Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Warplane Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Swedish Fighters
Phd Digital    2/15/2004 1:29:00 PM
How come a small country like Sweden is able to develop such a potent fighter as the JAS 39 Gripen and the JA 37 Viggen? Why do the do it and isn´t it very expensive? How is the JAS 39 Gripen compared to other fighters?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
Mark F    RE:Swedish Fighters   2/15/2004 4:23:35 PM
The answer to question #1, how do they do it is simple enough. Traditional Swedish neutrality for decades was built around self-reliance in defense related items. In other words, it was politically necessary. The answer to #2, is it very expensive is a very large YES!!!! Gripen will without question be the last national combat aircraft program. The cost could be justified based on the original projected procurement and the hope of significant export sales (something largely neglected in the past) but the home market has shrunk considerably since the program started and export orders, while slow, are coming in. To be fair though, all previous Swedish combat aircraft have had a fair amount of foriegn content - engines for example. As for how the Gripen compares to other combat aircraft, the answer is quite well thank you, depending on the needs of the customer.
 
Quote    Reply

shawn    RE:Swedish Fighters   2/15/2004 8:09:54 PM
The Gripen is probably one of the best fighters in its LCA class (Light Combat Aircraft). BAe is handling its marketing worldwide, and has already had a number of sales, incuding South Africa. While there are a number fo new aircraft appearing in the LCA category, the Gripen still looks to give the most cost effective and advanced option, being able to carry AMRAAMS and eventually the Metor, and is a mature design (as opposed to 'still in development' for the Indian LCA, the Chinese/Pakistani Super-7, etc). I expect the Gripen to acheive some export success from air forces seeking MiG-21 and F-5 replacements. The main serious competitor to the Gripen at the moment would be a heck of a lot of second-hand F-16As coming on the market.
 
Quote    Reply

Phd Digital    RE:Swedish Fighters   2/16/2004 3:05:01 AM
I heard something about that it is being modified to be able to land U.S. Aircraft carriers? If it should be compared to other new generation aircraft like Eurofighter, what would be the judgment if you look at fighter/$
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aus    RE:Swedish Fighters   2/16/2004 3:10:14 AM
Any links on this? I doubt it because you would have to redesign the undercarriage and shock harden some components + add a tail hook etc... Not an easy retro fit.
 
Quote    Reply

Phd Digital    RE:Swedish Fighters   2/16/2004 3:55:30 AM
I belive that the designed that for the reason that it is a NATO demand if countries are to buy the aircraft. The finnish government demanded that to even consider buying the JAS 39 GRIPEN. They bought the F18 instead which is able to land on U.S. aircraft carriers.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Swedish Fighters   2/16/2004 5:02:45 AM
The Swedish Fighters have up to now matched the rest of the world: J29 Tunnan (the barrel - it looked like it) Fagot/F-86 Sabre. J32 Lansen Fighter bombers in the 50-60'ies. J35 Draken Interceptor 1970'ies. JAS37 Viggen generally 1980'ies JAS39 Gripen Current. It is hugely expensive and have lead to a starvation of all other arms in Sweden. The export sales come about with bribes and a large (over 100%) purchases. The general technical problems are: A. The equipment is half outdated when it enters service. The Viggen was offered to Denmark during the time we bought the F-16A. The Viggen is being retired, whereas the F-16 is being updated and is expected to soldier on until F-35. 2. The engine technology is bought overseas and is not the utmost modern - and a fighter with a substandard engine performance is severely handicapped. 3. Spare prices are very high - even in a high price enviroment like spare parts - they have to be seen to be believed. That was why the Draken got an early retirement in Denmark. The Swedish fighters generally have strengthend landing gear to be able to operate on their dispersed road-bases. The Viggen has Thrust reversers! to alieviate the cost the Gripan pioneered the "Swing-Fighter" concept - a concept that is not undisputed.
 
Quote    Reply

Phd Digital    RE:Swedish Fighters   2/16/2004 5:32:02 AM
The exports is the same for any country. With bribes and so on. The U.S. uses threats instead i guess. Regarding the engine technology I belive that the engine used in VIGGEN has no comparision in thrust/weight. It is based on a Rolce royce engine, modified by Volvo aero. I belivet that the JAS 39 GRIPEN is much more potent than F-16 since it is optimized for a country with less military spending. Total lifecycle cost i lower. It needs less maintanance than F-16. It is more agile, smaller (more difficult to hit) Multirole and so on. I wonder what the U.S. would manage to develop with the same amount of money?
 
Quote    Reply

shawn    RE:Swedish Fighters   2/16/2004 7:21:35 AM
the Gripen is a lighter fighter than the F-16A, by virtue of the fact that it's powered by a F-404 derived engine, the same used on the F/A-18C, although the Hornet is powered by two of them. Thus the Grippen simply does not have enough thrust to carry the same warload as the F-16. In fact, I've read a commentary that if Northrop had used a new design for the F-20 Tigershark, instead of updating the F-5 design, The Tigershark would look a lot like the Gripen, as it was powered by the same engine.
 
Quote    Reply

Mark F    RE:Swedish Fighters   2/16/2004 7:33:22 AM
There is no requirement for Gripen to land on carriers, nor is there a carrier version of the aircraft. There was a half-assed proposal to India for a possible CTOL version in case LCA fails (in case?!?!?) but this was more along the lines of "hey, wouldn't it be neat if" than any actual development program. It is highly unlikely ANY money has been spent developing such a proposal. Finland BTW did not have a requirement for carrier operability for its combat aircraft. The Hornet won for a couple of reasons, some practical, some political. On the practical side was the twin-engine configuration, on the political side was the availability of AMRAAM should an American product be procured.
 
Quote    Reply

Phd Digital    RE:Swedish Fighters   2/16/2004 8:06:56 AM
Regarding the finnish practical decision I think the word practical has to be explained. I could be practical to have one engine, because it means less fuelcosts, less maintanance and so on. Regarding the political decision I do not understand the argument about AMRAAM since the Gripen uses ít aswell although the haven´t put them on yet, since the logic is that the Swedes can do it when things get risky. No swedish aircraft except Hercules C-130 has any countermeasures, since that only cost money and it could be put on later.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics