Gripen dispersed basing discussions

[Ainen]

Ahem rafale can do it all

Rafale misses half the list though.
It is not especially built for harder basing, and it's handcuffed to french weapons.
It's survival trait is range(via fuel tanks) and rather small unfolded footprint - a trait possible mainly via very light and lean airframe.

It's ultimately a French aircraft, French problem is not anyone at their borders, it's how to deliver problems to others beyond many sets of friendly borders.

 

[Nicolas10]

Rafale misses half the list though.
It is not especially built for harder basing, and it's handcuffed to french weapons.
It's survival trait is range(via fuel tanks) and rather small unfolded footprint - a trait possible mainly via very light and lean airframe.

It's ultimately a French aircraft, French problem is not anyone at their borders, it's how to deliver problems to others beyond many sets of friendly borders.

Alright so depending on ITAR hence the goodwill of the US to procure weapons/radars/ew/engines/systems is an asset in your opinion?

Also how many gbu types can it carry ? The meteor is a french weapon since when ?

Also if it can land on an aircraft carrier it can land on the network of prepared wider highways that sweden have built for dispersed basing. Yes it was very smart of the swedes to prepare their highways for dispersed basing. It's silly to believe only gripens can use those.

 

[Ainen]

Alright so depending on ITAR hence the goodwill of the US to procure weapons/radars/ew/engines/systems is an asset in your opinion?

To the end user, if he already managed to get on - certainly.
No purchasing country can afford long-term advanced weapon stocks; it is a deal with assumption（of support). France is a very bad source of such support, it just doesn't have much. We're talking barely 1 MICA load per aircraft at low point(which is just barely passed...if passed at all, taking into account significant expense in gulf). Furthermore, almost entire stock is badly outdated. Mica wasn't BVR world leader even when it just appeared. Now, we're talking about weapon substantially energetically weaker than vanilla RVV-AE. Which is known as non-competitive.

Also how many gbu types can it carry ? The meteor is a french weapon since when ?

...and meteors in french service very recently didn't even reach 1 weapon(not load) per aircraft. That's very little potential help France can spare.

Also if it can land on an aircraft carrier it can land on the network of prepared wider highways that sweden have built for dispersed basing.

It's two different rafales, with deck one having both less performance and (with that chassis) almost 100% different debris cone.
No one buys it for service beyond clean decks, and overall it's a big myth that carrier aircraft are automatically better on lesser strips.

 

[Nicolas10]

You don't need a Rafale M to land on or take off from such a highway.
Those are specially prepared and enlarged highways which allow fighter jets to use them. Not the other way around.

 

[Ainen]

You don't need a Rafale M to land on or take off from such a highway.
Those are specially prepared and enlarged highways which allow fighter jets to use them. Not the other way around.

You absolutely can disperse normal fighters, it's just less convenient and efficient, and places more burden on local support and higher requirement on strip.

Gripen(for it's generation) is everything, and it's the point. Should you remove these requirements, it probably could've been a substantially higher spec aircraft.
And Rafale is a good example here, because even M(which is deck, not dispersal - dispersal takes other features as well) takes performance hit.

We of course shouldn't overestimate too much Gripen itself here - it's a 1990s solution at core, and this isn't something refresh can fix.
Given how observation evolves, a truly up to date aircraft with ambitions to survive v superpower air attack(Russia isn't) now needs a substantially higher performance goal, both the aircraft and ground support. Both absolutely and especially for a given country size.

 

[AndersJ]

This is a quite old Gripen ground operations video, but I think it is still worth posting again since it has much more details than you usually see in more recent marketing videos.

It not only shows more details about how the aircraft has been designed for dispersed road operations and the type of ground gear used, but also details the responsibilities of the technician and each of the five "conscript type" assistants, and what they work with during a typical turn around.

 

[GTX]

Just to reiterate that it isn’t just Gripens that can operate away from traditional airfields.

 

[Ainen]

Just to reiterate that it isn’t just Gripens that can operate away from traditional airfields.

It never was (and there was never a special restriction to operate on prepared highways anyway, as long as they're long enough).

 

[TomcatViP]

The best example in large fighters would have been the Raptor with a design that integrates maintenance with a lower requirements on elevated maintenance operation.
I doubt that you can field service a Su-27 or an af-15 as easily as a Gripen, Raptor or F-35.

 

[Ainen]

The best example in large fighters would have been the Raptor with a design that integrates maintenance with a lower requirements on elevated operation.
I doubt that you can field service a Su-27 or an af-15 as easily as a Gripen, Raptor or F-35.

That was exactly the point - two of the least obvious aircraft of the generation just do it. Operation from toll roads isn't an indication by itself, indication is how much footprint you'll have. Measured in separate support vehicles, fuel trucks, how much does it take to hide you from the air, etc.

Arguably, with one exception (if with certain generosity of mind we include Harrier II plus as a corresponding fighter aircraft), better STOL and easiest dispersal are two very different groups, which is often confusing.

And you in any case come from capabilities, politics and requirements.
For example, finns operate F-18C/D from highways all the time. Hornet is certainly a STOL aircraft, it never was meant to be dispersable. Intent matters more here, especially during peacetime.
There's nothing illegal in f-16s operating from dispersed basing, yet before Ukrainians(on type's 50th anniversary) no one even bothered to make equipment promptly mobile.

 

[Wotan]

An interesting video.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v7Y8qfAOI4

 

[DJK]

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.

I think that was the one i read once. Tyre burst after hitting a tiny peice of metal on the runway, which threw tyre debri into the landing gear and whatever else, i think starting a fire.

 

[DJK]

I find it a bit weird to see arguments that [insert favourite aircraft] can also take of from a prepared road. All fighter jets can do many things and have their strengths.

I have an analogy... Builders started with hand saws that could cut timber literally anywhere. Then electric circular saws became popular, and just needed a power cable that had to reach from a power source to the work location. Eventually that became a large safety device with cables snaking all over the work site and everyone competing to get power for their tools. It wasnt too bad because most building sites would set that up by default, and you could drag the power cables anywhere. Then battery tools became popular, they tended to be smaller but far more portable, and had the disadvantage of needing to be recharged at the central power supply. If battery tools aren't enough, you probably also can use the corded tools onsite, so you can choose both (if you are Canadian). No sensible builder will ever say battery tools are useless, but will choose which is more convenient and faster for a job.

So I think we can say Gripen is more useful for some airforces, whether because of ownership costs, compatibility with political conditions, optimised for dispersed basing, or availability of weapons/accessories. For many airforces, another choice will be better and may even involve an intermediate capability until 6th gen choices become aavailable. Learning how the dispersal ecosystem works might allow a country to decide if its relevant for them.

 

[Wotan]

A detailed demonstration.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyJhsBKO9xM


And a presentation of the main tool.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5-9ca4xU-Y

 

[Ainen]

Indeed, many nice little details in the process.