Swiss pilots fly next-generation Gripen

[Tshering22]

You're mistaken. Their forex reserves are more than that of India. They have a very tightly monitored and controlled economy. Extremely high standard of living. Number of world's major firms are from Switzerland.

When did I deny that they are having high standard of living?

Man, they have their act together. What's to feel good in wasting billions on weapons while your people die in poverty.

The nation exists because there is billions worth of weapons. Otherwise it won't.

(goes for both India and Pakistan) Even USA, a broke nation they are, their people will soon find out the hard way.

USA's political strategy is different from what is prevalent in Asia. They are a war economy, which means that they need to conduct wars (which may or may not be wrong depending on the situation) to sustain their sophisticated military industry.

As for Switzerland, the reason why they don't have military spending anywhere near rest of the world is because they don't have any hostile borders.

So they are not looking into buying the F-35s

What will they do with F-35s?

No one is interested to attack them.

 

[Archie]

They haven't mentioned ANYTHING about the Gripen being the least capable. Armasuisse made an evaluation based on the C/D Gripen (MS19 & MS20), not the 39E/F. Later when the MS21 finally was included, it was severely downgraded with a factor as low as 0.6 due to uncertainty of certain upgrades. But it's always nice to see that the Dassault-PR campaign has worked so well.

The Gripen 39E that Switzerland will get has been confirmed to have all the upgrades they expressed their interest in (which were downgraded in the evaluation) and, depending on the outcomes of current economic discussions and potential export possibilities, the 39E will receive more enhancement than originally specified for Switzerland for the same price.

The Gripen is intended to replace the F-5 tiger. If you take a look at how the small and cheap F-5 has been used in Switzerland, namely operated from road bases by reservists and supported with conscripts, I can't come to think of a better fighter to replace it than the Gripen. The Gripen has amazing STOL-capabilities and would be able to land, be re-armed, re-fueled, get new mission data and take off within 15 minutes by the hand of 4 conscripts, one technician and two smaller vehicles.

If you think the Typhoon would have been a better choice, take a look at Austria. Barely capable of affording to fly their hangar queens, with reduced air frame life and completely without any air-ground abilities. As a defensive fighter for a nationally tied defense, I don't think there's a much better choice than the Gripen. And in hindsight, Switzerland has repeatedly expressed Gripen gives the best bang for the buck. The few advantages you get with the dual-engine canards isn't worth the squeeze.

Similarly, I can't imagine why India intends to replace their cheap single engine MiG-21 and Jaguar with the expensive dual engined Rafale. Doesn't make sense to have such a large quantity of dual engined fighters [Su-30MKI, MiG-29K, HAL FGFA and now Rafale] complemented by such a small group of single engined fighters [Mirage 2000, Tejas Mk1 and Tejas Mk2].

Have u seen the size of our country
We need jets with Much longer Range to cover the entire country , Hence Su30MKI with 5500 Km range and Ralafe with 4000 Km range are chosen over Gripen with 1600 Km range

 

[lander]

USA's political strategy is different from what is prevalent in Asia. They are a war economy, which means that they need to conduct wars (which may or may not be wrong depending on the situation) to sustain their sophisticated military industry.

That's just simply wrong. One can maintain a strong military industry without ever entering a war. Just look at Sweden. Our exports range from everything between trucks and all-terrain-vehicles to smart ammunition and fighter jets. Have we invaded the beaches of Lithuania because of that? Even a strong national market by upgrading, maintaining and countering future threats would make a great and prosper industry.

What will they do with F-35s? No one is interested to attack them.

During the Cold war era, Switzerland was prepared to deal with a possible Soviet invasion. If you look at Europe, the risks of instability has been seriously increased within the last 10 years. It's not about pulling out the swords and spears when a crisis happens, but to actually be prepared for it long before it spreads into your vicinity. The only reason Sweden hasn't been in any wars for 200 years is not because we were never threatened, but rather that we've been lucky having been extremely close so many times. Take the U-137 incident in 1981 as an example.

[/B]Have u seen the size of our country
We need jets with Much longer Range to cover the entire country , Hence Su30MKI with 5500 Km range and Ralafe with 4000 Km range are chosen over Gripen with 1600 Km range

I believe you're making some assumptions based on the C/D Gripens. The combat radius on the E/F and proposed Gripen 39IN is 1,300 kilometres (701 nm) with five Meteors, two IRIS-T and 2 drop tanks also allowing for 30 minutes on station (Final reserve). The ferry range will be 4,070 km (2,200 nmi) with drop tanks and 2 wing-tip mounted missiles (IRIS-T or AIM-9). The combat radius of the Rafale is 1852 km (1000nmi) with 3 drop tanks, 2 MICA-IR and 4 Meteors (not mentioned whether or not the 30 min reserve fuel is accounted for). Its ferry range is 3,700 km (2,000 nmi) without any AAMs. And its not like India doesn't have any air-air refueling abilities either.

So in regards to patrol, range and combat radius, they're not that far apart. Whilst I see the problematics in complementing the Tejas with a very similar but proven aircraft, it is a good solution. Just like with our Hkp16 (UH-60M Black Hawk)-deal here in Sweden when our Hkp14 (NH90 TTH High Cabin) was long overdue aswell as over budget and not really what it was meant to be from the beginning.

The HAL LCA Tejas could instead have been focussed on being a technology demonstrator for the air force in order to gain experiences necessary for the future developments of the AMCA, and become the main fighter jet to be used for the Indian Navy. The Gripen could have complemented the larger dual-engine jets (Su-30MKI, MiG-29UPG, HAL FGFA/T-50 & HAL AMCA) with a proven, well-functioning fighter similar to the Tejas, that is cheap to operate, maintain and buy leaving more money for training and LCA.mk2/AMCA/FGFA development.

 

[SpArK]

Swedes have cut down the orders, if fresh orders arent received, the Saab Aerospace will be in trouble unless they go for a Joint production and marketing with someone.

 

[Tshering22]

They haven't mentioned ANYTHING about the Gripen being the least capable. Armasuisse made an evaluation based on the C/D Gripen (MS19 & MS20), not the 39E/F. Later when the MS21 finally was included, it was severely downgraded with a factor as low as 0.6 due to uncertainty of certain upgrades. But it's always nice to see that the Dassault-PR campaign has worked so well.

Who said we thought Gripen as inferior? There are certain points where Gripen broadly weakens:

- It failed to provide commitment for AESA radar then. Elta from Israel was pressured by US to drop out of competition.

- Sweden is an independent country true but it doesn't command the political influence France has; one of the possible considerations.

- Range is an issue with full armament. We are looking to replace Medium range fighters, not MiG-21s for which there are Tejas jets already.

The Gripen 39E that Switzerland will get has been confirmed to have all the upgrades they expressed their interest in (which were downgraded in the evaluation) and, depending on the outcomes of current economic discussions and potential export possibilities, the 39E will receive more enhancement than originally specified for Switzerland for the same price.

My friend, Swiss requirements are very different from ours.

Similarly, I can't imagine why India intends to replace their cheap single engine MiG-21 and Jaguar with the expensive dual engined Rafale. Doesn't make sense to have such a large quantity of dual engined fighters [Su-30MKI, MiG-29K, HAL FGFA and now Rafale] complemented by such a small group of single engined fighters [Mirage 2000, Tejas Mk1 and Tejas Mk2].

What small number are you talking about?

The intended number of jets IAF has in mind is something like this:

- Su-30 MKI: 272

- Dassault Rafale: 200 (planned)

- Su PAKFA/HAL FGFA: 144

- AMCA : 100+

-Tejas Mk1: 40

-Tejas Mk.2: 220 (IAF's intentions)

Mirage 2000 upgraded: 51

MiG-29: ~60

That's a hell load of jets I think.

About the comparative lesser number of single engine light jets is because our country's size. To fly from one corner to another at transsonic speeds, to engage the enemy and destroy targets and return to base is not easy.

Gripen's combat radius is good for smaller countries or large countries with one enemy on one side of the border or a single-point focused aerial combat.

Its own capabilities are very good and no one doubts it; but for a country like us where hostile countries cover large swathes of borders with us, it may not be the right choice.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

What i meant to say was that fighting wars is useless. Making peace goes long way. Swiss haven't fought a war in ages, hence the advance society they enjoy. While Europe around them was burning and is still in crisis, they are safe and sound. Care for your people. No amount of F-16s or SU30MKIs will feed the hungry or provide justice to the weak.

Its true. But thats a reality we cannot run away from. Swiss have managed without a fight cos, they were not so strategic nor have a history of bloody rulers. Moreover people here are over sentimental.
Its unreal to blame the govt, when we ourself are not changing first.
Moreover frequent wars have given rise to trustlessness, which can be made to feel secured only by equipment.
I wish money were spent for poor, but in realistic sense, these conditions are unavoidable.

 

[acid rain]

That's just simply wrong. One can maintain a strong military industry without ever entering a war. Just look at Sweden. Our exports range from everything between trucks and all-terrain-vehicles to smart ammunition and fighter jets. Have we invaded the beaches of Lithuania because of that? Even a strong national market by upgrading, maintaining and countering future threats would make a great and prosper industry.


During the Cold war era, Switzerland was prepared to deal with a possible Soviet invasion. If you look at Europe, the risks of instability has been seriously increased within the last 10 years. It's not about pulling out the swords and spears when a crisis happens, but to actually be prepared for it long before it spreads into your vicinity. The only reason Sweden hasn't been in any wars for 200 years is not because we were never threatened, but rather that we've been lucky having been extremely close so many times. Take the U-137 incident in 1981 as an example.


I believe you're making some assumptions based on the C/D Gripens. The combat radius on the E/F and proposed Gripen 39IN is 1,300 kilometres (701 nm) with five Meteors, two IRIS-T and 2 drop tanks also allowing for 30 minutes on station (Final reserve). The ferry range will be 4,070 km (2,200 nmi) with drop tanks and 2 wing-tip mounted missiles (IRIS-T or AIM-9). The combat radius of the Rafale is 1852 km (1000nmi) with 3 drop tanks, 2 MICA-IR and 4 Meteors (not mentioned whether or not the 30 min reserve fuel is accounted for). Its ferry range is 3,700 km (2,000 nmi) without any AAMs. And its not like India doesn't have any air-air refueling abilities either.

So in regards to patrol, range and combat radius, they're not that far apart. Whilst I see the problematics in complementing the Tejas with a very similar but proven aircraft, it is a good solution. Just like with our Hkp16 (UH-60M Black Hawk)-deal here in Sweden when our Hkp14 (NH90 TTH High Cabin) was long overdue aswell as over budget and not really what it was meant to be from the beginning.

The HAL LCA Tejas could instead have been focussed on being a technology demonstrator for the air force in order to gain experiences necessary for the future developments of the AMCA, and become the main fighter jet to be used for the Indian Navy. The Gripen could have complemented the larger dual-engine jets (Su-30MKI, MiG-29UPG, HAL FGFA/T-50 & HAL AMCA) with a proven, well-functioning fighter similar to the Tejas, that is cheap to operate, maintain and buy leaving more money for training and LCA.mk2/AMCA/FGFA development.

The Indian MMRCA was a bit confusing with both single and twin engined fighters being evaluated together, India was definitely looking for replacements for MiG's and most probably a single engined variant. Mid way it changed to 2 engined requirement. But IAF does need single engined fighters in equally large numbers compared to the twin engined varieties that are in the pipe line.

Rafale and EF were very good choices but IAF will have problems with having enough single engined one's in its fleet.

 

[lander]

Who said we thought Gripen as inferior? There are certain points where Gripen broadly weakens:
- It failed to provide commitment for AESA radar then. Elta from Israel was pressured by US to drop out of competition.

- Sweden is an independent country true but it doesn't command the political influence France has; one of the possible considerations.

- Range is an issue with full armament. We are looking to replace Medium range fighters, not MiG-21s for which there are Tejas jets already.

No one ever stated India thought the Gripen was inferior, but Abingdonboy wondered why Switzerland chose the Gripen even though they had ranked the Rafale higher in the initial evaluations. I responded.

Secondly, no one really knows why the Gripen 39IN didn't make the shortlist in the M-MRCA. The first most apparent reason would be the U.S. making sure that the Gripen wouldn't get the exporting license for the AN/APG-79 originally proposed with the Gripen 39IN, just like they did in Norway the year before. The second one being unable to present an actual 39IN demonstrator fitted with a AESA radar in time. The rumors has it that the short-listing of both the Eurofighter and the Rafale was made because they were just barely capable of delivering some sort of evidence that their AESA-radars could be fitted in the aircrafts, would work and could be delivered on time. Funny thing is that it is the Gripen who flew first with an actual working AESA out of the Eurocanards. The Rafale prototype that was brought to the evaluations atleast had proof that its radar could be fitted by showing them a non-working module of the AESA fitted in the demo aircraft, and the Eurofighter was fitted with a down-graded version of its proposed AESA radar.

Well, the Eurofighter and the Rafale are both capable of going far with large payloads. But whilst comparing the strike packages, the Gripen doesn't come too far behind. With the same combat radius as mentioned before, the Gripen would be able to carry 2 racks of 4xSDB Gbu-39, each one capable of taking out tanks and planes hidden under concrete domes, in addition to two 450 gallon (1700L) tanks, two IRIS-T, a LITENING III pod and 2 dual racks of 2xMeteor. I was going to add some images but I have done too few posts on this forum to be allowed to do so.

And the M-MRCA is intended to replace the single-engined MiG-21 where even the single-engined Gripen IN gives a significant increase in range, combat load and capabilities over the old fighter.

What small number are you talking about? That's a hell load of jets I think.

About the comparative lesser number of single engine light jets is because our country's size. To fly from one corner to another at transsonic speeds, to engage the enemy and destroy targets and return to base is not easy.

Gripen's combat radius is good for smaller countries or large countries with one enemy on one side of the border or a single-point focused aerial combat.

Its own capabilities are very good and no one doubts it; but for a country like us where hostile countries cover large swathes of borders with us, it may not be the right choice.

Well, I said compared to. 272 Su-30MKI, 126 Rafale, 68 MiG-29UPG, 214 FGFA and 151 Jaguar which makes up for a total of 831 dual engine jets. Compare that to 40 Tejas Mk.1, 180 Tejas Mk.2, 55 Mirage 2000 and 102 MiG-27 which makes up for a total of 277 single engine jets and you can clearly see the dual engine fighters are overrepresented in the IAF by far.

Compare that to the USAF, that has 475 F-15, 185 F-22 and 345 which makes up for a total of 1005 dual engine jets, and that has 1006 F-16. The A-10A, the F-16A-D and even the F-15C intends to be replaced by 1763 F-35A. Which will make the balance look like this in the coming future; 185 F-22, 221 F-15E, ~100 A-10C which will make up for a total of 506 dual engine jets whilst having a fleet of 1763 single engine F-35A.

So compared to the number of aircrafts, India would have a large park of dual engine jets, especially when the AMCA replaces the MiG-27, the Jaguars and the Mirage 2000. That's where I wonder whether or not its reasonable (or economic?). Somehow, I don't think the situation is much different for the United States, having enemies everywhere, deploying everywhere and participating everywhere with their fighters. There's no way one fighter would do a sortie in two different parts of the country. The +300 km you get with the Rafale wouldn't help.

 

[TangoViking]

Swedes have cut down the orders, if fresh orders arent received, the Saab Aerospace will be in trouble unless they go for a Joint production and marketing with someone.

No orders have been placed. No orders have been cut. The government plan to order a first tranche of 40-60 Gripen NG during 2013. Saab is 80% non-Gripen and will produce and upgrade in support of the Gripen-system until 2042 by parliament decision. Saab is not going away anytime soon. The initial main configuration of Gripen NG will be by large decided in January 2013.

Gripen NG offered to India is not like the Gripen NG being procued by Sweden and Switzerland. It was a less advanced design for a completely different delivery schedule.

 

[KS]

Very very true... Swiss are very intelligent people. They even laugh at the American craziness of developing new weapon systems.
I truly envy them...

When India starts having Germany, Austria, Italy on its borders then it can also stop procuring weapon systems. But we have Pakistan, China and Bangladesh.

 

[Donatello]

When India starts having Germany, Austria, Italy on its borders then it can also stop procuring weapon systems. But we have Pakistan, China and Bangladesh.

Ya right, India is such a peaceful nation, while all others are hell bent on destroying it. Duh!

 

[Donatello]

When did I deny that they are having high standard of living?



The nation exists because there is billions worth of weapons. Otherwise it won't.



USA's political strategy is different from what is prevalent in Asia. They are a war economy, which means that they need to conduct wars (which may or may not be wrong depending on the situation) to sustain their sophisticated military industry.

That was the American dream, until their economy went bust. In order to fight wars you need money. Up till now Americans were simply printing worthless dollars off the printing press and then exporting the resultant inflation to other countries, who so gladly bought that Treasury securities.

This Ponzi scheme can go on for only so long. Americans inflated their standard of living by printing dollars, which was in demand to the rest of world as a reserve currency. Question is, why would you want to invest in a worthless fiat currency like US dollar, which is no longer backed by gold or their manufacturing industry? You cannot simply print money into spending more. Otherwise there would be no issue to India or Pakistan to keep printing rupee to meet their debt obligation. Sounds too good to be true, right?

The only way Americans got away with that was the fact dollar was always in demand around the world, after the world war II when countries took it up as reserve currency. This is no longer 20th century. But 21st.

 

[Donatello]

No orders have been placed. No orders have been cut. The government plan to order a first tranche of 40-60 Gripen NG during 2013. Saab is 80% non-Gripen and will produce and upgrade in support of the Gripen-system until 2042 by parliament decision. Saab is not going away anytime soon. The initial main configuration of Gripen NG will be by large decided in January 2013.

Gripen NG offered to India is not like the Gripen NG being procued by Sweden and Switzerland. It was a less advanced design for a completely different delivery schedule.

Tango,

Where have you been man?

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

http://www.di.se/nyheter/saab-hoppas-pa-ny-schweizisk-storaffar/

Saab hopes for a new Swiss fighter tender.

Photo: TT By MIKAEL BJÖRK


Published: September 5, 2017, 13:37

The Swiss government reloads after the population's "no" to buy the Saab Gripenplan three years ago. On Wednesday, Defense Minister Guy Parmelin asks the government about SEK 75 billion ($9B) primarily for new aircraft. "Saab follows the great interest process in Switzerland," says CEO Håkan Buskhe.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

After the Gripen debacle: 40 new fighters for Switzerland?

The Gripen crashed in the 2014 referendum.
In Switzerland, the preparations for the procurement of new fighters began in early 2016. Defense Minister Guy Parmelin has set up an expert group and a political monitoring body. The evaluation is scheduled to start in 2017;
From 2025 the new aircraft will be delivered. Then the 31 F / A-18 fighters reach the end of their intended life according to the Defense Department. In the picture a jet of the Swedish Air Force (archive). On the following pages of this section, we show aircraft types with which other nations are blown.

Image: Keystone

Is it even more expensive now? Defense Minister Guy Parmelin has great plans for air defense in Switzerland. Costs are also likely to pick up.

The acquisition of new fighters has been protracted since the People's No to 22 Gripen in May 2014. Of the 53 F-5 Tiger fighters are currently still 25 in use, according to the Defense Department (VBS). Of the originally 34 commissioned F / A-18 jets there are still 30 available.

Now there is movement in the protection of the Swiss airspace: Defense Minister Guy Parmelin will apply for a cost of 9 billion Swiss francs in the Federal Council on Wednesday as "Tages-Anzeiger / Newsnet". According to research, the money will be used to buy about 30 to 40 new combat aircraft to replace the F / A-18 jets, which have been in operation since 1997. Included in the 9 billion Swiss franc application are the expenses for a new ground based missile system for air defense.

It is also said that Parmelin now wants to make a basic decision in the Gesamtbundesrat for a completely new air defense, as it is further. The Minister of Defense is thus aiming at the total renewal of all weapon systems.

So he wanted to use 6 to 8 billion of the 9 requested for the fighters. Depending on the type, 30 to 40 airplanes are sufficient. The 22 Gripen jets, which in 2014 would have been purchased, would have cost only 3.1 billion francs.

https://www.bluewin.ch/de/news/inla...bakel-40-neue-kampfjets-fuer-die-schweiz.html