ripped for any of three reasons:

1. They want customer specific mods that 'differentiate' them from other local users. Needful or no. Alliances on joint purchase be hanged. As this extends to fancy gear for which GFE clearances must be handled separately, you can add a whole-'nother layer of bureacracy beyond contractor foreign) government authorized FMS. LANTIRN, AMRAAM, ASPJ, APX-100/113. Everything that makes a blk.25 into a blk.55.

2. They trickle-lot their buys by the dozen over 7-11 year cycles. In and of itself this will add to the back as well as front end costs since suppliers will change and the simplest components vary even as you're /simply not buying them in numbers/ sufficient to lot-out a goodly return to the manufacturer.

To some extent this can be worked into other nation lots but not as much as simply blocking out a given run of X-times-10 'all yours' jets would, to a single standard at a given yearly rate.

3. Offsets. Most nations insist on this as simply the only means by which they can finanance even microbuys. Unfortunately, they take it too far and we end up being 'sole purchaser of the Biannual Timbuktuain Lemming Pelts for XX years running and the economics of counter investment buildup, in-country, over the period are worse than a straight loan would have been.

I don't know how each applies to Swedish exports but with less than 500 vs. more than 2,500 you will never match us on ammortized costs which means you can only sell to those we won't (but will permit you) or those who mistakenly believe that your system offers something available outside our spectrum of foreign-sale capabilities. If the UAE B.60 sale goes through as spec'd even this may not possible though source codes for a couple of systems were still under refusal listing, last I heard.

>>
No, not quite, the centreline tank has to go for that, but it's not far from it.

On a JAS 39C/D: Twin AMRAAMs (for example) under the fuselage and two IR missiles on the wingtips, tanks on stations 3h and 3v and the primary mission ordnance on 2h and 2v -- which I at present don't know exactly what they'll handle, it might be the 600+ kg of Mjölner and RBS 15, but I don't think it's totally unreasonable that it'll be for Torgos and KEPD 150 which weigh in at 980 and 1050 kg respectively (otherwise the MTOW don't add up unless you figure on something really, really big on 3h/3v). Not quite the 1130 kg on an F-16(A?)
>>

If the AIM-120 are twinned-under I would bet that the forward ECM pod is gone. If you twin the tanks to the wings, I would have to see the /physical/ store clearances before I would believe Torgos/Taurus is also carried.

And it still doesn't alter the basics of sh**ty missile or no, the AMRAAM is -ours- and whoever want's it will be buying from U.S. or else. Why else do you think the SAAF has been looking at R-Darter variations in combination with Israel?

And the French are worse than we are. They might say 'Oh Sure!' but you would spend 10 million or more to clear MICA. Itself a weapon too light to be competitive, IMO.

You would be wiser, to /quickly/ dual-clear a couple of highend ISRM like ASRAAM and maybe Archer through a developmental OTIS/ODIN pairing to provide mid-inner zone competition to ARH competitors and then take your time going your own way with a national or co-German EURAAM that started out DPR based and could be 'ram upgraded' from the warhead aft, as needed. I would also make it tiprailed (probably an underslider config) which would dictate maximum mass and fin design.

If you wanted to be really aggressive, technically as well as tactically, you might consider a dual-propulsion weapon with rocket boost to XX (10-15nm) at a constant Mach and then a gen III microturbine for a Mach .9-1.3 'pursuit kill' for 20-25 thereafter.

This would help alleviate both the worst elements of size/pyloning shortfall and give you a literal legup on a system for which 1 shot:1 kill was a function of 'persistance' rather than warhead/seeker massing.

I never said Sweden couldn't do good weapons engineering. Though it was a shame when you 'privatized' the RBV bureau in favor of foreign designs, you have consistently taken U.S. weapons and made them better (or at least /useable/ in the case of the Falcon) and even before S-225, you were looking at RB-73 as a JA-37 BVR weapon /decades/ before BVRAAM requirement.

But you can't improve what doesn't exist and using illustrations of JAS-39C/D + AMRAAM is -not- a good example of how to make the littlest fighter that couldn't a better strike warfare weapons system.

If It Were Me...

1. Expand and Conquer.
I would find a way to make IG-JAS a true consortium to currently non-aviation or WARPAC supplied other countries, based on a combined user-export 'lease quotaing' system with immediate delivery of ex-SweAF 39A machines, free, in turn for development of absolute-cheapest production capacity could be joint funded (airframe component percentage production splits) through a joint loan of all nations.

Logically this means EE if not FSU-x republic nations.

Doing this outside the NATO mandate but with a full-NATO compatible (factory-return modified A's) extant fighter might speed membership standup (i.e. be a bribeable consideration to the existing military infrastructure) while allowing rapid phaseout of all (JA too) Viggens/early-blk Gripens so as to create both a service need vacuum and an ended support tail commitment on potential venture capital/redesign funding to -really invest- in more than cosmetic mods to a post-39C/D 'primary production' variant.

As each foreign nation (Rumania, Hungary, Poland, Czech) reached operative capacity on their own lines, they would be given increasing export credits towards purchase of their own C/D/X (or line return inserts to reman the A's to that level).

Existing A's too old/hard used to be upgraded would then be trashed or serve as systems donors sources to preserve the market base on C/D/X export values.

2. JAS-39X
A new standard of -airframe- with a stretched fuselage and/or bigger wing or possibly some form of scab tankage ala Eurofighter (range of price options) and of course the 200 series engine. If the latter could include IPTN type AVEN technology as a 'volunteer free' trials testbed with IG-JAS licensing incentives if successful.

With working AVEN, would /seriously/ consider yanking the damn canards as a means to extending the inboard chordline (sure and certain means of adding gas) to a pure delta and/or possibly pulling the vertical tail in favor of ICE. Something like a hybridization between the existing Gripen configuration and the Indian LCA setup with facetted planform alignment controls to mimic if not master 'the look' of VLO while simplifying flying controls. BAS-90 be hanged, if you can perform a -standard- runway approach, that's good enough.

At the same time, rather more than lip service would be paid to other elements of the VLO concept with conformal or scab-bay belly storeage of big-weapons (possibly requiring a move of the gear to outboard fairings ala X-32) and containerized small-smarties under the wings.

Redesigned cockpit with full-helmet projection to allow surround-view/virtual projection within a better signature controlled shell. Likely, this would include a large percentage of the 2-seat combat controller twincabs.

3. Weapons Quals
Of as many options as possible, including Eastern ones. Via Independent, full-flight, concurrent (multiple telemeter/gauged birds) Range Tests. Also a great sales-opporunity with General-X in the backseat seeing his very-own-button-press blow up a 'simulated bunker or SAM site'.

Again using the EE, ex-WARPAC ranges which USAFE among others have been leasing for near-nothing. New designs would also be available, chief among these being _cheap_ 100-250lb precision INS weapons with, optional strapon range extenders and terminal seekering additions to the basic GM-radar aimpoint ballistic fall mode.

An ARH-BVR weapon with constant Mach pol closure to a decent downrange value (20nm) is second and use of that airframe for an ARM is third.

3. Sensors.
You need a good 'stereo SAR' A/G mode and it doesn't make sense to develop the codes for a planar array and then reinvent them for an active one. At the same time, AESA should NOT be AMSAR linked. That's too close to EF-2000 and I have a feeling that the Eurofighter boyz are about to start playing like we do on exports of hard/software 'licensed' components.

Tactically, it's also stupid to buy into a common baseline system which your neighbor shares basic modules and the EF-2000 is apt to appear in a lot of places that might otherwise need a 'competitor'.

A high definition LOROP pod ala SH-37+ could also sell well and ESM/EW systems should followon, preferrably with a standardized pod and OTS (French or German) systems inserts.

4. UCAV.
I cannot overemphasize how important it is to have multiple weapons carriers bringing lots of cheap bombs to a short threat radius. Both economically and tactically.

UCAV gives you both with the added benefit of low peacetime training and IF Sweden takes The Big Step quickly, replacing the 'attack role' with unmanned, CM+Landing Gear, weapons then not only can she afford to put more value into a limited buy of the sensor/battlecontrol elements (39X) but she will be able to /sell same/ overseas where the only solution to missile dominance is too-many-targets.

In some ways this deserves rush development with first-team resources, even more than the 39X itself.

For those who would argue that the Gripen is 'new enough' I say that it has been in production and /limited/ service for nearly 10 years and a new look that matched the new world could only help in achieving a rather broader marketable sales base.


Kurt Plummer


Posts: 672 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
zebra
Member
Member # 8236

posted 11-30-2000 12:49 AM     Profile for zebra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
""For those who would argue that the Gripen is 'new enough' I say that it has been in production and /limited/ service for nearly 10 years....""

What about the F/16 and some others of the US fighters?? (regarding the age issue)


Posts: 11 | From: Helsingborg, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged
Calix
Member
Member # 6562

posted 11-30-2000 06:39 AM     Profile for Calix   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jedi Master:
Calix, are you actually active in 2 services simultaneously? I didn't know anyone did that, for reasons of training currency.
Sometimes I get the feeling Kurt isn't human, just a PC with Jane's whole library plugged in and Mavis Bacon typing lessons.
The Jedi Master

I'm on my 2nd year of transitioning to the Air Force since. Currently at what you would call the Air Force Academy. But until my training is fully finished in about 3-4 years, I am to keep my wartime command in the Army. Will get my 2nd Lt rank in the Air Force upcoming summer.

/Calix


Posts: 9 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Calix
Member
Member # 6562

posted 11-30-2000 06:55 AM     Profile for Calix   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Vill du ha tag i mig så får det bli via mejl. Du når mig på [email protected] Då kan jag kanske dela med mig lite av det du frågar efter. Jag tillhör inte F 21. Tillhör F 10 FlygS, men är i Uppsala tills vidare.

Brukar du inte titta på se.politik.forsvar ?

/Calix


Posts: 9 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Kurt Plummer
Member
Member # 358

posted 11-30-2000 03:21 PM     Profile for Kurt Plummer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The F-16C.25 and an F-16C.50 are no-where's near alike for capability. F-16C.60 (UAE) will likely be as near-different again.

The time frame between the last A.15 and the MCID C.30 Vipers (the first 'real improvement') was something like 6 years.

And it was a good configuration to begin with.

Gripen is a beautiful looking airframe but one which is NOT the right (baseline) combination of fuel fraction:radius, payload and sensor/VLO enablement for the 2000's.

It's questionable if it was right for the 90's but in any case, over ten years of changing emphasis-to-export timeline, it remains virtually the same airframe:

No HMS/HOBA Missile
No Bigger Engine/AVEN
No Active Array
No IRST/HSF
No Full Capability MAWS/EW integration
No Cheap PGM/Targeting Pod
No BVR-Export weapon
No Big Tanks/Buddy Refuel
No SEAD capability

Many of which are also not applicable to the F-16 (at least as a single variant) but any of which could give the Gripen a /reason for purchase/ beyond that of 'it looks newer' or 'the U.S. won't sell to me'.

Which brings things down to money and Big Friend commitment to wartime Alliance and peacetime Offset.

And the Viper is _cheaper_, at least in the current export A.20 variants, bought in lot-year numbers sufficient to make you a viable customer for 'buy the gross' discount.

And if yer a good little dictator we'll even promise AMRAAM when your neighbor goes to Adder... Because we can.


Kurt


Posts: 672 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Mr_Pyro
Member
Member # 4319

posted 11-30-2000 03:34 PM     Profile for Mr_Pyro   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurt Plummer:
[B]>>
>The last sale to the USAF was like 21 mill >a piece.

And wich block of the F-16 do you refer to?

And when the USAF is the customer, things like service, training and suport costs are pretty hard to calculate.
When a smaler customer buys low number batches of a weapon system, these costs do rise quite dramaticly in $/airframe.


Posts: 27 | From: | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 11-30-2000 04:18 PM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote

"No HMS/HOBA Missile"

I suppose you refer to a missile with off bore-sight capability? Well, who has except for the Russians?


"No Bigger Engine/AVEN"

I bet it could be done if the importer wants to pay it.

"No Active Array"

Pardon me but I don't know what that is.

"No IRST/HSF"

That one's not far away.

"No Full Capability MAWS/EW integration"

It's constantly being upgraded and this appears to be one of the things discussed.

"No Cheap PGM/Targeting Pod"

Correct me but I think this might also be one of the things being fitted.

"No BVR-Export weapon"

I don't think that's an issue as I have difficulties seeing any country we'd like to export to that you'd not aprove...

OTOH, you can have the Rb 15 which most definately is "BVR". Too bad it doesn't like destroying an aircraft unless it's parked on a carrier.

"No Big Tanks/Buddy Refuel"

Not? Buddy refuel? You mean IFR? In that case, it's there.

"No SEAD capability"

Well, the way it's designed, if you get the weapon, SAAB BAe will let it carry it.
At least that's the impression I've got...
I don't think it's limited to certain weapons like the AMRAAM for an example. Remember that it still wasn't that long ago that the SwAF decided upon the AMRAAM. God knows what the guys at SAAB have done in order to let it be easily modifiable.

It's still a much newer design.
AFAIK one reason for the many different "trees" of F-16 variants is that you just can't fit all the avionics into the airframe. That's one difference between teh Falcon and the Gripen.


"And the Viper is _cheaper_, at least in the current export A.20 variants, bought in lot-year numbers sufficient to make you a viable customer for 'buy the gross' discount."

Export variants. And of course, if you want the full kit you better get the big $$$ out?


"And if yer a good little dictator we'll even promise AMRAAM when your neighbor goes to Adder... Because we can."

Yeah, but I bet we can negotiate them a deal including your AMRAAMS as well as our aircraft.

By the way Kurt, could you be a little easier on the English system-term abreviations? I don't have a military english dictionary handy and I don't read all that stuff all day long (in contrast to you it seems).

One thing that you also tend to forget when comparing it to the Falcon is pilot workload, man-machine itnerface and such.
Its design is simply 20 years or so newer.
Multirole capability is the key word here.
Supposedly, you're not supposed to have to operate myriards of radar-modes and mess around with all different kinds of stuff.
After what I've heard about the real F-16s, it's even quite far from our Falcon 4.0 keyboard puzzles...


------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: Piteå, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Calix
Member
Member # 6562

posted 11-30-2000 06:25 PM     Profile for Calix   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Sluta argumentera med honom. Allt han räknade upp sitt senaste mejl är ju direkt felaktigt. Om han tror att det är så - låt gå. Han påstår sig ju vara insatt men det är han uppenbarligen inte och det är ju så det ska vara rimligtvis med militär materiel.

/Calix
Cadet Swedish Air Force
2nd Lt Swedish Army


Posts: 9 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Kurt Plummer
Member
Member # 358

posted 11-30-2000 11:47 PM     Profile for Kurt Plummer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
>>
"No HMS/HOBA Missile"

I suppose you refer to a missile with off bore-sight capability? Well, who has except for the Russians?
>>

The Israeli's w/ 180` P4? The British w/ 60` ASRAAM? Point being that /if you want to be saleable/ you _have to be better_. If USAF is 4 years further out on X-Ray (itself a questionable missile) becaues Congress backed up the funds /again/ then by god you -exploit that-. Simple business economics, risk some capital, get some sales.

>>
"No Bigger Engine/AVEN"
I bet it could be done if the importer wants to pay it.
>>

Are you trying to make my case for me?

>>
"No Active Array"

Pardon me but I don't know what that is.
>>

A radar which uses active transmit receive modules to provide for electronic beam shifting the rate of hundreds of degrees per second. Sweden basically just rolled over showed belly by dumping AESA to hop on AMSAR which means that they are politically as well as technically tied to a program where three other countries have vested interests and spec-to-death delay potential on providing a decent replacement for planar array (mechanical scan, tens of dps with all that implies to your 'complicated radar modes' without range or function interleave).

>>
"No IRST/HSF"
That one's not far away.
>>

OTIS ain't real until it's in place and if you don't have a useful helmet/offboard or BVR-passive engagement capability -proven- you cannot presell it. The only reason we are able to pull a similar lie with the B.60 is because the UAE are paying for the R&D and so get 'constant updates'. Part of which is almost certainly to include buying the source codes which are a gift more precious than gold (and undoubtedly have 'outside interest' support).

>>
"No Full Capability MAWS/EW integration"
It's constantly being upgraded and this appears to be one of the things discussed.
>>
See Above and if you don't release source codes, they can't themselves 'update' to match the threat or in all likelihood, sell a derivative. How likely do you think that SAAB-Celsius is going to sell /newly developed/ source code material (literally the mechanical-software gating data between the technique software and the hardwired transmitters) to somebody like Armscor?

>>
"No Cheap PGM/Targeting Pod"
Correct me but I think this might also be one of the things being fitted.
>>

BK.91 is not a cheap PGM. Maverick is nearly useless if it doesn't have high-rez, realtime, bore cueing. Not radar but EO. How many pylons under the inlets again? Do I have to trade EW for targeting pod? If I use OTIS, do I have to point the nose into the threat floor to get the damn aperture to unmask?

Brimstone, APKWS, LOSAT, LOCAAS, SSBREX, even a WCMD+SWAK type system. The solutions are there but the investment isn't.

>>
"No BVR-Export weapon"

I don't think that's an issue as I have difficulties seeing any country we'd like to export to that you'd not aprove...

OTOH, you can have the Rb 15 which most definately is "BVR". Too bad it doesn't like destroying an aircraft unless it's parked on a carrier.
>>

A very poor argument. If the RBS-15 is a high value naval killer and your own illustration is towards carriers which _ONLY the U.S._ has, how can you make the case that you won't sell to anybody 'we don't like'??

Mercenary Instinct is the one key to success in the arms export industry. If SAAB doesn't have that then they are a bunch of innocent sheep wandered into the wolf den.

At the same time, true BVR-A/A weapons ARE applicable 'across the board' and yet the SAAF haven't gotten AMRAAM that I know of. Are you going to 'sponsor' the 20-30 /million/ dollars it will take to range test them through a Seek Eagle equivalent test on R-Darter? Or just wait until Israel reverse engineers and sell the engineering behind AMRAAM? Ain't it funny that nearly every weapon the SAAF uses looks like somethign from the U.S. or Europe? Baaah.

"No Big Tanks/Buddy Refuel"
Not? Buddy refuel? You mean IFR? In that case, it's there.

If you don't have a good behind-the-tanker flight test, you cannot characterize the aircraft's performance there. Fighters have smaller but often very turbulent wake patterns, that means every hookup is a risk to both the drinker and the teat.

And again, without big tanks, you cannot do (on the Gripens miniscule internals) any kind of tactical transfer.

If you do an 'FRU 4 U' pod conversion to a bigger jet then you STILL need to characterize performance for that system.

Lastly, I've seen shots of the Gripen installation and it looks very much like a 'deploy' system, not a tactical/supersonic rated one. It is certainly not as clean as the Israeli probe-in-tank versions.

>>
"No SEAD capability"
Well, the way it's designed, if you get the weapon, SAAB BAe will let it carry it.

At least that's the impression I've got...
>>

Sigh, as I explained earlier, every weapons system has both soft /and/ hard 'hooks' that must be worked into the system. It's gotten simpler with advanced electronics interfaces in the rail and the 1760 std. but it is a long ways from 'perfect', by design.

Clearing the former means access to some elements of the weapons electronic innards that may not always be something that a competitor or threat seller would like. If nothing else it may force flight test to home or neutral nation so that they can assure that the weapon isn't 'inspected' any deeper than need be. You also get to host any engineering team on a month's long basis and that get's expensive because you have to limit /their/ access (in accordance with other nation equipment security, this may include stripping the airframe for each and every test configuration). Which get's expensive if you aero-certify multiple loadouts of varying systems configs. The F-16 has had 20+ years to do this and they /still/ haven't cleared all available combo's. By a long ways.

In any case, these are the available SEAD options:

1. HARM/Shrike
Unavailable outside FMS. Yes, even Shrike, ancient and OOP as it is is 'restricted'. HARM is also one big sucker and it's use on the Gripen uncertain. Assymetrics come to mind.
2. AS-11/Kh-27AR/17
Russian and so huge that you would be lucky to carry them on the Gripen without scraping the dirt. If they would sell and I'd bet platinum they wouldn't.
3. ALARM/Aramis/Delilah/ARMAT
Possible. Developmental. Israeli (to me unknown). AS-11 clone (huge and ancient).

None of them certain on the Gripen, almost all of them outsized for it's diminuitive size.

>>
I don't think it's limited to certain weapons like the AMRAAM for an example.

Remember that it still wasn't that long ago that the SwAF decided upon the AMRAAM.

God knows what the guys at SAAB have done in order to let it be easily modifiable.

It's still a much newer design.
>>

Is it sold to the SAAF, your single, certain, buyer?

>>
AFAIK one reason for the many different "trees" of F-16 variants is that you just can't fit all the avionics into the airframe. That's one difference between the Falcon and the Gripen.
>>

Korean C.50's can carry LANTIRN, USAF CJ.50ds will carry Terminator or ATF as part of the Common upgrade. Nobody carries HTS but U.S.
Have the Swedes flown a /single/ TGP on their bird? I honestly don't know for sure but haven't read anything. We've got at least three qualled.

That said, the true reason behind the tree'ing of the Falcon is twofold.

1. Age. Important as they were to the establishment of the line and it's transition to the more useful blocks, the A-C.25 Falcons can almost be considered prehistorical 'prototypes' of the Viper line. Even the A.20 is closer to a C internally than the A.OCU if not MLU.

2. Failed MSIP
The notion that you can 'design in compatibility' has basically been proven to be a money sucking hoax. At least with 70's-80's level technology baselines for interface. Just to consider EW, we have gone from discrete to hybrid to monolithic/VLSI systems design in a period of about 7 years that left U.S. with a completely revised system spec. That this was 'known beforehand' can be shown with the utter absence of ASPJ guides and bus diverts from the C.25 and most early .30s.

Add to this the utter failure of /design/ inherent to the AMRAAM and LANTIRN spec and you get both outside (subsystem) failure and internal (standardization/commonization) factors.

It's safer and simpler just to assign a new blk# to a singular equipment standard from a national stockpile of (dated) subcomponents.
Yet you -must- still design for and /test/ those improvements!

We spent so much time and R&D money on the ALQ-165 that we literally had no fielding money left and so used a bogus excuse for a 'field test' to reject a system that at last was fully wrung out and working fine.

At least from my own interpretation, you are doing all kinds of very basic subcomponent tests and running a constant race to keep the central D80/90 architecture up to date to 'maybe later' adoption standards. All the while thinking that an export user will pay to have what are now /basic/ weapons system capabilities added on.

It ain't so joe.

>>
"And the Viper is _cheaper_, at least in the current export A.20 variants, bought in lot-year numbers sufficient to make you a viable customer for 'buy the gross'
discount."

Export variants. And of course, if you want the full kit you better get the big $$$ out?
>>

The Tai F-16A.20's will support AMRAAM with a single component switchout and prewired pylons. Advanced weapons sales have much more to do with broader economics and political trades than simple 'do we trust you?' or anti-escalatory considerations of strategic defense. And once they are made available it is, honestly, very difficult to remove the technology, even by 'across the (circuit) board' starvation of support.

So you are left with promisory notes that have to be met, by economic guarantees (bank loans, import-export levvies etc.) while the military and Raytheon rush like maddened ants to generate another model standard that will make even potential loss of the current lot through espionage or duplicate engineering. The difficult part is keeping not just the components but the software/hardware configuration non-linear between models (denying insight to the EW aspects of the seeker technology standard).

>>
"And if yer a good little dictator we'll even promise AMRAAM when your neighbor goes to Adder... Because we can."

Yeah, but I bet we can negotiate them a deal including your AMRAAMS as well as our aircraft.
>>

The U.S. has whored itself completely to have 'participation' in the followon BVR longpol weapon. Selling you folks C5 AMRAAM barely two years after it exited the range is nearly criminal. If it were me, your little stunt with Meteor would have you building B if not A model weapons until the cows came in (or our own P3I could get a leg to stand on).

>>
By the way Kurt, could you be a little easier on the English system-term abreviations? I don't have a military english dictionary handy and I don't read all that stuff
all day long (in contrast to you it seems).
>>

I will answer specific questions about acro's as asked. I participate in four or five threads each day and so reserve the right to use what shortcuts I can.

In turn I find it rude that posters who enter an _English_ thread begun as a deliberate 'shaking from the sky' of American airframe design in favor of their own preferred system, think they can use a foreign language to talk around the points made in counterment.

Especially when my name is included, directly or in deliberate misspelling, it should be with the grace to state, in _English_ what your reasons for said useage are.

I don't enter Swedish forums and refuse to snipe in anything but English while making argumentative statements that risk nothing of my own reputation or logic.

>>
LOL! Kurt is about as right as people were in the early 20th century when they claimed everything that could be invented had been.
>>

>>
First of all I wish to thank you all for participating in this discussion that I initated. It is amusing and interesting to follow skilled people with such a profound
knowledge though I wonder sometimes where Mr "Plumber" o sorry,, "plummer" gets the information.
>>

>>
CALIX DET SKULLE VAR INTRESSANT ATT HÖRA VAD DU BASERAR DIN KRITIK PÅ MOT "PLUMMER"
FÖRMODAR ATT DU TILLHÖR CALIX-FLOTTILJEN. ÄR DET F21, ELLER DEN KANSKE LIGGER I LULEÅ?
>>

If you know enough to be able to translate the correct job classification spelling of plumber as well as to post initially in English, you look the Grande Fop for resorting to your own language in limiting retort.

Especially after this statement-

>>
Even if I am very interested in this subject I don't know near as much as many of you since I am neither a pilot nor a engineer.
>>


Kurt 'are you really a striped horse? I'm a man of my own name' Plummer


Posts: 672 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
zebra
Member
Member # 8236

posted 12-01-2000 12:52 AM     Profile for zebra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I think we are about to end this discussion. It has been fun with all the reading. Mr "Plummer"... If I offended you by joking with your name I sincerely apologize to that.
There has been a wide opinion regarding this subject. It seems that there are some disagreements about the prestanda of the JAS. What I can say is that not all data from Mr Plummer is correct according to one who is very much involved in the JAS project.
So what source do you use for your information?

Posts: 11 | From: Helsingborg, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged
Calix
Member
Member # 6562

posted 12-02-2000 02:19 PM     Profile for Calix   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I think I owe you an explanation Mr Plummer. I merely told Leadhead to stop discussing this with you since you can easily outmaneuver him with your knowledge of facts. I did it in Swedish, since I didn't think it concerned anyone else but Swedes. I myself, on the contrary do not agree with your sayings. I find that most of them are almost completely incorrect. However I do not want to discuss this on an open forum with members from countries outside Sweden. I am sort of pleased with your posts since if you are sincere, then it's to the best of our "national security" Can't find a good way to put it in English and I don't have the time to look it up. National security sounds kind of KGB to me. Sweden and the US are if not allies, at least good military friends since WWII and I think that's how we should keep it. I don't know everything about your a/c and you make some erroneous statements about the 39, which tells me that either you don't know everything about it or you are withholding what you know. Either way I'm satisfied.

What bothers me is that a lot of Swedes oftenly listen to outside sources regarding especially the Gripen. I'm sure you are well aware that the a/c has been widely controversial in Sweden with the media doing their utmost at disabling the project with a lot of false statements. It is always easier to believe a lie than the truth. I'm sorry that you misinterpreted what I wrote earlier.


/Calix

Cadet Swedish Air Force
2nd Lt Swedish Army


Posts: 9 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 12-03-2000 02:28 PM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hmm... Have you already started to confuse your two services?

BTW, which rank are you talking about when you say "Cadet"?

------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: Piteå, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Calix
Member
Member # 6562

posted 12-03-2000 02:44 PM     Profile for Calix   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Actually I'm a 2nd Lt in the Air Force too, but as long as we belong to MHS we are titulated cadets. Those who were sergeants prior to MHS are still sergeants but titulated cadet. In other words I'm keeping my rank even though I have other insignia. By the way, there are three different cadet ranks. 1 angle (vinkel?) - preparatory officer's training, 2 - first year at MHS, 3 second year at MHS.

/Calix

Cadet Swedish Air Force
2nd Lt Swedish Army

[This message has been edited by Calix (edited 12-03-2000).]


Posts: 9 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Spock
Member
Member # 5676

posted 12-04-2000 07:57 AM     Profile for Spock   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Don't underestimate a SAAB based on something you picked up in Jane's, Kurt. They are quite capable aircraft. While TDY to norway once, our F-16's flew against some SAAB Drakkens (sp?) and they're a very capable opponent. BTW, they also make some awesome, innovative cars (900, 9000 turbo). Driving one of those is gotta be the closest thing to flying a fighter (on four wheels).
Posts: 38 | From: | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Calix
Member
Member # 6562

posted 12-04-2000 08:05 AM     Profile for Calix   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Guess what car I drive?

/Calix

Cadet Swedish Air Force
2nd Lt Swedish Army


Posts: 9 | From: Uppsala, Sweden | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Mr_Pyro
Member
Member # 4319

posted 12-04-2000 12:10 PM     Profile for Mr_Pyro   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Kurt: The possible non US missiles with of-boresight capabillity for the Gripen system is:

IRIS-T (the strongest contender for a future Swedish missile procurement)

ASRAAM (BAe is partowner of SAAB Areospace)

U-Darter (The SAAF Gripens is beeing adapted to use these (U-Darter is in service since 1997), prob in combination with a helmet sight. The SAAF has a long tradition with helmet sights and offboresight guidance. Starting with the introduction of the Kukri/V3a in 1975)

Python 4 (Gues that if u get the U-Darters to work, its not a long step to implement the Python 4, due to the close coperation between South Africa and Israel regarding AAM design. Python 3 is also in service with the SAAF

A-Darter (devl of U-Darter) and Python 5 beeing in developement.


ALARM is of cause the obvius choice, if a customer requires this type of capability.
ALARM is smaler than HARM AGM-88, weights less, and being more capable.
A Tornado can carry 10 ALARMs (tripple mounts under the wings on the inner pylon, and 4 under the fuselage). So I think that the Gripen can carry at least 2 or 4 without any bigger problem. (system integration is an other issue, but BAe is also the manufacturer of ALARM so we might get a hand there).



Posts: 27 | From: | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jedi Master
Member
Member # 3223

posted 12-04-2000 04:12 PM     Profile for Jedi Master   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Why would anyone drive a Saab? I wouldn't buy a car by Boeing or LockMart!!!!
The Jedi Master

Posts: 477 | From: Coral Springs, FL, USA | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
zebra
Member
Member # 8236

posted 12-05-2000 05:29 AM     Profile for zebra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jedi Master:
Why would anyone drive a Saab? I wouldn't buy a car by Boeing or LockMart!!!!
The Jedi Master

Never heard that they produce cars.


Posts: 11 | From: Helsingborg, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged
tony draper
Member
Member # 519

posted 12-05-2000 05:49 AM     Profile for tony draper   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Draper drives a De Havilland, Gipsy Moth van,
he seldom suffers puntures as it has solid wheels, a fine old vehicle.

Posts: 1280 | From: england | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Red Dog
Member
Member # 5924

posted 12-05-2000 06:59 AM     Profile for Red Dog     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Kurt Plummer is really Tom Clancy

------------------
"Boy, is this a machine..."


Posts: 64 | From: Dayton, OH | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jedi Master
Member
Member # 3223

posted 12-05-2000 09:19 AM     Profile for Jedi Master   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by zebra:
Never heard that they produce cars.

Exactly. I also wouldn't buy a TV from Ford, a refrigerator from GM, or a car by Maytag!
Other companies that have diversified in an absurd manner include Hyundai (cars and computers??) and Mitsubishi (TVs, cars, and F-15s!)
The Jeid Master


Posts: 477 | From: Coral Springs, FL, USA | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
bolillo_loco
Member
Member # 7641

posted 12-05-2000 01:47 PM     Profile for bolillo_loco     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Geez, now I know why I stick to ww 2 aircraft, no need to worry about whose electronic capabilities are better or best since they have none except a handy light bulb in the ash tray. also the flight envelopes are much smaller.
Posts: 65 | From: Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Mexico | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
zebra
Member
Member # 8236

posted 12-06-2000 01:13 AM     Profile for zebra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jedi Master:
[B] Exactly. I also wouldn't buy a TV from Ford, a refrigerator from GM, or a car by Maytag!

Well.... Maybe you should look into the history of SAAB since they started up many years ago. SAAB Aerospace and SAAB Automobiles are two different companies with not much in common. In fact SAAB Automobiles now belongs to (I think it is) General Motors.

Posts: 11 | From: Helsingborg, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged
Spock
Member
Member # 5676

posted 12-06-2000 03:05 AM     Profile for Spock   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Anybody that owns a SAAB (like Calix and myself) can see the aerospace engineering incorporated into the car, as well as feel it . SAAB (car division) has always promoted their relationship to the aerospace industry, heck one of their latest models is called the viggen (named after the innovative fighter, Viggen). SAAB has been making cars for more than 40+ years, aircraft even longer. SAAB cars are highly respected and world reknown. BTW, you COULDN'T buy a car from Boeing, even if you wanted to, they don't make any. I must say, however, a SAAB (aircraft) simulator is way overdue. I used to have an old sim called Fighter Bomber on the Amiga which let you fly a SAAB Viggen.
Posts: 38 | From: | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Silverback
Member
Member # 882

posted 12-06-2000 09:04 AM     Profile for Silverback     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hey guys !
I've seen numerous refernces to Urban Friedriksons site on swedish military A/C in this thread, but I have been able to find it on any of the search engines.
Anyone have an URL ?

------------------
Silverback
Stockholm, Sweden

Specs: TBird 1GHz, Vantech Big Blue Heatsink with Delta 38 CFM Fan, Abit KT7-RAID mobo, 256 PC 100 RAM, ASUS V6600 GeForce256 SDR, Turtle Beach Montego II, Zoom 56K Internal Modem, 17 GB Master HDD, 8 GB Slave HDD, DVD-ROM, 21" Trinitron Monitor, Altec Lansing ADA 880R Dolby Surround System, Saitek X36 USB HOTAS, , Game Commander 2, LabTec LVA 8550 Headset.
Win98 SE, DX8, SGE 2.3


Posts: 316 | From: Stockholm, Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 12-06-2000 03:12 PM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The name of his Swedish military aviation page is "Dark Matter: Swedish (and worldwide) military aviation."
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/

------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: Piteå, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
snake1999
Member
Member # 8039

posted 12-06-2000 03:19 PM     Profile for snake1999   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I saw this;

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by zebra:
Never heard that they produce cars.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly. I also wouldn't buy a TV from Ford, a refrigerator from GM, or a car by Maytag!
Other companies that have diversified in an absurd manner include Hyundai (cars and computers??) and Mitsubishi (TVs, cars, and F-15s!)
The Jeid Master
--------------------------------------


And all I have to say is this(!!!);

SAAB, have been producing cars even longer than they have been building aircrafts. Maybe you haven't heard about SAAB, but the first thing I (as a swede) think of when I hear SAAB is, the big carmanufactor, and then,,, hell yeah!!"",, they also makes realy great aircrafts...
And I can insure you that SAABs cars aren't some low budget thing. They're making high quality cars that are worthy a KING!",,


Posts: 5 | From: Stockholm, Sweden | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

© COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
© 2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved