Gripen dispersed basing discussions

[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.

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2024/...ed-landing-gear-an-edge-over-ukrainian-f-16s/
"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

https://www.instagram.com/reels/DUomlaSjDyf/

 

[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.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cddq7j48p35o
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/

 

[Hood]

Still not as fancy as the good old Jag which could use a grass field if needs be.

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

(this vid shows the A&AEE test, fast taxi over the grass at Farnborough, over concrete slabs and a taxiway to prove it could handle varying terrain - yes its lightly loaded and no weaps, but that was the original ethos of the ECAT programme, a light fighter that could use grass)

 

[Hood]

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.

But no airbases have been operationally knocked out.
Airbases are notoriously hard to totally destroy unless you lob a nuke at them. Using cruise missiles or drones to dismantle them building by building is not really cost effective.

 

[AndersJ]

First of all: The Swedish road basing system Bas 90, and which traces it’s origins to the 1950’s, was not done because Sweden “lacked runways”: It was a premeditated decision based on the then head of the SwAF Nordenskiöld’s visit to Germany after the war, and inspired by the Germans use of Autobahn sections as runways. And the SwAF realized early on that much as the Luftwaffe’s air operation were curtailed by the Allies in the later stages of the war, so would the SwAF’s be by the Warsaw Pact’s numerical superiority in any future conflict.

And while MTBF numbers of course are extremely important, you also need to consider HOW you know what is wrong and how EASY it is to fix. And can it be done in the field with conscripts, or do you need a heated hangar and skilled technicians. And if you start off with clean sheet of paper, and one of the design requirements is that you should be able operate the aircraft in austere conditions and with minimal conscript crew, as has been the case in Sweden since the 1960's, you DESIGN IN certain features from the beginning, like what is most likely to fail? How can we distribute functionality in such a way that we will minimize the amount of test equipment needed in the field (Gripen’s BIT testing is designed with this in mind) and minimize the amount of LRU’s they need to stuff in the 20-foot container? FOD damage will be inevitable, so let’s design the engine for easy changeout, and re-use those nifty hand operated load cranes to do it etc. I’m sorry, if you can’t understand the difference between designing in such features from the beginning, compared to taking an aircraft that was designed to be serviced by a host of skilled technicians in a warm hangar surrounded by a lot of fancy test equipment, and press ganging that to road base service then I can’t help you.

Then when it comes to air intakes: You can’t just measure the distance from the ground up to the lower lip of the air intake and make a ruling on the risk of FOD damage based on that: It’s much more complicated than that because it also depends on the size of the air intake area, the mass flow (i.e. engine thrust). I never worked with this myself, but I’ve seen study results from the research institute FFA for dorsal inlets and comparisons to side- and ventral inlets and know SAAB just didn’t slap on the side inlets without thought: This was done because it turned out to be the best compromise and that dorsal inlets, while fantastic in many ways, were struck off the list because of strake vortex ingestion when you got a sideslip component. Ventral inlets were also considered because they were fantastic aerodynamically, but not from a FOD perspective.

Finally, I've always thought that the below hand operated loading crane was something unique to Swedish road base operations:

They're called Bomb Hoists....

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

This is news to me (them being so standard). Could you post some pictures showing them in use? Would love to see one.

 

[Ainen]

But no airbases have been operationally knocked out.
Airbases are notoriously hard to totally destroy unless you lob a nuke at them. Using cruise missiles or drones to dismantle them building by building is not really cost effective.

To be fair, nuke is absolutely a valid concern for a european war.
Nuke and risks of both ubiquitous space sensor coverage and the lack of it (via denial or destruction).

Russia doesn't really plan to destroy specific infrastructure types conventionally, you can say it just from the lack of munition categories Soviet union had (airfield cratering being one of them).

Overall, I believe we had this conversation before. Gripen isn't unique in how it can be operated away from established basing - aircraft isn't ITER. Even Tu-95s were operated from makeshift remote ice airstrips during the cold war, when weather forecast predicted nukes.

But, it is:
-smallest(easiest to hide, fits under normal trees and in many non-aircraft warehouses; easiest to supply with enough fuel);
-built for dispersal specifically(lower base support equipment footprint, easier access to service in simpler conditions), plus it's swedish(usually helps).
-built for austere/contested basing operations specifically (heavy chassis, some key support equipment onboard rather than on the ground, priority attention to FOD).
-already has a mobile, concealed support equipment ecosystem.
-relies on the most accessible western weapon ecosystem in the world(Hi Rafale).

Nothing in this list is too extreme, this is indeed not a VTOL. But you can expect to get the most out of your limited resources, if pushed into a desperate defense against a larger opponent.

 

[timmymagic]

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.

Really??

Because the British counter intelligence effort is seen as the model of how to do it...post war analysis found that the German's had no spies of note operating...none that hadn't been caught by British Intel and turned anyway....

 

[timmymagic]

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.

Nor can you use the overwhelming amount of that road network without extensive preperation...90% of it would be unusable regardless of the prep...

They're not normal roads in use in Sweden and Finland.....they're specially prepared, designed and maintained....just like runways in fact....street furniture, cabling, medians, dividers, turning areas, vegetation, drainage, strengthening of the road surface...etc etc...

In fact they stick out like a sore thumb....

First of all: The Swedish road basing system Bas 90, and which traces it’s origins to the 1950’s, was not done because Sweden “lacked runways”

Well they kind of did have few runways...and still do in large parts of the country....that wasn't a huge issue in Western Europe during the Cold War...

 

[GTX]

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%.

That will often be a function of the RoE, the logistics system (i.e. how many spares does one have and how quickly) and also how one measures it (are we saying every system on the aircraft are serviceable and it is Full Mission Capable or are only enough are serviceable to allow it to take off but not do much more).

 

[GTX]

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.

Are you able to provide any evidence to support these claims?

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.

And yet, as has already been stated a number of times, the features you are talking about are not inherent in the Gripen design itself but rather the broad system itself...and that is not what Saab are selling.

 

[GTX]

How can we distribute functionality in such a way that we will minimize the amount of test equipment needed in the field (Gripen’s BIT testing is designed with this in mind) and minimize the amount of LRU’s they need to stuff in the 20-foot container?

Actually the number of LRUs needed is driven more by the reliability of said LRUs along with the planned RoE of flying - a part that breaks on average every X number of flight hours doesn't lessen in demand just because it is easier to replace on the platform. It is something that a well done Logistics Support Analysis (LSA) program during the initial acquisition phase (and kept up to date throughout the life of the program ideally since new failure modes inevitably appear the longer they are in service) should address. What easier access/maintainability will do for you (assuming the spares are available) is speed up the TAT. It won't lessen the quantity of spares needed though.

FOD damage will be inevitable, so let’s design the engine for easy changeout, and re-use those nifty hand operated load cranes to do it etc. I

As already commented upon, engine changeout is only really of use if spare engines are available and equally able to be accessed/used ...

compared to taking an aircraft that was designed to be serviced by a host of skilled technicians in a warm hangar surrounded by a lot of fancy test equipment,

Nice little false equivalence argument trying to be used there. Let's go with it though: dare I say that most humans (highly trained technicians or basic trained conscripts - though I believe you will get better results and greater flexibility with the former than the latter) will prefer the warm dry environment (or cool depending upon the environment - remember not everyone operates in the Swedish or even European environment) to work and if you have the latter you will find there is greater endurance of their ability to operate.

BTW, when it comes to comparing BIT (not exactly a new concept or one unique to Gripen) to traditional external systems, one could possibly go even further and look at the type of systems introduced on the F-35 which has taken lessons from the airline industry, being able to advise its support teams what is broken/potentially breaking before it even gets back on the ground...thus allowing parts to be ready to be used.

 

[eagle]

This is news to me (them being so standard). Could you post some pictures showing them in use? Would love to see one.

For example: long url

 

[greedo]

Really??

Because the British counter intelligence effort is seen as the model of how to do it...post war analysis found that the German's had no spies of note operating...none that hadn't been caught by British Intel and turned anyway....

And it's not like German intelligence during the war had a stellar record. They were thoroughly compromised by the Soviets.

 

[Wotan]

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.

An interesting tour of the first Gripen E, with explanation of the various systems. Quite instructive.

View: https://youtu.be/mfZvwtdlYy8?t=872


BTW, at min 14:30 you can see the pilot beside the air intake. The lower site starts at shoulder level.
In comparisson, a F-16 tour. At min 9:15 you it can be seen that the air intake is significantly lower. Upper side ends at shoulder level.

View: https://youtu.be/OdMG0xOEcd0?t=557


The debris thrown by the front wheel is not the biggest problem, but the dirt already existing on the runway. Even a missing hit which lands beside the tarmac will contaminate with a significant amount of dirt the runway, and this can be sucked by the passing by aircrafts.

 

[AndersJ]

I used some scale drawings, and as far as I can see the Gripen E's lower lip on the air intake is at 1.3 m while it's only at 1,1 m on the F-16.

Now if you to that add the fact that the latest block F-16's maximum thrust is all of 130 kN and the Gripen E's is only 98 kN AFAIK, this in combination makes the F-16 a very effective vacuum cleaner indeed.

Maybe they could use them at Bas 90 sites? Could be quite useful to have an F-16 taxi around the road strips to prepare them for Gripen take offs.

 

[TomcatViP]

Let´s not forget that dispersed operations are not there to deal with runway cratering but aircraft survival. Base attacks target first the aircraft in their parking area and bomb the runway(s) only for to delay operations.
Having dispersed aircraft augments your exchange ratio with your opponent at the detriment of sorties generation (at least for large packages). Only an Air force that is heavily committed to stealth can use such dispersed area to launch sorties and match enemy strikes operations, while the context makes stealth an advantage (which is far longer that what as been anticipated - see Ukr and Iran).

In other words, a radar sparkling airframe like the Canards configured Gripen would only offer parity in such operations IF your enemy doesn´t use stealth and you have mass on your side (Gripen being smaller can´t fly as far with an equal weapon load).

Then there is the drone menace. An aggregated defense, like the one that is only possible on large bases in the foreseeable future, is always better suited than a single mobile defense system tasked to face a swarm of attacking Kamikaze drones while being a single point of failure (tracking/Intel) in the overall deception effort around which dispersed operations are constructed.

So, Yes to Gripen as an interceptor based on dispersed rwy in remote (less populated) regions. No to Gripen outlasting/Outgunning an enemy like Russia (the one that was anticipated before Ukraine) or China.

This equation was fairly ascertained by Norge, Finns and Swiss, among others, that understood the concept after years of practice and went for F-35. I am surprised that we continue to the same false assumptions, even at the detriment of the Swedish industry future and country defensive capabilities.

Heck, I won´t be surprised to see F-47 having rugged terrain capable landing gear, Jaguar like. (what would explain Safran commitment).

 

[GTX]

the mass flow (i.e. engine thrust).

Now if you to that add the fact that the latest block F-16's maximum thrust is all of 130 kN and the Gripen E's is only 98 kN AFAIK, this in combination makes the F-16 a very effective vacuum cleaner indeed.

You do realise that air mass flow from the intake is only part of the equation to generating engine thrust don't you?

Either way, as already pointed out, the FOD threat to aircraft isn't just limited to debris being sucked into intakes and damaging engines. It also impacts tyres, under fuselage and even munitions hanging below wings. By way of an extreme, though very graphic, example consider the Air France Concorde incident from July 2000 where runway debris being thrown up resulted in damaging parts of the landing gear and causing the integral fuel tank to rupture resulting in the tragedy of the crash. Now I will acknowledge that that might be an extreme case but the ointment remains the same - FOD can do more damage than just to engines. Thus most, if not all, air forces, even the Svenska flygvapnet, will prefer to avoid any FOD risks.

 

[AndersJ]

Let´s not forget that dispersed operations are not there to deal with runway cratering but aircraft survival. Base attacks target first the aircraft in their parking area and bomb the runway(s) only for to delay operations.
Having dispersed aircraft augments your exchange ratio with your opponent at the detriment of sorties generation (at least for large packages). Only an Air force that is heavily committed to stealth can use such dispersed area to launch sorties and match enemy strikes operations, while the context makes stealth an advantage (which is far longer that what as been anticipated - see Ukr and Iran).

In other words, a radar sparkling airframe like the Canards configured Gripen would only offer parity in such operations IF your enemy doesn´t use stealth and you have mass on your side (Gripen being smaller can´t fly as far with an equal weapon load).

Then there is the drone menace. An aggregated defense, like the one that is only possible on large bases in the foreseeable future, is always better suited than a single mobile defense system tasked to face a swarm of attacking Kamikaze drones while being a single point of failure (tracking/Intel) in the overall deception effort around which dispersed operations are constructed.

So, Yes to Gripen as an interceptor based on dispersed rwy in remote (less populated) regions. No to Gripen outlasting/Outgunning an enemy like Russia (the one that was anticipated before Ukraine) or China.

This equation was fairly ascertained by Norge, Finns and Swiss, among others, that understood the concept after years of practice and went for F-35. I am surprised that (some) Swede just continue pulling out the same false assumptions, even at the detriment of their industry future and country defensive capabilities.

Heck, I won´t be surprised to see F-47 having rugged terrain capable landing gear, Jaguar like. (what would explain Safran commitment).

Dispersed road base operations will benefit you irrespective if you have stealth or not:

Even if the enemy has radar coverage and know exactly where the aircraft landed (which won’t be the case in most cases anyway if you cover the last part of your ingress to the road base at low altitude), you could even so have taxied to any of the numerous dispersal sites. These can, and in wartime will be, masked with Barracuda camouflage netting which covers everything from the ultraviolet, visible, infrared to the radar spectrum.

In addition, stealth only works as long as you have no external stores, and for many missions you will need external fuel tanks, anti-ship missiles, jamming pods, cruise missiles, bombs and bomb pods etc anyway so stealth goes out the window rather quickly.

So for an enemy to figure out where the Gripens are parked will be like finding a needle in a haystack, meaning you would deplete your stock of Iskanders in no time. Also, the best defense against drones is distance and dispersion: They have limited range and trouble finding dispersed units. Take the Archer artillery system for example. Its survival rate in Ukraine has been stellar, even though it's one of the most hunted targets around. So again, the best defense for an aircraft in today's combat environment lies in mobility and dispersion: Just as the Bas 90 system provides.

In addition, I don’t think the SwAF will care much if some anonymous poster in an aviation forum makes unsubstantiated claims about how Norway, Finland and Switzerland have drawn different conclusions than Sweden. In fact, I would even say that it has the exact opposite effect and only strengthens any Swede’s conviction that we are on the right path when rejuvenating Bas 90, since anything connected Swedish defense efforts so groundlessly but vociferously objected to, is probably good for us.

 

[GTX]

I don’t think the SwAF will care much if some anonymous Russian in an aviation forum makes unsubstantiated claims

I am not Russian or Pro-Russian (Putin's Russia).
I do however have a weak spot for Slavic (and non-slavic/eastern) ladies (something well shared among westeners...).
Hope that fix the thing with more precise arguments...

Guys, let's not devolve to personal attacks - real or perceived.

 

[lmaoxd]

I am not Russian or Pro-Russian (Putin's Russia).
I do however have a weak spot for Slavic (and non-slavic/eastern) ladies (something well shared among westeners...).
Hope that fix the thing with more precise arguments...

???

 

[TomcatViP]

A bad attempt to be funny. My sincere apologies for the offense. ( I deleted my post)

@mods: please act on the Russian allegation. It's an insult to me.

 

[AndersJ]

A bad attempt to be funny. My sincere apologies for the offense. ( I deleted my post)

@mods: please act on the Russian allegation. It's an insult to me.

No worries I'll edit my post. (Edit: fixed now)

And when we are on the subject insulting posts: I guess that means that you'll edit out "(some) Swede" as well right?

 

[TomcatViP]

No Swede left (in my post).

 

[GTX]

No Swede left (in my post).

What, you missed the opportunity to say "No Swede left behind..."

 

[Ainen]

Then there is the drone menace. An aggregated defense, like the one that is only possible on large bases in the foreseeable future, is always better suited than a single mobile defense system tasked to face a swarm of attacking Kamikaze drones while being a single point of failure (tracking/Intel) in the overall deception effort around which dispersed operations are constructed.

It isn't really. Best way v drones/space recon is not being seen, which is far easier with airframe that fits in/under less obvious cover. Light fighter can be hidden under normal trees and in many other normal agricultural cover options, which isn't the case with medium fighters.

This equation was fairly ascertained by Norge, Finns and Swiss, among others, that understood the concept after years of practice and went for F-35. I am surprised that we continue to the same false assumptions, even at the detriment of the Swedish industry future and country defensive capabilities.

It just says none of these even seriously considered resisting superior force alone, it was always either cavalry arrives / good guys begin first(somewhere).
Sweden actually did care.

 

[AndersJ]

@TomcatViP : Let's not make this a habit: After all, if we work things like this out ourselves, we will put the moderators out of a job and we wouldn't want to do that would we?

 

[AndersJ]

It just says none of these even seriously considered resisting superior force alone, it was always either cavalry arrives / good guys begin first(somewhere).
Sweden actually did care.

Yes, Sweden never planned for having to stand alone in the long run. But even so, the SwAF have always had a very high capability against a sea borne invasion: First with the J 32 Lansen and AJ 37 Viggen with Rb 04, and then later Gripen and RBS 15. And as long as the Bas 90 bases were intact, I would say a Soviet invasion would have been basically impossible without horrendous losses. This is also why the road base system and Bas 90 were so important: As long as this was intact we were more or less safe from invasion.

 

[Ainen]

Yes, Sweden never planned for having to stand alone in the long run. But even so, the SwAF have always had a very high capability against a sea borne invasion: First with the J 32 Lansen and AJ 37 Viggen with Rb 04, and then later Gripen and RBS 15. And as long as the Bas 90 bases were intact, I would say a Soviet invasion would have been basically impossible without horrendous losses. This is also why the road base system and Bas 90 were so important: As long as this was intact we were more or less safe from invasion.

Sweden at least had WW2 hedgehog experience, which lasted them through.
Nordics/Finland even before 2022 didn't really intend to fight on their own for any extended period of time at all.

And F-35A is a clear indicator here, it's just not the aircraft you choose to defend. Only to attack, and attack in a one-sided manner.

 

[Ozair]

And F-35A is a clear indicator here, it's just not the aircraft you choose to defend. Only to attack, and attack in a one-sided manner.

Why would an aircraft that lets you fly over your or your adversaries airspace virtually undetected, allowing you to engage adversary aircraft and land assests attacking your country, not be an aircraft you choose to defend with...