Gripen dispersed basing discussions

[AndersJ]

And if you believe that's all that is needed to operate for anything more than a couple of days (at most - it may even fall apart after one day) then you will believe anything. People need to rest, they need resources. Aircraft need fuel, spare parts, weapons etc.


This scenario only works if there are either pre-positioned fuel, weapons, parts, support personnel at said location or a means to get them there. Otherwise all that happens will be that a jet lands somewhere and then sits...useless.

Stop being so ignorant and believing the marketing spin being put out.

Even with "fast" turn around, the aircraft are still on the ground for the vast majority of the time. It's not like 2-4hr sortie, 10min on ground, 2-4hr sortie, 10min on ground, etc

Dispersal only really works with limited numbers of aircraft and large areas (e.g. Sweden). Otherwise you're better off trying to defend and harden areas.

Dispersal also increases your vulnerability to other threats - e.g. Special Forces

And with dispersed, pre-positioned (or easily transportable) support resources such as fuel, weapons, parts, people. Otherwise it breaks down after 1 mission.

The above just shows that neither of you have bothered to read up on how dispersed road basing works, and are just setting up and shooting down straw-men based on your own pre-conceived ideas.

First of all, we can strike out the people need rest part: Military personnel need rest wherever they are based.

Next is the repositioning and resupply: You don't just have one strip in your road base complex. There are many. So the trucks and personnel move around in the complex, and both aircraft operating from the complex and the rearm and refuel units can be resupplied in turn from higher level supply at a number of different locations. So the same principle applies here: This is not done on one location in the complex only. And all these units are mobile. There are many pre-prepared places to meet up.

In peacetime you can drive around and see them. In wartime many will be camouflaged even if there are aircraft there or not. Protection is not based on the locations being secret. It is based on there being a few straight roads clustered together and dozens of places you can taxi to to refuel and rearm. And these keep constantly changing. So an enemy never knows where to strike.

In Sweden, dedicated special forces roam these bases. In Ukraine they could do the same. In addition: How will the enemy get THEIR special forces in place? Will they cover the whole country with special forces before starting a war just in case a Gripen lands there? What about those logistics? Is it time for general mobilization perhaps? Perhaps they could helicopter in the SOE? No wait, we learned in 2022 that doing that in enemy held territory is not such a good idea is it?

No, if recent conflict has taught us anything, it's that operating from fixed sites and trying to harden them to avoid being taken out is a thing of the past. The only way to stay alive today is to be mobile and quick on your feet. And the Gripen E system provides all of this.

 

[red admiral]

Ah this has just become the Saab PR thread. What's the point.

 

[GTX]

and are just setting up and shooting down straw-men based on your own pre-conceived ideas.

Let me correct that for you: Knowledge gained from military service in an air force and a career around military platforms, in particular combat aircraft.

First of all, we can strike out the people need rest part: Military personnel need rest wherever they are based.

Excuse me? My point was in relation to the comment that the Gripen just needs "One specialist and 5 conscripts.". What I am trying to point out is that this can only go for a limited period of time due to the endurance of people and their ability to be sustained. This is far harder in multiple dispersed locations when people cannot necessarily be easily replaced/supported.

Next is the repositioning and resupply: You don't just have one strip in your road base complex. There are many.

Which actually reinforces my points. Supporting multiple locations (be that through pre-positioning or otherwise) requires more logistics support than fewer bases.

There are many pre-prepared places to meet up.

Which is what I was saying about "prepositioned". This is the critical thing people forget when they wax lyrical about the Gripen's ability to operate from roads. This works for the Swedes exactly because they have been doing it for decades, not just with the Gripen but the Viggen before that. They already have the system built in. You cannot simply buy Gripens and instantly have the same result. Sweden is somewhat of a unique case here. Without this well established system, another Air force might be able to land on a dispersed road but then they will potentially find themselves stuck. At most they might be able to operate from a couple of satellite fields near a main base but they certainly will struggle to just land and operate from any long enough piece of road.

In peacetime you can drive around and see them. In wartime many will be camouflaged even if there are aircraft there or not. Protection is not based on the locations being secret. It is based on there being a few straight roads clustered together and dozens of places you can taxi to to refuel and rearm. And these keep constantly changing. So an enemy never knows where to strike.

Again, only valid if you build up this system over many years beforehand. You can't just buy Gripen and bingo, get the rest.

In Sweden, dedicated special forces roam these bases. In Ukraine they could do the same. In addition:

Emphasis on "could".

How will the enemy get THEIR special forces in place?

In many, many ways...including on foot

Will they cover the whole country with special forces before starting a war just in case a Gripen lands there?

Now who is making straw man arguments?

What about those logistics?

A lot lower than a air platform such as a fighter.

And the Gripen E system provides all of this.

And so do many other platforms potentially...if one invests in the entire system. The Gripen is not unique in its ability to land/takeoff from suitable stretches of roadway. In fact, if you wanted to go even further, a Harrier or F-35B could be even better in that respect since they don't need the stretches of road. The key thing for all though is having the entire system like the Swedes. Without that the whole myth of the Gripen starts to fall apart.

 

[Wotan]

And if you believe that's all that is needed to operate for anything more than a couple of days (at most - it may even fall apart after one day) then you will believe anything. People need to rest, they need resources. Aircraft need fuel, spare parts, weapons etc.


This scenario only works if there are either pre-positioned fuel, weapons, parts, support personnel at said location or a means to get them there. Otherwise all that happens will be that a jet lands somewhere and then sits...useless.

Stop being so ignorant and believing the marketing spin being put out.

I know it can be done. We received the Mig-21 M/MF between 1969 to 1975. We operated them from concrete slab runways and kept them outside in the elements, be it -20 degrees or +40 degrees. 50 years later when we retired them they were perfectly operational.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKplaYWHtmw


The Gripen was designed to be used in a similar manner. You can maintain it almost only by muscle power, without power tools.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeLo6f2DM8c


I read that you can even change the engine using only hand cranes.

 

[GTX]

I know it can be done...50 years later when we retired them they were perfectly operational.

The Gripen was designed to be used in a similar manner. Yo can maintain it almost only by muscle power, without power tools.

I read that you can even change the engine using only hand cranes.

I will assume you are trying to be funny here.

 

[Wotan]

Engine change. Less than one hour, only several operators needed, no power tools (look at those green hand cranes).

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gX3ymjo-r0


Bonus: you know that your aircraft was carefully assembled by a beautifull nordic babe with high cheeckbones.

 

[GTX]

Engine change. Less than one hour, only several operators needed, no power tools (look at those green hand cranes).

Errr...same goes for any other F404, F414, F100 etc. You do however need a dedicated engine trailer, a whole set of other specialised hand tools (they aren't just purchased at the local hardware store, trust me), a replacement engine (see below), a crane to move it...

Not something easily done in the field without appropriate logistics support.

 

[Wotan]

So basically you need a maintenance truck with the replacement engine and the necesarry tools to arrive at the highway rest area according to schedule.

And those green hand cranes which seem to be used for everything.

 

[GTX]

So basically you need a maintenance truck with the replacement engine and the necesarry tools to arrive at the highway rest area according to schedule.

Biggish truck with crane to be in the right location at the right time. And guess what: most air forces don't have large numbers of engines above fit to just send anywhere/everywhere. You have to remove existing engine. Have it on engine trailer. Have another trailer for the replacement engine etc...

It is possible but needs well coordinated logistics and support teams and is not something just unique to the Gripen.

And those green hand cranes which seem to be used for everything.

Not for lifting a 1100kg engine

 

[Wotan]

You can see from the engine installation video that four cranes are prepared to be used...

 

[GTX]

You can see from the engine installation video that four cranes are prepared to be used...

What you are seeing in that video is a nice clean factory producing new aircraft. It is not an operational setting. Moreover, my comment related to lifting the engine is more related to the spare engine that would need to be lifted out of its container and placed onto a trailer (if you don't have a spare it is pointless even starting). That is not something one easily uses small hand cranes like you are looking at. And yet again, (this is getting boring), the ability to remove engines by hand (with the appropriate tooling, equipment, people) is not something unique to the Gripen.

 

[AndersJ]

In the picture below, you can see an example of a Swedish road base dispersion in connection to a fixed airfield.

The small blue dots are places to park for turn-around or maintenance. The blue lines on the roads are the pre-prepared road strips. However, in a pinch, you can see that there are plenty of other straight road strips to choose from. I count close to 20 turn-around and maintenance spots.

But there are other road bases further away. This of course means you have to move equipment. But that's not a problem: Everything from engines, new instruments, weapons etc etc are transportable in standard 20-foot containers. So you can use requisitioned civil long haul trucks to do that job in time of war.

For daily operations however, smaller SUV type vehicles with trailers are used to haul stuff around the different turn-around and maintenance spots, and get new stuff from the dispersed road base depots.

So a typical mission could be a flight of Gripens taking off from another road base altogether, and upon completing their mission, being directed to land on one of the road strips below, taxi to one or more of the blue dots below where re-arm and re-fuel teams are waiting for them and be off again in under 10 minutes.

Kinda neat huh?

 

[Wotan]

But there are other road bases further away. This of course means you have to move equipment. But that's not a problem: Everything from engines, new instruments, weapons etc etc are transportable in standard 20-foot containers. So you can use requisitioned civil long haul trucks to do that job in time of war.

For daily operations however, smaller SUV type vehicles with trailers are used to haul stuff around the different turn-around and maintenance spots, and get new stuff from the dispersed road base depots.

It is good that you mentioned this. It is a very nice logistic capability to have, both for dispersed operation and also for distant deployment. This is what the producer states:

Gripen Support | Saab

Gripen’s smart support solution is the most efficient and flexible on the fighter market, inherent in the aircraft system design from the very beginning. This unique feature gives Gripen an unprecedented advantage and cost effectiveness.

www.saab.com

"Two Gripen aircraft on a two week mission requires only what fits in a standard 20 feet container."

Quite impressive from the point of view of the logistic needs.

 

[TomcatViP]

With spares for damages, fuel and weapons? Or just to fly Erickson's Christmas greetings cards?

 

[BonPlan2]

Not for lifting a 1100kg engine

 

[Wotan]

With spares for damages, fuel and weapons? Or just to fly Erickson's Christmas greetings cards?

The fuel used is standard NATO, based on the comercial jet fuel, so you can obtain basically at any airport. Weapons, depending of what intend to destroy, are of course in type and quantity mission specific. But again, standard NATO AA missiles, no need for exotic equipment.

 

[AndersJ]

For those who worry about the time it takes to change an engine on a Gripen at a road base:

Check the below video at about 1:15 in: They show 5 mechanics using 3 of the Swedish special hand operated pylon/loading cranes @Wotan mentioned earlier on to do it, and it takes just 1 hour!

Sure it's a SAAB video, but the guy in the uniform is a high FMV official, so video endorsed by the end customer as well.

 

[AndersJ]

Another video on road base operations: Equipment moved longer distances in standard 20-foot containers. Personnel in tents. Yes we do that. While perhaps not as tough as our allies the Finns, we too can camp out if necessary!

Jokes aside: Re-arm and re-fuel turn-around time for a2a setup possible in less than 10 minutes by one technician and 5 conscripts.

 

[ComradeVortex]

Well, the so-called "achievment" of Thai Gripens taking off from roads and motorways have been sort of dumbed down by the fact of Indonesia's F-16s doing the same...

 

[VTOLicious]

FlightGlobal (2020):

"To understand the design of the Gripen, Saab argues that the nature of Bas 90 bases and the Swedish military need to be understood."

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-...g-system-influenced-the-gripen/139316.article

 

[AndersJ]

Well, the so-called "achievment" of Thai Gripens taking off from roads and motorways have been sort of dumbed down by the fact of Indonesia's F-16s doing the same...

I would say that dumbed down is a bit harsh: Sure, the F-16 and many other jets can take off and land on a strip of runway. But then what?

The point is that the Gripen can operate on just 800 m of runway. So not only take off and land in clean condition with 10% fuel in the tanks, but be re-armed and re-fueled and go off on another combat mission.

Very much doubt that they can accomplish that on an F-16 in Indonesia with one technician and 5 conscripts.

 

[GTX]

I would say that dumbed down is a bit harsh: Sure, the F-16 and many other jets can take off and land on a strip of runway. But then what?

If the fuel, weapons and support is there (and the aircraft is serviceable) they can fly again, just like the Gripen. The point being that the ability to fly from dispersed road strips is not something unique to Gripen's design. It is at best arguably unique (or close to - see below) to the Swedish overall system or pre-positioning etc which is what I have been arguing.

And to prove the point, here is information on Ukrainian dispersed F-16 operations in actual war, not pre-planned exercises:

Ukraine’s Unique Mobile F-16 Maintenance System ‘Will Work Anywhere’

Ukraine’s air force has received a truck-mounted system that enables Vipers to be fully maintained from dispersed locations, funded by a charity supported by industry.

www.kyivpost.com

Ukraine’s F-16 Force: Innovation, Impact, and Resolve

One of Ukraine’s top F-16 pilots, known by his call sign “AB,” spoke to the Mitchell Institute about the impact of fighter against Russia.

www.airandspaceforces.com

View: https://youtu.be/tzsQBEOzlJg?si=XrRxdYRe1O05AXgn&t=457


Others also do things, to varying degrees, in peacetime to practise for war, such as Singapore:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBMD4QTSyqM

RSAF to conduct alternate runway exercise at Lim Chu Kang Road from Nov 10 to 14

SINGAPORE - The Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) will be conducting an alternate runway exercise, codenamed Exercise Torrent, at Lim Chu Kang Road from Nov 10 to 14. Read more at straitstimes.com. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

Finland:

Establishing a secure connection ...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTU5v3SJkm0


UK:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo6mMX7rrr8


Poland:

Establishing a secure connection ...

I could go on...

The point is that the Gripen can operate on just 800 m of runway. So not only take off and land in clean condition with 10% fuel in the tanks, but be re-armed and re-fueled and go off on another combat mission.

A F/A-18 Super Hornet can do it in 750m (or less). A F-35B can do it in less than 200m if doing a rolling takeoff or mere metres id going VTOL.

Very much doubt that they can accomplish that on an F-16 in Indonesia with one technician and 5 conscripts.

I also very much doubt the Swedish Gripen force can do so for any extended duration.

Once again, the entire point being that, despite the marketing, the Saab Gripen (which ever model) does not have a design that is unique in being able to operate from dispersed road way (or similar) style airfields. Many aircraft types can with some such as carrier based designs (such as F/A-18s or F-35s) maybe being a little more tolerant, though again as shown with multiple F-16s being used as such this is not a prerequisite. And as also mentioned, if one wanted to go even further STOVL/VTOL platforms such as Harrier or more so now, the F-35B give even greater flexibility ("why need even 800m of road when just a car park could do").

At the risk of repeating myself, the more critical thing is the ability to ensure logistics (including fuel, weapons, spare parts, S&TE, support staff etc etc...) is also able to be either pre-positioned or able to also disperse and be coordinated to be where the aircraft is. Unless Saab are offering to also set up all of this with their sales of Gripens then the pitch about the Gripen having this supposedly unique capability is a misnomer at best...

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I agree, to an extent.

Gripen was different from other Western fighters in the degree of emphasis in its requirements placed on reliability, availability, ease of maintenance, and low operational costs compared to achieving the best possible turn rate, range, LO capabilities etc. This leads armchair experts to underrate it compared to other fighters. Such things are in fact always tradeoffs - the Gripen that is available and does its mission has infinitely higher turn rate than the Typhoon stuck at base awaiting maintenance.

Sweden with the Bas 60 and then Bas 90 concept had an operational plan for dispersal that was brilliant, if costly, with specially designed dispersal bases all over Sweden. These had actual runways and some base facilities, with the surrounding roads' being designed with sections that served as additional runways and taxiways surrounding the base to allow wide dispersal of aircraft in the local area, versus lining them all up on a single taxiway next to the base. There were mobile repair units, etc which allowed the maintenance crew to go to where the Gripens were dispersed to.

Of course, with the ending of the Cold War stopped work on Bas 90, and in the 2000s most of this infrastructure was sold off.

Someone buying the Gripen does not magically get Bas 90 bases with it. This is true. However, the Gripen retains a primary design emphasis on reliablity, availability and ease of maintenance that would make dispersed operations for short periods significantly easier than for, say, a squadron of F-22 or F-35 aircraft.

If the current conflict with Iran has shown anything, it is that lining up all your aircraft next to each other on unprotected runways with no air defence is a bad idea in an era of cheap, accurate drones.

 

[GTX]

This leads armchair experts to underrate it compared to other fighters.

I don't underrate the Gripen and indeed, as previously stated a number of times, quite like the design (even more than I liked the Viggen before it). That said, I feel that it is also often overrated. Some of the things put out overemphasise some aspects and try to imply that the platform has capabilities that are unique when that is simply not the case - which is what I have tried to point out.

Sweden with the Bas 60 and then Bas 90 concept had an operational plan for dispersal that was brilliant, if costly, with specially designed dispersal bases all over Sweden. These had actual runways and some base facilities, with the surrounding roads' being designed with sections that served as additional runways and taxiways surrounding the base to allow wide dispersal of aircraft in the local area, versus lining them all up on a single taxiway next to the base. There were mobile repair units, etc which allowed the maintenance crew to go to where the Gripens were dispersed to.

Of course, with the ending of the Cold War stopped work on Bas 90, and in the 2000s most of this infrastructure was sold off.

Someone buying the Gripen does not magically get Bas 90 bases with it.

Agreed and this is the thing that I would (and have) argue should be more emphasised. It isn't necessarily the aircraft that has the capability but rather the entire system.

However, the Gripen retains a primary design emphasis on reliablity, availability and ease of maintenance that would make dispersed operations for short periods significantly easier than for, say, a squadron of F-22 or F-35 aircraft.

It will depend upon the system/sub system. Major things such as the RM12 (F404) or F414 will not be necessarily any better than the same engine in other platforms such as the F/A-18A-G. If anything, from the reporting I have seen in various Defence forums (real world, not internet) the single engined F404 (at least) applications actually have lower reliability - it is complicated though because many aspects seem to be around false reporting by the FADEC. this operational issue though is that even when the result is "no fault found", because issues are reported it still has to be taken offline and investigated.

If the current conflict with Iran has shown anything, it is that lining up all your aircraft next to each other on unprotected runways with no air defence is a bad idea in an era of cheap, accurate drones.

Most definitely. If anything, going to VTOL is even more of a benefit in this case (anyone remember Bill Gunston's regular arguments along this line...back in a different era?).

 

[slroger]

I agree, to an extent.

Gripen was different from other Western fighters in the degree of emphasis in its requirements placed on reliability, availability, ease of maintenance, and low operational costs compared to achieving the best possible turn rate, range, LO capabilities etc. This leads armchair experts to underrate it compared to other fighters. Such things are in fact always tradeoffs - the Gripen that is available and does its mission has infinitely higher turn rate than the Typhoon stuck at base awaiting maintenance.

Sweden with the Bas 60 and then Bas 90 concept had an operational plan for dispersal that was brilliant, if costly, with specially designed dispersal bases all over Sweden. These had actual runways and some base facilities, with the surrounding roads' being designed with sections that served as additional runways and taxiways surrounding the base to allow wide dispersal of aircraft in the local area, versus lining them all up on a single taxiway next to the base. There were mobile repair units, etc which allowed the maintenance crew to go to where the Gripens were dispersed to.

Of course, with the ending of the Cold War stopped work on Bas 90, and in the 2000s most of this infrastructure was sold off.

Someone buying the Gripen does not magically get Bas 90 bases with it. This is true. However, the Gripen retains a primary design emphasis on reliablity, availability and ease of maintenance that would make dispersed operations for short periods significantly easier than for, say, a squadron of F-22 or F-35 aircraft.

If the current conflict with Iran has shown anything, it is that lining up all your aircraft next to each other on unprotected runways with no air defence is a bad idea in an era of cheap, accurate drones.

Very true. Looking at the operations of Ukraine with their aircraft, I think its impressive what they have been able to do with F16s for example because Russia hasnt been able to strike a single one from the ground. So with the Gripen operations would even be easier.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I don't underrate the Gripen and indeed, as previously stated a number of times, quite like the design (even more than I liked the Viggen before it). That said, I feel that it is also often overrated. Some of the things put out overemphasise some aspects and try to imply that the platform has capabilities that are unique when that is simply not the case - which is what I have tried to point out.

Agreed and this is the thing that I would (and have) argue should be more emphasised. It isn't necessarily the aircraft that has the capability but rather the entire system.

It will depend upon the system/sub system. Major things such as the RM12 (F404) or F414 will not be necessarily any better than the same engine in other platforms such as the F/A-18A-G. If anything, from the reporting I have seen in various Defence forums (real world, not internet) the single engined F404 (at least) applications actually have lower reliability - it is complicated though because many aspects seem to be around false reporting by the FADEC. this operational issue though is that even when the result is "no fault found", because issues are reported it still has to be taken offline and investigated.

Most definitely. If anything, going to VTOL is even more of a benefit in this case (anyone remember Bill Gunston's regular arguments along this line...back in a different era?).

In the late 80s, the USSR could have hit NATO airbases with IRBMs but they were still somewhat innacurate and hence nuclear armed, so the West didn't really plan for this scenario in reality, rather opting for MiG-27s and Su-24s dropping submunitions on runways.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Of course, with the ending of the Cold War stopped work on Bas 90, and in the 2000s most of this infrastructure was sold off.

There have been reports recently that they are trying to reconstitute it. I have a feeling the effort may not be going smoothly though.

 

[AndersJ]

In the late 80s, the USSR could have hit NATO airbases with IRBMs but they were still somewhat innacurate and hence nuclear armed, so the West didn't really plan for this scenario in reality, rather opting for MiG-27s and Su-24s dropping submunitions on runways.

Yes, and as I see it what has changed since then is that everyone is realizing that the dispersed operations is the way of the future. And this is also why we now see all of the other aircraft manufacturers scrambling to convince everyone that they too can operate from road bases.

AFAIK, the US is with their Agile Combat Employment (ACE), and by forming and training smaller more versatile teams they call Multi-Capable Airmen (MCA), slimming down their organization to also lower their dependence on fixed airfields. However, the key difference is that the Gripen was DESIGNED for this while F-16 has been press ganged into a form of operation it was not designed for from the beginning.

Also: Compare this picture of a Ukrainian AF mobile team to what you see in the Gripen videos I've posted. If/when the UkrAF gets Gripens, they will not need to haul all that stuff round.



But as always, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and the Gripen by being adapted to road base operations is somewhat heavier than it could otherwise have been: It lugs around an APU, it has its own ladder, LRU design and integration has from the beginning been designed to be easily changed in the field at road bases, which probably also added a few pounds. The quick access and engine replacement design using the hand operated cranes probably also cost structure weight.

On older aircraft like the Draken and Viggen, the engines were longer, and side mounted air intakes made more sense. However, now they like the RM12 are much shorter, and a ventral air intake like on the F-16 would have been better and cost less weight. But then you get the FOD problems that the F-16 will inevitably suffer in Ukraine where runways cannot be swept and kept free of foreign objects like on fixed airfields. This is also why the Gripen with its side mounted air intakes and 1 hour engine change will be better at road base operations.

Honestly, the USAF and USN are the biggest and baddest there are. So why is it so difficult for some to admit that the Gripen actually has some unique features? And that those are actually rather good selling points in today's world where hardened shelters are going to get plinked in no time, and even backward nations have ballistic missiles and drones that will make operating from fixed locations extremely difficult?

There have been reports recently that they are trying to reconstitute it. I have a feeling the effort may not be going smoothly though.

Yup, all the Swedish Bas 90 and all the dispersed mobilization depots were scrapped in the 1990's because no one though they would ever be needed again. When I was doing my time as a conscript, and later called in for refresher courses, we always met up at special buildings in secret forest locations that had it all: Vehicles, food, uniforms, guns ammo. All gone now alas. But we are rebuilding them!

 

[GTX]

And this is also why we now see all of the other aircraft manufacturers scrambling to convince everyone that they too can operate from road bases.

Other nations have been able to do road operations as well for decades. They may not make a big deal of it and it isn't necessarily a core part of their operations but it has happened/is happening so please don't try to claim or imply that this is something new that everyone is only now just trying.

By way of a quick listing see here - and yes, I appreciate this is a wikipedia page but the fact remains that it does list, with references and photos, how multiple air forces have been and continue to do it. Yes the Swedes are arguably the best at it but that doesn't make them unique.

However, the key difference is that the Gripen was DESIGNED for this while F-16 has been press ganged into a form of operation it was not designed for from the beginning.

And exactly what is specifically designed into the Gripen platform that makes it different? I have already acknowledged that the broad support system makes a difference but what on the aircraft design itself?

Also: Compare this picture of a Ukrainian AF mobile team to what you see in the Gripen videos I've posted. If/when the UkrAF gets Gripens, they will not need to haul all that stuff round.

How many vehicles does a Gripen require if one includes munitions resupply, fuel trucks, spare parts, mission planning, other personnel support aspects? It is all nice to say/imply that the Gripen doesn't need many vehicles but unless one is factoring in pre-positioned supplies (which thus presents a false picture), the reality is that things such as fuel, munitions etc still require vehicles to transport. Crews still need facilities to plan operations. I could go on...

Also, comparing a Ukrainian solution rapidly come up with in presumably months vs the Swedish solution that has been developed over decades is hardly a fair comparison.

This is also why the Gripen with its side mounted air intakes and 1 hour engine change will be better at road base operations.

A 1 hour engine change sounds nice though it is pointless unless one also has the spare engine available to also put in and this is something I have yet to see in any of the videos purporting to show this aspect. RM12s (F404s)/F414s are not small things and they don't just sit around on trailers in the open waiting to plug into aircraft if one wants to keep them in any sort of serviceable condition. They will need to be stored in either specialised engine containers or at the very least in an enclosed vehicle/building. If in a container or on a truck, they will need to be lifted onto an engine removal trailer and that is not something typically done via hand winches.

It lugs around an APU, it has its own ladder, LRU design and integration has from the beginning been designed to be easily changed in the field at road bases, which probably also added a few pounds.

Multiple other platforms also have APUs and built in ladders... LRUs are common too - the very name kind of gives it away "Line Replaceable Unit". I remain curious as to exactly what is different for the Gripen (regardless of model). I also point out that whilst it sounds impressive to say that LRUs can be replaces easily, one still needs to have said replacement LRUs available...hence again the logistics support requirements. Anyone has been around combat jets knows that things regularly failed need to be either investigated or replaced. It happens all the time and thus there is a need to have spare parts to keep things going...again the logistics aspect.

So why is it so difficult for some to admit that the Gripen actually has some unique features?

And exactly what are those unique features? The aircraft, not the broad well established Swedish support model.

When I was doing my time as a conscript, and later called in for refresher courses, we always met up at special buildings in secret forest locations that had it all: Vehicles, food, uniforms, guns ammo.

Hmmm...reads like "pre-positioned supplies"...which is what I have been pointing out numerous times in this thread.

Look, I don't have a problem if one wants to applaud the Swedish model for its well established dispersed operations model and use of things such as mobile teams and pre-positioning support requirements. My issue is trying to imply that the Gripen is somehow unique in this respect. It is the overall system that is unique here, not necessarily the aircraft itself. Many other aircraft could and have offered similar capabilities when the support system is designed for such. Just buying the Gripen platform though does not instantly provide this capability.

 

[timmymagic]

nd those green hand cranes which seem to be used for everything.

They're called Bomb Hoists....

And they're standard across all NATO tactical aircraft...and beyond...they've been around since WW2...

 

[timmymagic]

Yes, and as I see it what has changed since then is that everyone is realizing that the dispersed operations is the way of the future. And this is also why we now see all of the other aircraft manufacturers scrambling to convince everyone that they too can operate from road bases.

Are they?

There's a bit of Ukrainian mis-information going on really....because they're still mainly operating from the standard air bases...they might do some occasional ops from some roads...but its fairly minor.

But the Swedish BAS90 concept was only required because Sweden did, and still does, have so few runways suitable for fighter aircraft. This simply wasn't an issue for other Western Air Forces during the Cold War...the RAF for example could draw a circle 20 miles around each of its main bases and within it there would be multiple runways available...many of the RAF stations had dedicated satellite airfields nearby...they didn't need to fly from roads....as there were hundreds of dedicated runways available...

Such things are in fact always tradeoffs - the Gripen that is available and does its mission has infinitely higher turn rate than the Typhoon stuck at base awaiting maintenance.

Does Gripen have better availability or reliability than Typhoon?

This is also why the Gripen with its side mounted air intakes and 1 hour engine change will be better at road base operations.

I've heard this many times...and its nonsense. Typhoon's ventral air intake is actually higher off the ground than Gripen's side mounted intakes....

If you're really going to be serious about FOD you would be using a solution like the MiG-29....with intake covers and louvres.

 

[Wotan]

Someone buying the Gripen does not magically get Bas 90 bases with it. This is true. However, the Gripen retains a primary design emphasis on reliablity, availability and ease of maintenance that would make dispersed operations for short periods significantly easier than for, say, a squadron of F-22 or F-35 aircraft.

If the current conflict with Iran has shown anything, it is that lining up all your aircraft next to each other on unprotected runways with no air defence is a bad idea in an era of cheap, accurate drones.

Beside this, the landing gear of the Gripen is reinforced for bigger descent rates and taller, keeping the air intakes away from posible debris and the risk of FOD.

Gripen's reinforced landing gear: an edge over Ukrainian F-16s

Just days ago near Gothenburg, Sweden, the Swedish Air Force [SAF] demonstrated a precision landing on a civilian highway with its indigenous Gripen fighters.

bulgarianmilitary.com

"The Swedish Gripen has a reinforced landing gear. This allows it to land on not-so-smooth asphalt surfaces, unlike those laid on airport runways. Additionally, the landing gear is taller, which provides greater ground clearance to the Gripen’s fuselage. For this reason, the possibility of the jet’s intake sucking up debris, dirt, gunk, etc. is kept to a minimum compared to other Western fighters. "

"Now we bring Ukraine back into the equation, and the picture is this: the F-16 can take off from extremely smooth runways. The F-16’s jet intake is much closer to the tarmac, which means it is more likely to suck in dirt that could damage the engine. F-16 maintenance is not done on-site but in depots and takes longer. This means that it is enough for Russian aviation to bomb the runways or contaminate them to prevent the Ukrainian F-16s from taking off."

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/DLt61EOsxvu/


The aproach and touchdown fo the Gripen looks more similar to a carrier landing than an usual runway landing. Fast descent rate, no flare, the aircraft is slammed with the rear wheels on the desired spot then the front wheel is also slammed. BTW, the front wheel also has an brake and the canards, beside acting like big airbrakes, also take care that the front wheel is firmly pushed on the surface while braking.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUY7CxMBwVg

Bayram SAVLI | Fighter Aircraft on Instagram: "Highway landing during a military exercise. Watch the brake smoke twist into vortices behind the F-16."

19K likes, 135 comments - fighteraircraft on February 11, 2026: "Highway landing during a military exercise. Watch the brake smoke twist into vortices behind the F-16.".

www.instagram.com

 

[Ainen]

If you're really going to be serious about FOD you would be using a solution like the MiG-29....with intake covers and louvres.

Mig-29 was extreme, but this is offensive fighter aircraft intended to follow up advancing armies ww2 way(and early in Ukraine war mig-29 airfrields were in tube artillery range).
For more prepared defensive operations, you can do with less - and mig-29 itself later discarded these extreme traits, going with more flanker-like solution. Too costly.

There's a bit of Ukrainian mis-information going on really....because they're still mainly operating from the standard air bases...they might do some occasional ops from some roads...but its fairly minor.

They do full basing away, but their aircraft jump via intermediate airfields(and disperse during attacks).
But this is a static war.

Most definitely. If anything, going to VTOL is even more of a benefit in this case (anyone remember Bill Gunston's regular arguments along this line...back in a different era?).

It's absolute step - and yes, it is, if you can afford it, and afford it just for the role alone(as there's performance penalty).
Harrier force was effectively that, F-35Bs are learning to do it(though they weren't really designed for this, but still).
Fulcrum was mentioned before, but Soviet AF did want a STOL variant of Yak-141 to be even more dispersable in the 1990s.

 

[GTX]

Additionally, the landing gear is taller, which provides greater ground clearance to the Gripen’s fuselage. For this reason, the possibility of the jet’s intake sucking up debris, dirt, gunk, etc. is kept to a minimum compared to other Western fighters. "

"Now we bring Ukraine back into the equation, and the picture is this: the F-16 can take off from extremely smooth runways. The F-16’s jet intake is much closer to the tarmac, which means it is more likely to suck in dirt that could damage the engine.

I haven't done the exact measurements (feel free somebody to do so) but a quick side-by side would appear to indicate that there is not much difference in height of the comparative intakes:

The F-16, despite its under fuselage intake does have an arguable advantage in that the nose wheel is behind it though so less chance of throwing debris up. either way, I know of no air force who will willingly operate from dirty runways if they have an ability to avoid doing so. Forgetting intake issues, just avoiding tyre issues or other under fuselage damage is something most try to avoid. I seriously doubt there is much to distinguish between various types here.

F-16 maintenance is not done on-site but in depots and takes longer.

Hmmm...you sure about that? If we are talking about similar types of maintenance requirement I think you will find that a depot will offer more support services and thus potentially faster TATs. If talking O-level maintenance, by definition it is able to be done on the flight line wherever that may be. You will typically only find major maintenance done at depots and that will be the same for all types.

This means that it is enough for Russian aviation to bomb the runways or contaminate them to prevent the Ukrainian F-16s from taking off."

Same could be done for Gripens. If anything your arguments point more towards a VTOL/STOVL type.

The aproach and touchdown fo the Gripen looks more similar to a carrier landing than an usual runway landing. Fast descent rate, no flare, the aircraft is slammed with the rear wheels on the desired spot then the front wheel is also slammed. BTW, the front wheel also has an brake and the canards, beside acting like big airbrakes, also take care that the front wheel is firmly pushed on the surface while braking.

And yet looking at a comparison of key types wouldn't seem to make much difference. Of course, depending upon the load outs for each type the results may differ.

 

[Suricato]

First, Gripen is an excellent concept for Sweden, while not for all countries.

In peacetime you can drive around and see them. In wartime many will be camouflaged even if there are aircraft there or not. Protection is not based on the locations being secret. It is based on there being a few straight roads clustered together and dozens of places you can taxi to to refuel and rearm. And these keep constantly changing. So an enemy never knows where to strike.

This approach run into the number game. There are a limited number of possible motorways and so a limited number of IRBM's are needed to destroy the concret and place a minefield to make the airstrip useless for a while.

But, with the right engeneering approach, this can be solved.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXveB_eZ3i0


And, by the way, why must be a runway straight and can not be a curved part of a motorway?


But the keypoint is ...

How will the enemy get THEIR special forces in place? Will they cover the whole country with special forces before starting a war just in case a Gripen lands there?

Before WWII the germans recruited civilist's, spies, accross the UK, And in wartime they reported everything, the movement of troops, logistics, airfields, ships etc.
Sweden has here the advantage to be sparely populated, Sweden is bigger than Germany but has the population of Belgium. And close the everyone lifs in Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmö. Other countries have here different boundery conditions. Please try to operate a Gripen undecoverd on motorways around London or around Paris.

 

[IRT]

First, Gripen is an excellent concept for Sweden, while not for all countries.



This approach run into the number game. There are a limited number of possible motorways and so a limited number of IRBM's are needed to destroy the concret and place a minefield to make the airstrip useless for a while.

But, with the right engeneering approach, this can be solved.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXveB_eZ3i0


And, by the way, why must be a runway straight and can not be a curved part of a motorway?


But the keypoint is ...



Before WWII the germans recruited civilist's, spies, accross the UK, And in wartime they reported everything, the movement of troops, logistics, airfields, ships etc.
Sweden has here the advantage to be sparely populated, Sweden is bigger than Germany but has the population of Belgium. And close the everyone lifs in Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmö. Other countries have here different boundery conditions. Please try to operate a Gripen undecoverd on motorways around London or around Paris.

Oh please.. the Gripen concept is ideal for every European nation.. Europe is worried about beeing attacked.. not thinking about attacking anyone else. There is plenty of rural areas for runways in Germany, France, GB.. or any other European nation.

Do you think any eastern/central European airfield will survive the first salvo from the russians?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Does Gripen have better availability or reliability than Typhoon?

I wasn't arguing that specifically, I just decided not to say "F-35" as an easy target.

Availability of Typhoon and Gripen C seem comparable, above 80% for Typhoon and 80-90% for Gripen. Gripen-E is supposed to reach 85-95%.

My point was Gripen's design in some areas traded performance for cost and maintainability factors.

The plane that flies beats the plane stuck in the hangar every time.

 

[eagle]

And yet looking at a comparison of key types wouldn't seem to make much difference. Of course, depending upon the load outs for each type the results may differ.

Rafale 300 m landing distance? This begs the question if the other numbers are more accurate.
At least we have the data for the Viper:

 

[red admiral]

My point was Gripen's design in some areas traded performance for cost and maintainability factors.

Much is lauded of Gripen changing an engine within 1 hour, but this common with Western 4th Gen. Out in Italy last decade then both a Typhoon and a Gripen required an engine change. The Typhoon took about an hour. The Gripen quite a lot more than an hour. Does this mean Gripen is bad? No, the ground crew were just being particularly careful this time a long way away from home with no time pressure.

Reality is more nuanced than pr tag lines for journalists.

 

[Wotan]

First, Gripen is an excellent concept for Sweden, while not for all countries.

This approach run into the number game. There are a limited number of possible motorways and so a limited number of IRBM's are needed to destroy the concret and place a minefield to make the airstrip useless for a while.

The Gripen is excellent for each small/medium country who want a capable multirole aircraft but does not want to burn huge resources in order to buy and operate it. Also for countries which have a limited number of airbases.

And is particularly attractive for each country who has at its borders an potential enemy who has the airbases in the range of it`s ballistic and cruise missiles. The recent strikes on american facilities from the Gulf area have demonstrated that not even the strongest military in the world isn`t able to fully protect it`s airfields.

Iranian strikes on bases used by US caused $800m in damage, analysis shows

Much of the damage was caused in initial retaliatory strikes by Iran in the week after the US and Israel launched its operation.

www.bbc.com

Regarding the number game, we must consider the local conditions. In Europe for example the road network is very dense. Each country usually has thousands of kilometers of motorways and tens of thousands kilometers of higways and local roads covered in tarmac. You can`t bomb each strip of several hundred meters long straight road.

The Gripen seems to me very adequate for the countries from Central Europe which have operated the Mig-21 in the past. There is a similarity of design orientated toward ruggedness and low cost of operation.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpuORPtSxhY

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDoZGoaG9_w

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/roebmk/croatian_mig21_passing_through_traffic_as_it

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/comments/roebmk/croatian_mig21_passing_through_traffic_as_it/