Gripen dispersed basing discussions

[EmoBirb]

Dispersed operations are all nice and dandy, and a decent feature especially for forces that seek a certain kind of autonomy and fail-safe in case of an armed attack. But as @GTX already mentioned, the aircraft itself is just a single component in a wider ecosystem. And that ecosystem even in the Home country of the Gripen has been severely degraded, while being non-existent in the handful of Gripen customers that exist. But other factors also play a part, for example fleet size, dispersed operations may increase survivability of a single airframe, but when you have like...10? (How many Gripen E/F exist since it's unveiling? 20 at Max?) these can be quickly and efficiently hunted down in the age of easily available ballsitic missiles, cheap long range drones, accessible and compact surveillance drones and at the higher end of the spectrum round-the-clock satellite surveillance. Meaning when the pool you start out with is already kinda small, it can actually be exhaust quickly. While supportive such dispersed operations for a large fleet of aircraft requires a lot of infrastructure and personelle (obviously like any other large fleet). Just that this infrastructure comes on top of the existing regular air bases, which in turn requires funding. Lastly I'd also just like to mention cost, what seperates the Gripen and let's say the MiG-21 (as someone brought it up as an example) is that the Gripen is still an expensive asset to procure and also maintain. Especially the more capable and modern models are not cheap to acquire. One only has to look at the now almost failed state of South Africa to see that they struggle incredibly hard to keep their small fleet of Gripens operational.

Yes the Gripen and especially the Gripen E/F are not only capable aircraft but also fascinating and quirky. But it isn't as groundbreaking as some like to make it out to be and it cuts back elsewhere to offer the specific advantages that define it. The export market has not been kind to it, which in my eyes is unfortunate because like most of us I'm very fond of the aircraft. But this, in my eyes, proves that dispersed operations or the optimization for it is not a huge selling point. And seemingly doesn't outweigh the advantages offered by other products on the market, like the fellow Eurocanard Rafale or the omnipresent and still evolving F-16.

To conclude, there's a lot more to dispersed operation than just the aircraft itself, or even the aircraft and the equipment to make it ready to fly on short notice. It doesn't seem like it's a strong selling point to export customers and while the Gripen is a capable and quirky jet, it's not as oustanding or unique as many, especially online, make it out to be (especially post 2022). And while this may upset some people who view aircraft as objects of national pride, I'd say it's a very honest look at the jet and the idea around it. And idea that is not as present or having the resurgence some think it has.

 

[Ainen]

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...

It has big vulnerable fooprint, which is far more consequentual for defensive operations. Especially if they're meant to be extended for a significant period of time. If you can operate such assets freely, flying over adversaries airspace, it means your homeland isn't under much of a threat. Which is not a condition of defense.

What matters more for defense is not being virtually undetected over adversarial airspace (cost incurring attack v larger force can be perfectly done with stand off weapons - especially if it's done by smaller force, where every plane counts), it's detecting virtually undetectable adversarial assets over your own. Especially those that threaten to compromise integrity of far more mission-critical survivable GBADs.

F-35A is neither significantly dispersable, nor it is that much added value v threatening assets(for significant operational and acquisition costs). I.e. it is a primarily offensive asset.

 

[Ozair]

It has big vulnerable fooprint, which is far more consequentual for defensive operations. Especially if they're meant to be extended for a significant period of time. If you can operate such assets freely, flying over adversaries airspace, it means your homeland isn't under much of a threat. Which is not a condition of defense.

Disgree. If I want to protect my country I would be far more successful by preventing the adversary from generaing combat power especially from the air. The F-35 can land on runways/highways like any other fighter aircraft and if you're looking for enhanced short field dispersed ops then operate the B or C fleet ovr the A.

What matters more for defense is not being virtually undetected over adversarial airspace (cost incurring attack v larger force can be perfectly done with stand off weapons - especially if it's done by smaller force, where every plane counts), it's detecting virtually undetectable adversarial assets over your own. Especially those that threaten to compromise integrity of far more mission-critical survivable GBADs.

And in that context a Gripen E offers no advantage over any other comparable airframe. Meanwhile being non VLO it will be detected by a competent adversary the moment it takes off.

 

[Ainen]

Disgree. If I want to protect my country I would be far more successful by preventing the adversary from generaing combat power especially from the air. The F-35 can land on runways/highways like any other fighter aircraft and if you're looking for enhanced short field dispersed ops then operate the B or C fleet ovr the A.

If they would've procured B - this would make a solid argument indeed; but they didn't, nor did they invest into dispersed/survivable infrastructure. As things stand, the only F-35 force which was seriously considering aircraft survivability on land from day 1 is RAF(legacy of harrier force)... though they didn't really have money to back it up, but at least they tried. Them and Singapore, which is perhaps the only solid case(from get go) put into practice.
USMC came to that need later on (Philippines ops v rapidly developing China).
Others just don't care - judging from the way they procure.

And in that context a Gripen E offers no advantage over any other comparable airframe. Meanwhile being non VLO it will be detected by a competent adversary the moment it takes off.

It's primary advantage is being dispersable indeed, it isn't all that unique capability otherwise. Just modern.
(though it carries everything mission-specific, like LWIR IRST)

 

[timmymagic]

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

Errr...yes....

Because we literally have a recent example in Ukraine of that exact thing....even with surprise on their side (incredibly despite the precise warnings from UK and US), and a colossal attack involving cruise missiles, ballistic missiles AND manned aircraft...the Russian's weren't able to do more than briefly suppress a handful of Ukrainian airfields...and the majority were completely untouched....4.5 years later the Ukrainian Air Force is happily still operating from those bases...and the Russian efforts to put them out of action have effectively ceased due to failure...meanwhile the Ukrainian's are running far more effective airfield denial operations than the Russian's are....

If you compare Ukraine to Central and Eastern Europe you find hundreds more airfields available, that are much, much further away from the threat so would have far longer/greater warning, are better prepared for battle damage repair, better protected etc etc...and will act on prior intelligence warnings....

Could the Russian's suppress a small number of nearby airfields temporarily, or make them unusable due to the threat? Yes. (looking at you Šiauliai, Amari and Lielvārde in the Baltic States)? But they neither have the scale, capability, systems etc etc to do so. How many missiles can they actually launch in the first 2 hours? How many targets are there....

 

[Ainen]

meanwhile the Ukrainian's are running far more effective airfield denial operations than the Russian's are....

?
8k bombs last month, against same couple hundreds from Ukraine (number being inflated by SDBs, actual sorties are pitiful).

Part of it is that VKS, while it can't cross FLOT, bombs whatever wherever it wants, for Ukraine it's a complicated operation of several groups of jets with short jumps via intermediate airfields every time.

The basic assumption for Bas90 was actual presense over country(against what happens in Iran). And note that Ukraninian denial is effective only via GBAD which still no european country can match, and only for extended campaign(unacceptable losses longterm).

 

[timmymagic]

?
8k bombs last month, against same couple hundreds from Ukraine (number being inflated by SDBs, actual sorties are pitiful).

Airfield Denial....

Look at Ukrainian operations against Russian air fields...especially over Crimea...

 

[AndersJ]

Some people in this forum argue that because the Gripen has not sold in any greater numbers, that this would somehow prove that both the aircraft itself and the Swedish dispersed road base concept are not any good.

However, there are a couple of other explanations to this as well: The first of which is the procurement cost, which is arguably not one of the Gripen’s strongest sales points. And while the Gripen’s operating expenses are very competitive (and also the life cycle cost), the procurement price is on the high side.

But there is a simple answer to this as well, and that is that it’s a Catch-22 situation: The unit price is high because the series size is small, while competitors like the US have an enormous production run to distribute the development costs on.

Secondly, if a nation has ever expressed interest in SAAB aircraft, the US has not exactly been very supporting historically: First of all, India was very interested in the Viggen back in the 1970’s, but this was stopped by the US even though it was powered by a Swedish developed military aircraft engine based on the civilian Pratt & Whitney JT8D used in airliners. So it was fine for the US to sell it in the Boeing 727, 737, and Douglas DC-9’s etc, but not for Sweden!

In addition, one nation interested in the Gripen was apparently told by a US sales representative that there was a looooong backlog to fill before any AMRAAM’s could be delivered if they went with the Gripen. However, if they went with the US produced F-XX then those AMRAAM’s could be part of a package deal, wink, wink. True story or not? It was at least something I heard spoken about at the time I was in the industry.

So while some may officially laud free markets and free competition from a speaker’s podium, things can be quite different when push comes to shove. And if the market is rigged, it’s difficult to secure sales, and you end up in the Catch-22 situation I mentioned earlier.

So in summary, I would therefore be very reluctant to judge either the Gripen as an aircraft, or the Swedish dispersed road base system based solely on Gripen sales figures.

 

[GTX]

In addition, one nation interested in the Gripen was apparently told by a US sales representative that there was a looooong backlog to fill before any AMRAAM’s could be delivered if they went with the Gripen. However, if they went with the US produced F-XX then those AMRAAM’s could be part of a package deal, wink, wink. True story or not? It was at least something I heard spoken about at the time I was in the industry.

Details?

 

[GTX]

I would like to emphasise that I am not against the concept of dispersed field operations per se. I actually find the concept quite fascinating. My only issue within the context of the current discussion is the claim by some that the Saab Gripen (as a platform itself, not as part of a broader system) is either unique in this capability or that the platform itself automatically bestows the capability on any operator. If an air force is prepared to invest in either pre-positioning support and /or in appropriate support assets it is quite possible for many types to achieve the same.

As an adjunct to this, I refer people to the way the RAF Harrier force was planned to be operated during the height of the cold war (just a couple of articles):

https://www.key.aero/article/harrier-gr3s-frontline-raf-germany-cold-war-opshttps://www.key.aero/article/how-raf-took-harrier-field
I find it particularly interesting such comments that "...war sites used minor roads for take off after taxiing out from ‘sheltered accommodation’ within existing infrastructure. This does not mean that all aircraft hides were within buildings – some were in adjacent yards to factories and camoufiaged. No war sites operated from woods...”.

As already mentioned elsewhere int his thread, in many respect a STOVL/VTOL platform offers even greater dispersable capability that ones such as the Gripen. Mind you, even with this, much needs to be done to ensure the logistics support is available otherwise all one ends up with is expensive aircraft sitting around the place unable to do anything.

 

[Ozair]

Some people in this forum argue that because the Gripen has not sold in any greater numbers, that this would somehow prove that both the aircraft itself and the Swedish dispersed road base concept are not any good.

The Gripen carries US baggage with the high US content in the aircraft. That is as much a reason for the low sales numbers as its general low capability against comparable airframes as Gripen remains a lightweight fighter in comparison to rivals and suffers the consequences of such with reduced payload and range. Previous to the second iteration of Trump if you are going to enter the US ecosystem then you might as well go neck deep with platforms that are US as the long term support and sustainment is much more certain. With Trump's foreign partner attitudes that US dependance is a further issue to future sales.

In addition, one nation interested in the Gripen was apparently told by a US sales representative that there was a looooong backlog to fill before any AMRAAM’s could be delivered if they went with the Gripen. However, if they went with the US produced F-XX then those AMRAAM’s could be part of a package deal, wink, wink. True story or not? It was at least something I heard spoken about at the time I was in the industry.

I find this hard to believe. The US sales representative that sells you the airframe, ie LM or Boeing, is different to the one that sells you the missile, RTX and you don't get a package deal where LM or Boeing throw some missiles in to sweeten the sale...

Additionally US missile sales are two eyes agreements, ie any purchase of AMRAAM is a US to that specific nation contract and does not involve a third country.

 

[Ainen]

Some people in this forum argue that because the Gripen has not sold in any greater numbers, that this would somehow prove that both the aircraft itself and the Swedish dispersed road base concept are not any good.

Elephant in the room: until Ukraine, few countries in the world actually did need a small country invasion denier.
Best way to deny an invasion until 2020s for a west-aligned nation was to be as friendly with US as possible. Or, better, US, Eurofighter gmbh(UK above all) and France altogether.

Like, it's probably best fighter possible for DPRK, but they just won't get it. It's quite possibly best fighter possible for Taiwan(better than the F-CK) - but Sweden won't sell, and US goodwill is more important than any fighter.
Otherwise, it's selling point was being non-aligned(very small market) and relatively cheap for western aircraft(Koreans now eat this cake).

 

[Ozair]

Elephant in the room: until Ukraine, few countries in the world actually did need a small country invasion denier.
Best way to deny an invasion until 2020s for a west-aligned nation was to be as friendly with US as possible. Or, better, US, Eurofighter gmbh(UK above all) and France altogether.

Ukraine has survived fine without the aircraft to date and fighting with what they have or have had donated. best way to deny an invasion is probably to build kilometers of dragon teeth and layer your border with mines...

Like, it's probably best fighter possible for DPRK, but they just won't get it. It's quite possibly best fighter possible for Taiwan(better than the F-CK) - but Sweden won't sell, and US goodwill is more important than any fighter.
Otherwise, it's selling point was being non-aligned(very small market) and relatively cheap for western aircraft(Koreans now eat this cake).

Gripen has never been non-aligned though. With a US engine it always required US approval for a sale and the high UK content allowed them to veto Argentina, hence the market for Gripen has always been small and likely will remain so.

 

[Ainen]

Ukraine has survived fine without the aircraft to date and fighting with what they have or have had donated. best way to deny an invasion is probably to build kilometers of dragon teeth and layer your border with mines...

Well, surviving invasion with completely ineffective aircraft was hardly the desired path.

Gripen has never been non-aligned though. With a US engine it always required US approval for a sale and the high UK content allowed them to veto Argentina, hence the market for Gripen has always been small and likely will remain so.

But it was bought by nations specifically trying to keep away: Thailand, SA. Or, nations counting money: central Europe.

 

[Ozair]

Well, surviving invasion with completely ineffective aircraft was hardly the desired path.

But the aircraft haven't been completely ineffective, the difference is the acceptable risk of the Ukrainians in the early portions of the war was higher than a typical western military would accept.

But it was bought by nations specifically trying to keep away: Thailand, SA. Or, nations counting money: central Europe.

Thailand still operates far more F-16s than Gripens and even with the Gripen E order are not expected to operate more Gripens than F-16s. SA was bribery and Hungary and Czech operated as leases to reduce costs. None of those operates were seeking non alignment with the US.

 

[Ainen]

But the aircraft haven't been completely ineffective, the difference is the acceptable risk of the Ukrainians in the early portions of the war was higher than a typical western military would accept.

To my knowledge, to this day, Ukrainian fighter aircraft of all types haven't managed to score a single A2A victory against manned aircraft.
Granted, they weren't /absolutely/ ineffective in that they managed to turn away some strike sorties very early in the war; they also found highly important roles later in the war. But this was later, and still not up to the desired standard.

Which is not just doing things well as they are now, it's being able to live through v 2022 No.2, and one when VKS potentially won't be completely technically blind and handcuffed by tank generals.

Which is two different aircraft, and why they're trying to go Rafale/Gripen split (beyond obvious politics).

Thailand still operates far more F-16s than Gripens and even with the Gripen E order are not expected to operate more Gripens than F-16s. SA was bribery and Hungary and Czech operated as leases to reduce costs. None of those operates were seeking non alignment with the US.

However, their F-16s were procured previously; subsequently, they acquired Gripens.
This is indeed a less provocative procurement v China.

 

[timmymagic]

would like to emphasise that I am not against the concept of dispersed field operations per se. I actually find the concept quite fascinating. My only issue within the context of the current discussion is the claim by some that the Saab Gripen (as a platform itself, not as part of a broader system) is either unique in this capability or that the platform itself automatically bestows the capability on any operator. If an air force is prepared to invest in either pre-positioning support and /or in appropriate support assets it is quite possible for many types to achieve the same.

This is my view as well. Gripen is a perfectly good combat aircraft. And it is, arguably, more suitable than most for smaller nations or those that only require air policing, with a limited combat capability. if Ireland, for example, ever got back into manned combat aircraft and was buying new...after LIFT aircraft like F/A-50 or M-346FA, then Gripen should be the only name on the list...

But comparisons with other, larger more capable platforms, make it clear that there is only so much you can do with a very small aircraft that is limited in real payload, range, performance, electrical power generation, radar size etc. etc. That doesn't mean its a bad aircraft...its a very good, but small, one...with capabilities restrained by the compromises that Saab/Sweden had to make. I think there is a good discussion to be had on whether Saab's marketing of Gripen has been as clever as they think...or if it has actually hindered sales...

Similar story with the BAS90/dispersed operations. It's not some Swedish magic....if you want to really see true dispersed operations you'd be looking at the RAF's Harrier force in the Cold War that took it to another level (including the purchase of Chinook to provide logistical support) or studying the West German and others efforts around STOVL dispersed ops.

And the fact that Finland has exercised dispersed operations with its F/A-18C far more regularly in recent decades than the Swedish Air Force have....never gets a mention...or how the fact that F/A-18 being developed for carrier operations makes it also ideal for dispersed operations....(or Rafale M for that matter).

I find this hard to believe. The US sales representative that sells you the airframe, ie LM or Boeing, is different to the one that sells you the missile, RTX and you don't get a package deal where LM or Boeing throw some missiles in to sweeten the sale...

Wouldn't be shocking to be honest. There has been very sharp dealing with the US and ITAR regulations in recent decades...for example the UK was looking to sell Saudi Asraam and Paveway IV. The US put repeated blockers in the way....whilst also selling Saudi AIM-9X (which used the earlier Asraam seeker) and GBU-12 (effectively the US Paveway IV). Net result is that the UK now has an un-written, unpublished rule of all UK built air weapons being ITAR free now....

 

[AndersJ]

Yes, you can operate basically any fighter from a road base.

But at what cost, and how well will they perform?

And yes, road base operations are not unique to the SwAF, and others have been doing it as well.

But why is it so hard to admit that Sweden has been way ahead of other Air Forces in using this as a central piece in their doctrine, and have developed aircraft uniquely suited to this task?

Pounding a square peg through a round hole, i.e. operating F-16s, F-18s and F-35s from road bases, is perfectly possible with enough force.

However, Gripen is the ONLY aircraft now on sale that has been DESIGNED to be operated in this way from the beginning. And since this is now the way of the future, hurry up and buy one today, before they run out!

 

[lmaoxd]

Yes, you can operate basically any fighter from a road base.

But at what cost, and how well will they perform?

And yes, road base operations are not unique to the SwAF, and others have been doing it as well.

But why is it so hard to admit that Sweden has been way ahead of other Air Forces in using this as a central piece in their doctrine, and have developed aircraft uniquely suited to this task?

Pounding a square peg through a round hole, i.e. operating F-16s, F-18s and F-35s from road bases, is perfectly possible with enough force.

However, Gripen is the ONLY aircraft now on sale that has been DESIGNED to be operated in this way from the beginning. And since this is now the way of the future, hurry up and buy one today, before they run out!

Saab should hire you as their marketing manager.

 

[Ainen]

But why is it so hard to admit that Sweden has been way ahead of other Air Forces in using this as a central piece in their doctrine, and have developed aircraft uniquely suited to this task?

It sticks into a very sore point since 1980s, which is can USAF even fight v opponent throwing lots of angry stuff at airfields.
Iran is inconclusive, as significant part of operations were effectively moved out, and those that didn't - hit headlines from time to time. Make no mistake about it, US Army does excellent job protecting the airfields, but ultimately it's just a target rich environment within range.
I am not sure how really advanced somewhat older PLA missiles are, but whatever the case - their current kit and its production tempo just won't allow what we see in the ME.

This is my view as well. Gripen is a perfectly good combat aircraft. And it is, arguably, more suitable than most for smaller nations or those that only require air policing, with a limited combat capability. if Ireland, for example, ever got back into manned combat aircraft and was buying new...after LIFT aircraft like F/A-50 or M-346FA, then Gripen should be the only name on the list...

Gripen is the lightest of high end fighters. Which is both a blessing and a curse.
Survivable basing is a nice promo line, but it is honestly the point at the wrong end of the stick - not in that it doesn't exist(like, seriously?), but in who really needs it, and who'll pay for that survivable basing(where aircraft is just a creme).

Especially as there's a significant price to pay for this capability: you can both get a larger fighter for same or less money (at least off the shelf), and you can get a fighter without unnecesary dispersal adaptations, but with, for example, far more necessary range instead. Small aircraft aren't necessarily short ranged, but specifically Gripen is certainly not a long range fighter.

Gripen is ultimately a Sweden-specific aircraft, and aircraft which even Sweden since 2022(or 1991?) doesn't really need. Sweden may get one last laugh if we'll find ourselves in full scale nuclear war, though...but Gripen doesn't carry nukes.

 

[AndersJ]

Saab should hire you as their marketing manager.

I'm retired now, but for the right price I'm always willing to go back Le Bourget and Farnborough to shoot the breeze. It's actually an open secret I have a horse in this race. The answer is on my homepage.

 

[timmymagic]

And since this is now the way of the future

Is it though...

 

[AndersJ]

Is it though...

Absolutely! You get this:

Versus this:

Special offer: Get your Bas 90 road base package today and save 25%!

 

[Ainen]

Special offer: Get your Bas 90 road base package today and save 25%!

Delivery in 20 years.
;p

p.s. to be fair, dispersed basing would be a disaster in Arabian deserts. Every geoography has its own preferred solutions. Sweden is unique in having industry and will to develop theirs.

 

[AndersJ]

Delivery in 20 years.
;p

No worries: That's how long it's going to take before any potential Bas 90 customers needs to worry about any special military operations anyway.

 

[Ainen]

No worries: That's how long it's going to take before any potential Bas 90 customers need to worry about any special military operations anyway.

But then it probably makes more sense to wait out this cycle on FA-50 now instead. ;p

p.s. big shame Switzerland never took off as aircraft manufacturer. Bas90 is cool, but Piranhas in automated mountain carriersbases are even more Gundam.

 

[TomcatViP]

NATO had very famous programs early 60's that produced the G-90 (a design that will outnumber the Gripen even in a thousand year laps time), customized the 104 in the G version, saw the birth of the F-5A Freedom Fighter, The F-5E Tiger, the Gnat, the Jaguar, The Mirage F-1 (yes she has that non-delta wing and heavy landing gear for some reasons) etc.. etc... Heck, every fighters in the RAF before the Hunter could even takeoff from a grass field (that outnumber by far the number of 1km straight roads, even in the UK).
The F-22, the most high tech fighter in the world so far, is even designed to be maintained w/o scaffolds, with every pannels accessible from a man standing. nearly idem for the Rafale that has modular items, field replaceable that allows composite rebuild of systems (instead of changing the whole when a subpart malfunctions).

And that is without talking about the old Soviet Union (remember that Warsaw pact?) that made rough fields operations a mandatory design criteria!

So, I am sorry but, as great the nimble Gripen is, it is not unique or innovative. It is rather flabbergasting to say that to Canadians that have flown F-5 for decades.

The only valid question is: is it it well done for the task at hands?

 

[Wotan]

Some people in this forum argue that because the Gripen has not sold in any greater numbers, that this would somehow prove that both the aircraft itself and the Swedish dispersed road base concept are not any good.

However, there are a couple of other explanations to this as well: The first of which is the procurement cost, which is arguably not one of the Gripen’s strongest sales points. And while the Gripen’s operating expenses are very competitive (and also the life cycle cost), the procurement price is on the high side.

Secondly, if a nation has ever expressed interest in SAAB aircraft, the US has not exactly been very supporting historically: First of all, India was very interested in the Viggen back in the 1970’s, but this was stopped by the US even though it was powered by a Swedish developed military aircraft engine based on the civilian Pratt & Whitney JT8D used in airliners. So it was fine for the US to sell it in the Boeing 727, 737, and Douglas DC-9’s etc, but not for Sweden!

In addition, one nation interested in the Gripen was apparently told by a US sales representative that there was a looooong backlog to fill before any AMRAAM’s could be delivered if they went with the Gripen. However, if they went with the US produced F-XX then those AMRAAM’s could be part of a package deal, wink, wink. True story or not? It was at least something I heard spoken about at the time I was in the industry.

What you said is true. There is a lot of politics involved in the aquisition of armament. If you look at the european F-16 operators map, the newest F-16 operators are also new NATO members and also on the borderland of the Alliance.


They aligned themselves in this way with the strongest NATO nation, USA, and its military. In case of a conflict with a big bad guy from the East interoperability and capacity to service on their own airports the "saviour" US Air Force was very important. And also was the need to be perceived as a good customer who "buys american" and needs to be protected.

In the case of Romania for example, the Gripen was a favourite when the replacement of the Mig-21 Lancer started to be discussed. It has some similarities with the Mig-21. Small, rugged, not so costly to operate, but "good enough" for what is required from a multirole. But at the time Sweden was non aligned and there were concerns about what would happen in the case of a conflict. What if the swedes decide to remain neutral and don`t help us with spare parts and aircrafts? In case of buying the "de facto" standard NATO multirole fighter, the F-16, even if the operation was more demanding and costly the stocks of spare parts would come from american depots, without the need to keep everything on site, and replacement airframes would have been recuperated from the ones stored at AMARG.

There is a reason for which both Poland and Romania have chosen the F-16, the Abrams tank, the HIMARS and the Patriot missiles. And this not necesarily because they the best in their class. But they are sold by the "best ally".

 

[Ainen]

So, I am sorry but, as great the nimble Gripen is, it is not unique or innovative. It is rather flabbergasting to say that to the Canadians that have flown F-5 for decades.

It would be more normal back then. But now it's certainly the most dispersable western fighter aircraft - especially (as usual for Sweden) if you have magic NCOs to make the system work.
Furthermore, it's somewhat unfair - these aircraft were rugged, but by modern standards they also were simple. Design effort spent on making Jas-39 easier to hide is obvious and considerable, in many ways(especially ecosystem part) it's beyond Viggen.

Yes, Su-57 is STOL in S/MTD sense, and has heavy duty landing gear; it's also big, and takes more service; it's certainly not Western. Yes, it is likely a better competitor in dispersal ... if you have a big enough country. Which is just a different requirement.

Yes, late Migs are still available for order, but they're also bigger aircraft. They lost their original extreme off-road capability, and hardly are that unique since 9-15 onwards.

 

[Ingraman]

Blurry yet interesnting PR slides

https://twitter.com/x/status/1593188756957589508

View: https://x.com/GarethJennings3/status/1593188756957589508/photo/1

 

[GTX]

and have developed aircraft uniquely suited to this task?

However, Gripen is the ONLY aircraft now on sale that has been DESIGNED to be operated in this way from the beginning.

Examples of what exactly makes the Gripen design unique please? I have yet to see any meaningful examples. Just talking about things such as LRUs doesn't count since all other alternates also use such.

And since this is now the way of the future, hurry up and buy one today, before they run out!

What before the production line closes down?

 

[GTX]

dispersed basing would be a disaster in Arabian deserts. Every geoography has its own preferred solutions. Sweden is unique in having industry and will to develop theirs.

That's quite a good point. Unless one was to base in buildings/built up areas (see above Harrier articles), some places are just going to be better suited to others to the entire concept.

 

[GTX]

There is a reason for which both Poland and Romania have chosen the F-16, the Abrams tank, the HIMARS and the Patriot missiles. And this not necesarily because they the best in their class. But they are sold by the "best ally".

A lot of the reason people buy the US produced items is that the scale of the support base is just so large which makes support much easier. This is getting off topic though.

 

[Apophenia]

...
So, I am sorry but, as great the nimble Gripen is, it is not unique or innovative. It is rather flabbergasting to say that to Canadians that have flown F-5 for decades.

The only valid question is: is it it well done for the task at hands?

And Canada would have flown the CF-5 for much longer had the Northrop Corporation not sued the GoC for an MLU programme which Northrop had played no part in.

Maybe US defence firm litigiousness should be added to any list of "valid question"s?

 

[AndersJ]

What you said is true. There is a lot of politics involved in the aquisition of armament. If you look at the european F-16 operators map, the newest F-16 operators are also new NATO members and also on the borderland of the Alliance.
View attachment 808295

They aligned themselves in this way with the strongest NATO nation, USA, and its military. In case of a conflict with a big bad guy from the East interoperability and capacity to service on their own airports the "saviour" US Air Force was very important. And also was the need to be perceived as a good customer who "buys american" and needs to be protected.

In the case of Romania for example, the Gripen was a favourite when the replacement of the Mig-21 Lancer started to be discussed. It has some similarities with the Mig-21. Small, rugged, not so costly to operate, but "good enough" for what is required from a multirole. But at the time Sweden was non aligned and there were concerns about what would happen in the case of a conflict. What if the swedes decide to remain neutral and don`t help us with spare parts and aircrafts? In case of buying the "de facto" standard NATO multirole fighter, the F-16, even if the operation was more demanding and costly the stocks of spare parts would come from american depots, without the need to keep everything on site, and replacement airframes would have been recuperated from the ones stored at AMARG.

There is a reason for which both Poland and Romania have chosen the F-16, the Abrams tank, the HIMARS and the Patriot missiles. And this not necesarily because they the best in their class. But they are sold by the "best ally".

All very good points and yes, politics plays a big part in these decisions doesn't it? Just look at Finland's F-18 deal before joining NATO. No one (neither the Finns nor the Russians) saw that coming (i.e. Finland and Sweden joining NATO), so I'm pretty sure establishing closer ties with the US when the opportunity arose was a big part in the decision to go with the F-18 at the time.

 

[AndersJ]

Blurry yet interesnting PR slides

https://twitter.com/x/status/1593188756957589508

View: https://x.com/GarethJennings3/status/1593188756957589508/photo/1

That’s going up on the wall right now. In a gilded frame:

“USAF Europe says Sweden has Agile Combat Employment (ACE) down better than any AF. And we are going to exploit that for NATO. It’s very exciting!”

Signed, CO USAFE, Gen James B Hecker

Well, well, well, looks like I can kiss that SAAB marketing job goodbye then don’t it?

 

[Manuducati]

Examples of what exactly makes the Gripen design unique please? I have yet to see any meaningful examples. Just talking about things such as LRUs doesn't count since all other alternates also use such.

Let's take it the other way around...

Which modern multirole supersonic fighter, small to moderate size, offers (easy) maintenance at low cost and footprint (in personal and ground equipment), STOL characteristics (such as direct no-flare approach with dedicated HUD symbology, sturdy landing gear, heavy duty brakes, oversized canards doubling as airbrakes with downward force), low turnover time, and compatibility with a large array of american and European armament?

Hate it or love it, for good or bad reasons, but the Gripen is the only one to tick all those boxes.

Is it a miracle weapon? Absolutely not. But it has non negligible advantages in some fields.

 

[Nicolas10]

Let's take it the other way around...

Which modern multirole supersonic fighter, small to moderate size, offers (easy) maintenance at low cost and footprint (in personal and ground equipment), STOL characteristics (such as direct no-flare approach with dedicated HUD symbology, sturdy landing gear, heavy duty brakes, oversized canards doubling as airbrakes with downward force), low turnover time, and compatibility with a large array of american and European armament?

Hate it or love it, for good or bad reasons, but the Gripen is the only one to tick all those boxes.

Is it a miracle weapon? Absolutely not. But it has non negligible advantages in some fields.

Ahem rafale can do it all

 

[Manuducati]

Ahem rafale can do it all

Maintenance, flight hour cost and footprint are higher (two engines vs one of similar class) but yes the Rafale (M?) is a close contender.

 

[zjz]

Flygbassystem 60 and Flygbassystem 90

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_60
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_90