This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Norway went for the F35. Removed Norway from page http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2781493.ece Nastykermit ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC).
He* don't mind showing my IP :) No big secret to that.
Just want to point out that Gripen had a supercruise ability already from the beginning, coming as a surprise for all involved as that synonym wasn't used then.
"There was one interesting problem,” Colonel Eldh concludes with a smile. “Gripen is supersonic at all altitudes and can cruise supersonically with an external load including fuel tank, four AMRAAM and two sidewinder missiles without the need to engage the afterburner. In the early days of operations, we found some pilots inadvertently flying supersonic over populated areas. The problem was one of habit, as these pilots had their throttle settings as high as on the older-generation fighters that Gripen replaced. “It is fair to say there were a few startled people on the ground, as their day-to-day work, or perhaps sleep, was disturbed by unexpected sonic booms! It was, of course, a simple task to solve the problem – the throttles were re-set and everyone was happy."
http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE463B06-8C9B-4A49-A382-999C6AF1E53B/0/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf
And where in the world did you get this idea from? "The Gripen fighter system is expeditionary in nature, and therefore well suited for peace-keeping missions worldwide, which has become the new main task of the Swedish Armed Forces." Before anything like that will happen there are going to be a really big Swedish debate, and I mean B I G.
Sources please, and Swedish ones that is, not Chinese, nor Nato :)
Gripen is built as an interceptor. It will go up under one minute from getting the waring, Arrange a radar silent box and wait for you. Using the data link it will fool your radar, and you, blow you out of the sky without 'illuminating' if necessary (tracking can be done by systems further away.) and then be back on base in about ten to fifteen minutes. It can fly for over two hours so that leaves it a lot of fuel for further fun.
And you're totally missing out on our ...over fifteen year old now... data link capabilities? We had them before anyone even had started to consider them (Draken). And even if we have to exchange it to an inferior Nato system, as we otherwise can't 'play' in the big sandbox, it should be mentioned I think, . the best data link in the world, and you don't mention it at all?
They are what will take down any other aircraft existing as they can work under jamming and are peer to peer, including those vehicles on the ground using the same system too. We have a 3-D radar cover at all times, and you won't jam it with less than using an nuclear Emp bomb, and even then I expect ours to work. So much missing in this article about our radar systems? And with NORA?
---Qoutes-----------------
Ericsson’s future airborne radar is Not Only a Radar, NORA, but also a complete electronic warfare system including jamming and data communication. The new radar will use an Active Electronically Scanned Array, AESA, built up with approximately 1000 individual transmit/receive modules. The antenna, mounted on a single-axis platform, will give well over 200˚ coverage in azimuth. NORA will offer superior performance by virtue of a number of core capabilities at Ericsson – beam agility, beam widening, multi-channel processing, target-specific waveforms and low radar cross-section.....
It's planned to scan +-60 deg electronically and 60 deg mechanically in azimut, permitting scanning over a 240 deg arc and electronically +-60 deg up and downwards. ...
Fully programmable signal and data processors enable the radar to handle these air defence, attack and reconnaissance missions. This also gives the radar a very high growth potential to meet future requirements. The radars flexible waveforms make it possible to avoid ambiguities and allow performance characteristics to be optimized for all operating modes. The radar also matches the data link requirements for advanced medium range missiles...Ericsson has started development work for upgrading the PS05/A multimode radar. Some of the up-grades have been possible to incorporate, since new, faster and more powerful processors and components have become available on the market. An essential part of these upgrades is a new data processor who will replace the D80 processor in the Systems Computer in Swedish Air Force Gripens. It is a Modular Airborne Computer System (MACS) with higher capacity. A significant upgrade of the signal processor is also included which will dramatically enhance functions in both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions....
Ericsson AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) is a new airborne radar project currently in development at Ericsson Microwave Systems. The AESA technology will improve the radars overall performance drastically, especially its target detection and tracking capability. Beam direction can be changed instantaneously, detection range will be considerably increased, and jamming suppression further improved. The AESA radar will feature multibeam capability with all beams individually and simultaneously controlled. It can also operate simultaneously as a fire control and obstacle warning radar, and be used both in intercept and ground attack missions. The multibeam concept also allows for radar operation, data linking, radar warning and jamming simultaneously. As a consequence of the very large number of transmitter and receiver modules, the radar will have a high system availability through graceful degradation...."
End Quotes-------------------
Not that we will be using that either it seems :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.169.1 ( talk) 14:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, there seems to be some dispute once again about what constitutes "comparable". In this case, I would think any 4.5-gen fighter aircraft that also have a significant air-to-ground capacity would be comparable, without regard to such things as size. Because once you get into that type of categorization, where is the line drawn? Here is the current list in the article, and associated sizes (length and empty weight):
Gripen: 14.1 m, 5,700 kg
F-16E/F: 14.8 m, 8,670 kg
Rafale: 15.3 m, 9,500 kg
F-2: 15.5 m, 9,527 kg
J-10: 15.5 m, 9,730 kg
Typhoon: 16.0 m, 11,000 kg
F-18E/F: 18.3 m, 13,900 kg
MiG-35: 19 m, 11,000 kg
F-15E: 19.4 m, 14,300 kg
So someone tell me why any of the above 4.5-gen fighters wouldn't be comparable? ViperNerd ( talk) 21:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The Brazilian Air Force pilots put the JAS 39 Gripen at the best. Even so, Brazilian president Lula decided for the French Rafale. Agre22 ( talk) 15:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)agre22
It's unofficial that Air force wants gripen, da Silva wanted Rafale and new president likes super hornet, wikileaks also mentioned about fx-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SojerPL ( talk • contribs) 02:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I've modified that portion of the text where was said that canards can be tilted "downwards, making them into large air brakes and further pushing the aircraft down". If any elevation surface was moved downwards a positive lift at that particular portion of the fuselage will be generated. A canard equipped aircraft would depart from the ground with such command. So "downwards" was changed to "upwards". Observe that we're not talking about control stick movements, that are different between conventional tail aircraft and canard aircraft (control push lowers elevators on conventional tail A/C; control push raises canards on canard equipped A/C). RobertoRMola ( talk) 19:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
You guys need to add the crash history and the corruption charges. Don't make this page look all rosy. That isn't what wiki is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.99.117 ( talk) 19:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The Denel Dynamics- Mectron A-Darter (a 5th generation IR-SRAAM) is currently being integrated on the SAAF's Gripens. See [1]. Do we add it here now or as soon as qualification is complete or should we wait until it is actually in service? Roger ( talk) 11:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing (?) dispute between Bzuk and me regarding citation format. Could anyone offer a third opinion on this? Maybe we should use the cite web templates instead? Our discussion - Bzuk's and mine - can be found on my talkpage. HandsomeFella ( talk) 20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
See recent edits in Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement#Norway for how Gripen lost Norway. Hcobb ( talk) 15:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Per the new updated WP:AIR/NC guideliens, this article can now be at the Manufactuer-Designation-name format without any difficulty. Are there any objections to moving the article to Saab JAS 39 Gripen? - BilCat ( talk) 15:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Should Gripen NG not have an article of its own like F/A 18 and Super Hornet ? It would seem with a different engine 40% more internal fuel, more hardpoints etc. Its a different aircraft. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 11:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Gripen is definate article in Swedish, and hence the translation would be The Griffin in English. Indefinite article Griffin would be just Grip in Swedish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bärlein ( talk • contribs) 13:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Please keep in mind when reading the above that *Ulla* ( talk · contribs) and John Anderson ( talk · contribs) are the same person after a checkuser done at their homewiki, svwp, so take lightly on their comments. GameOn ( talk) 11:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just done a count through of the sources used to reference statements in this article, and I've found more than 1/3rd lead back to its own manufacturer. This level seems quite high compared with other aircraft articles, and can be viewed as a conflict of interests, or even potential advertising in the more extremist opinions. I don't really have a radical problem with it, but I felt it necessary to point this out to editors concerned with this page's welfare. It may be an idea to crack open the independent journals and books to make sure the coverage is well rounded and involves many different areas of reflection, ultimately this would be an improvement upon the article. Kyteto ( talk) 21:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
How are we doing on this? Any major additions planned prior to nominating, or shall I press ahead with the GA Review when I clear some projects? Kyteto ( talk) 11:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like all the gripen.com links redirect to saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/ . The news page on saab.com only has releases back to 2009. So either they should be replaced with archive.org copies or other references. :( - Fnlayson ( talk) 02:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
IMHO the section is somewhat OTT and even smells a bit of schadenfreude. We don't see long lists in for example the F-16 article crowing about everytime some country decided not to buy it. Practically every time a country buys fighters (or any other major military equipment) it involves bids from multiple suppliers and every time all except one are "losers" - yet this article is the only one where such a big deal is made of "non-sales" that it has an entire section. Roger ( talk) 09:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
First there is no reason to even list which aircraft the Gripen lost out to. A simple list of links to the articles for the fighter competitions that the aircraft had failed to select in would suffice. Hcobb ( talk) 14:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
As of this morning, Nov 30, Switzerland has agreed to purchase 22 Gripens, however as far as I can see, it hasn't been stated whether they'll be the first gen C/D Gripens or the Gripen NG.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8424745&c=AIR&s=TOP ( 121.45.132.113 ( talk) 23:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC))
Finland may buy Gripens soon on a reconsideration. The finnish AF commander has publicly said they don't want any twinjets in the future, because of the high costs (even though the F-18 they have is probably the cheapest and least labour-intensive twinjet currently). Regarding the single-pipe jets, the F-35 JSF is a cost nightmare. Among the remaining unijet types Gripen is the most advanced one and the most proven. 82.131.210.163 ( talk) 11:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, it was reported in the news that something burning fell into a woman's hair, which then also caught fire, but the fire was quickly put out. The woman might have had some burns from this, but I don't remember if that was reported. This was the most serious personal injury, I think, and possibly the only one. I don't have any sources to back it up, I'm afraid. The Air Force really got away cheap (if you don't count the aircraft), having to pay only for that injury and one or two dozen bicycles that happened to be parked on the spot, and consequentially destroyed in the crash and the ensuing fire. And for the restoration of the place, of course.
Maybe one could phrase it that "no one was seriously injured"? HandsomeFella ( talk) 10:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
As there appears to be continual edit warring over addition/removal of the HAL Tejas to the comparible aircraft field - can something be done per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_33#Comparable_aircraft_.28again.29 to remove the comparible aircraft field or barring that, can someone implement long term semi-protection? Nigel Ish ( talk) 15:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The troll has also been appearing in other articles so this may not be the solution. FWiW, maybe the page can be protected? Bzuk ( talk) 04:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC).
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Saab link at the end of the first sentence is wrong. It should go to Saab AB not Saab the car company.
The current line reads "The Saab JAS 39 Gripen (English: Griffin) is a lightweight single-engine multirole fighter manufactured by the Swedish aerospace company Saab."
Saab is a car company while Saab AB is the aerospace company. 129.112.109.243 ( talk) 19:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
"In December 2007, as part of Gripen International's marketing efforts in Denmark, a deal was signed with Danish technology supplier Terma A/S which allows them to participate."
A corporation is singular and not plural. A corporation is not a human being, and the pronoun that goes with a corporation is "it", and NOT "they" or "them", and neither is "their" used. Use "its".
Hence, the sentence quoted above must conclude like this: a deal was signed with Danish technology supplier Terma A/S which allows it to participate.
Governments are also singular, so "they", "them", "their", "we", and "us" do not apply.
For more examples:
McDonnell Douglas proposed its
F - 18 Hornet for the competition. McDonnell Douglas later became a divison of the
Boeing Company.
Rolls Royce proposed its turbofan engines for the new
transport planes.
However, the
General Electric Company also submitted a proposal for its turbofan engines.
The
German Government decided that it would not purchase any more warplanes that were not manufactured in Germany for the
Luftwaffe. Hence, it would no longer fly any new warplanes that were made in the
United States or
Russia, despite its long history of flying ones from Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, and MiG.
98.81.11.27 (
talk)
00:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that Gripen is, due to its close coupled canards, supermaneuverable aircraft - namely, canards direct air flow over wing at high angle of attack, allowing it to achieve and sustain far higher angle of attack - and thus turn rate - than would otherwise be possible. 195.29.156.233 ( talk) 12:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Somebody might want to add this:
23 March 2012 http://www.bangkokpost.com/media/content/2012/03/26/FCB55A2DFA724D5D8CE867ED1A09F96B.jpg http://www.bangkokpost.com/multimedia/photo/285691/photos-of-the-week
"The Swedish Air Force has donated a Gripen 39A fighter aircraft to exhibit in the Royal Thai Air Force museum to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Thailand's first three air force soldiers. Photo by Surapol Promsaka Na Sakolnakorn." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.136.148 ( talk) 23:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The Gripen is tiny compared to the F-16 and is a much much closer match to the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle. Hcobb ( talk) 00:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
So the F-16 carries 50% more weaponry and fuel. So compare the Gripen not to a F-16, but 2/3rds of a F-16. Hcobb ( talk) 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
[2] Could someone translate if these would be new airframes or older A/B/C/D upgraded to E/F? -- SojerPL ( talk) 13:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_06_18_2012_p38-465770.xml Sources suggest the design will incorporate F-35-style diverterless supersonic inlets.
Not all source provide information about using Rb.71 by Gripen, [3] mention RB.74/AIM-9 and aim-120 integration in 1998. Skyflash pages mention only it was used by JA37 Viggen, F-4 Phantom II, Tornado ADV. My question is if Gripen is capable of illuminating the target for a passive radar missile or only for active guidence missile? -- SojerPL ( talk) 09:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
JAS 39B was developed as a schooling aircraft, intended for the export market-segment that did not adhere to the concept of simulator training as sole preparation for solo-flights. Flygvapnet (SwAF) was ordered to receive 12 aircraft to validate the performance.
The 39C/D have following sub-variants: 39EBS HU (Export Baseline Standard Hungary) are 39C/Ds with the NATO-link 16 installed. Gripen N was the upgraded C/D offered and rejected by Norway. 39X was the plane to be exported to Saudi-Arabia. No offer was made though.
Gripen NG (Next Generation) has become nicknamed Super-Gripen in Swedish media. This has caused a bit of confusion, since the manufacturer named it NG, while the official designation is JAS 39E for the one-seater and JAS 39F for the two-seated aircraft. 39NG have the subvariants Gripen DK intended for Denmark and Gripen IN for India's AF (not to be confused with the Sea Gripen intended for India's carrier fleet).
Sources are found on the Swedish wiki-page. /BP 78.70.77.35 ( talk) 13:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
It suffers from poor translations from Swedish. JAS 39 is NOT , and was not, intended as a multirole fighter where attack and rec are secondary funtions, but a "enhetsplan" which means the capability for all three functions are fully integrated in the same airframe. This was intended to keep full capability while greatly lower the costs of service compared to the previous 35/37 systems since only one infrastructure would be needed. Source "JAS 39 GRIPEN", ISBN93-973892-5-0, pages 60-80 /BP 78.70.77.35 ( talk) 14:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Dassault described the Rafale as being an omnirole fighter with semi-stealth capabilities.
In 2012, Lars Helmrich of the Swedish air force testified to parliament that the Gripen would be useless in air to air combat by 2020. { http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/flygplan/article3578741.ece "Gripen has to be modernized to meet air battles."}
The MoD says it can stagger on until 2030. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/flygplan/article3578621.ece
Can we at least move all of the pure NG stuff into a separate section?
For example:
Notes that AESA is just for NG. (So far.)
BTW: Compare 200 degree field of view PLUS IRST vs F-22s 120 degree field of view and no IRST... Hcobb ( talk) 20:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121119/DEFREG01/311190008/Sweden-8217-s-Possible-Gripen-Cut-Prompts-Force-Capability-Fears?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE “The government had initially favored acquiring 80 to 100 fighters. This was reduced to between 60 to 80 units last spring. Now it is talking of purchasing 40 to 60 aircraft,” said Staffan Danielsson, a member of Parliament with the ruling Center Party, who sits on the national Parliamentary Defense Committee.
According to hungarian press their Gripens' real top speed is only 1.45 Mach numbers (with pylons on, but without external stores or droptank).
It is well-known that the F-404 engine family has sluggish acceleration in the supersonic regime and the little Gripen probably runs low of fuel before it could go beyond M1.45 speed. Furthermore, she does not have variable intake flaps or shock cones to help her breath easily when going fast.
Another factor for the low Gripen top speed might be the status of the "Tolstoy" cockpit flip-switch. There is no proof hungarian JAS-39 EBS-HU ever flew set in the "War" position and the "Peace" position features extremely peaceful settings for all the Gripen's systems, to help lower wear and tear on the machinery, especially the turbine and save money. Maybe Gripen goes to M1.98765432 in "War" setting, who knows?
BTW, Hungary is not a large country, but it spans 700km east to west and MiG-29 have been regularly doing M1.6 there and MiG-21's of old were occasionally pushed to M2.05 (mandatory part of an 5-flight test regime done after significant repairs). 87.97.52.178 ( talk) 00:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20130130.aspx the JAS 39E is heavier (17 tons) that the existing 30C, has better electronics, a heavier payload (over four tons), and has a two seater version better able to handle ground attack and electronic warfare duties.
Can we have a super gripen stats block please? Hcobb ( talk) 17:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
That's my calculation on the Swiss deal. Hcobb ( talk) 10:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Also now that the stats are starting to diverge, is it time for a "Super Gripen" page yet? Hcobb ( talk) 19:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, as long as the manufacturer doesn't name the the new versions other than E/F (or NG, or whatever), there's no reason why we should. HandsomeFella ( talk) 09:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The Australian deal for 24 F/A-18F aircraft comes to about the same dollar figure as the Swiss deal, but for two more aircraft (each of which has about twice the engine power), and advanced jamming equipment. Or is that too OR to mention, even though the two aircraft have been bid against each other elsewhere? Hcobb ( talk) 00:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Aussie deal was the same price, but for a larger number of a much better aircraft than the Gripen. Hcobb ( talk) 03:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The Gripen is supposed to fight for real soon, not libyan recce, but with bombs, missiles and autocannon. South African ground and air forces are deploying to Entebbe in order to invade the Central African Republic and annihilate the Seleukide coup rebels who killed 13 SA para-troopers about a week ago. Black-led SA, while corrupt and economically struggling, still wants to be the african superpower and is planning for a show of overwhelming force, they want to do manhunt on the coupists. They want to take the place of France as the policemen of the black continent.
On the other hand, SAAF Gripen pilots fly very few hours per year, due to collapse of the national economy since the negro took control. It could be dangerous to send the pilots into combat with such lack of experience. 91.83.37.124 ( talk) 20:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
All the sources I've seen indicate that the dumping of the Euros at the feet of the Swiss was one of the elements in their consideration. Hcobb ( talk) 02:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The NATO response is more in line with NATO-Swedish relation articles. The notable aspect for this article is that the current Gripens were unavailable to respond to an incursion into Swedish airspace. Putting this in the same paragraph as the call for the upgrade is somewhat OR so drop NATO mention and move to bottom of Swedish service section? Hcobb ( talk) 01:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Despite having been discussed before, the article is virtually devoid of any information concerning bribery scandals, the widely publicized crashes in 1989 and 1993 or indeed anything even hinting at political controversy surrounding its development in Sweden.
Considering this was actually pointed out several years ago, and no one bothered to do anything about it, I've asked for a GAR and I'm putting up an POV-template until this is fixed properly. Peter Isotalo 16:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
That looks pretty good, I think we're getting to a reasonable balance here. Now who's interested in working on a comprehensive article about all the troubles? What should it's title be? @ Peter does the Swedish media have a general "label" for it such as "Gripen Scandal", "SAAB bribery case" or "Gripen-gate"? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 15:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I really wish that a discussion on this topic might have been allowed to have taken place before nominating the article for a GAR. A seven year old discussion of a radically different preceeding version of this article (less than 40% of the content of the article today originates from that article!) which did not touch on many of the issues you have rightly raised is not what I would commonly identify as a prior discussion. That being said, I agree with expanding the coverage of the bribery scandal; I just wish the means of developing this content had been more gradual. Kyteto ( talk) 11:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It appears that the Brändström report says only that "The JAS project risked losing both credibility and trust", so cannot be used to support Peter's edits. But the resources referenced above do appear to support it. So it looks to me more like unskilled editing by Peter rather than PoV editing. On the "quick and resourceful" Government, the report does use the word "quickly" in this context, but I see no sign of Kyteto describing it as "resourceful". These are small misunderstandings in an otherwise well-informed and balanced bout of editing. I do hope you guys can give each other a little more credit for doing their best. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 17:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Since the GAR seemed to achieve nothing constructive I've closed it without delisting the article. Peter Isotalo 21:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Norway went for the F35. Removed Norway from page http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2781493.ece Nastykermit ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC).
He* don't mind showing my IP :) No big secret to that.
Just want to point out that Gripen had a supercruise ability already from the beginning, coming as a surprise for all involved as that synonym wasn't used then.
"There was one interesting problem,” Colonel Eldh concludes with a smile. “Gripen is supersonic at all altitudes and can cruise supersonically with an external load including fuel tank, four AMRAAM and two sidewinder missiles without the need to engage the afterburner. In the early days of operations, we found some pilots inadvertently flying supersonic over populated areas. The problem was one of habit, as these pilots had their throttle settings as high as on the older-generation fighters that Gripen replaced. “It is fair to say there were a few startled people on the ground, as their day-to-day work, or perhaps sleep, was disturbed by unexpected sonic booms! It was, of course, a simple task to solve the problem – the throttles were re-set and everyone was happy."
http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE463B06-8C9B-4A49-A382-999C6AF1E53B/0/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf
And where in the world did you get this idea from? "The Gripen fighter system is expeditionary in nature, and therefore well suited for peace-keeping missions worldwide, which has become the new main task of the Swedish Armed Forces." Before anything like that will happen there are going to be a really big Swedish debate, and I mean B I G.
Sources please, and Swedish ones that is, not Chinese, nor Nato :)
Gripen is built as an interceptor. It will go up under one minute from getting the waring, Arrange a radar silent box and wait for you. Using the data link it will fool your radar, and you, blow you out of the sky without 'illuminating' if necessary (tracking can be done by systems further away.) and then be back on base in about ten to fifteen minutes. It can fly for over two hours so that leaves it a lot of fuel for further fun.
And you're totally missing out on our ...over fifteen year old now... data link capabilities? We had them before anyone even had started to consider them (Draken). And even if we have to exchange it to an inferior Nato system, as we otherwise can't 'play' in the big sandbox, it should be mentioned I think, . the best data link in the world, and you don't mention it at all?
They are what will take down any other aircraft existing as they can work under jamming and are peer to peer, including those vehicles on the ground using the same system too. We have a 3-D radar cover at all times, and you won't jam it with less than using an nuclear Emp bomb, and even then I expect ours to work. So much missing in this article about our radar systems? And with NORA?
---Qoutes-----------------
Ericsson’s future airborne radar is Not Only a Radar, NORA, but also a complete electronic warfare system including jamming and data communication. The new radar will use an Active Electronically Scanned Array, AESA, built up with approximately 1000 individual transmit/receive modules. The antenna, mounted on a single-axis platform, will give well over 200˚ coverage in azimuth. NORA will offer superior performance by virtue of a number of core capabilities at Ericsson – beam agility, beam widening, multi-channel processing, target-specific waveforms and low radar cross-section.....
It's planned to scan +-60 deg electronically and 60 deg mechanically in azimut, permitting scanning over a 240 deg arc and electronically +-60 deg up and downwards. ...
Fully programmable signal and data processors enable the radar to handle these air defence, attack and reconnaissance missions. This also gives the radar a very high growth potential to meet future requirements. The radars flexible waveforms make it possible to avoid ambiguities and allow performance characteristics to be optimized for all operating modes. The radar also matches the data link requirements for advanced medium range missiles...Ericsson has started development work for upgrading the PS05/A multimode radar. Some of the up-grades have been possible to incorporate, since new, faster and more powerful processors and components have become available on the market. An essential part of these upgrades is a new data processor who will replace the D80 processor in the Systems Computer in Swedish Air Force Gripens. It is a Modular Airborne Computer System (MACS) with higher capacity. A significant upgrade of the signal processor is also included which will dramatically enhance functions in both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions....
Ericsson AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) is a new airborne radar project currently in development at Ericsson Microwave Systems. The AESA technology will improve the radars overall performance drastically, especially its target detection and tracking capability. Beam direction can be changed instantaneously, detection range will be considerably increased, and jamming suppression further improved. The AESA radar will feature multibeam capability with all beams individually and simultaneously controlled. It can also operate simultaneously as a fire control and obstacle warning radar, and be used both in intercept and ground attack missions. The multibeam concept also allows for radar operation, data linking, radar warning and jamming simultaneously. As a consequence of the very large number of transmitter and receiver modules, the radar will have a high system availability through graceful degradation...."
End Quotes-------------------
Not that we will be using that either it seems :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.169.1 ( talk) 14:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, there seems to be some dispute once again about what constitutes "comparable". In this case, I would think any 4.5-gen fighter aircraft that also have a significant air-to-ground capacity would be comparable, without regard to such things as size. Because once you get into that type of categorization, where is the line drawn? Here is the current list in the article, and associated sizes (length and empty weight):
Gripen: 14.1 m, 5,700 kg
F-16E/F: 14.8 m, 8,670 kg
Rafale: 15.3 m, 9,500 kg
F-2: 15.5 m, 9,527 kg
J-10: 15.5 m, 9,730 kg
Typhoon: 16.0 m, 11,000 kg
F-18E/F: 18.3 m, 13,900 kg
MiG-35: 19 m, 11,000 kg
F-15E: 19.4 m, 14,300 kg
So someone tell me why any of the above 4.5-gen fighters wouldn't be comparable? ViperNerd ( talk) 21:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The Brazilian Air Force pilots put the JAS 39 Gripen at the best. Even so, Brazilian president Lula decided for the French Rafale. Agre22 ( talk) 15:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)agre22
It's unofficial that Air force wants gripen, da Silva wanted Rafale and new president likes super hornet, wikileaks also mentioned about fx-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SojerPL ( talk • contribs) 02:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I've modified that portion of the text where was said that canards can be tilted "downwards, making them into large air brakes and further pushing the aircraft down". If any elevation surface was moved downwards a positive lift at that particular portion of the fuselage will be generated. A canard equipped aircraft would depart from the ground with such command. So "downwards" was changed to "upwards". Observe that we're not talking about control stick movements, that are different between conventional tail aircraft and canard aircraft (control push lowers elevators on conventional tail A/C; control push raises canards on canard equipped A/C). RobertoRMola ( talk) 19:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
You guys need to add the crash history and the corruption charges. Don't make this page look all rosy. That isn't what wiki is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.99.117 ( talk) 19:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The Denel Dynamics- Mectron A-Darter (a 5th generation IR-SRAAM) is currently being integrated on the SAAF's Gripens. See [1]. Do we add it here now or as soon as qualification is complete or should we wait until it is actually in service? Roger ( talk) 11:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing (?) dispute between Bzuk and me regarding citation format. Could anyone offer a third opinion on this? Maybe we should use the cite web templates instead? Our discussion - Bzuk's and mine - can be found on my talkpage. HandsomeFella ( talk) 20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
See recent edits in Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement#Norway for how Gripen lost Norway. Hcobb ( talk) 15:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Per the new updated WP:AIR/NC guideliens, this article can now be at the Manufactuer-Designation-name format without any difficulty. Are there any objections to moving the article to Saab JAS 39 Gripen? - BilCat ( talk) 15:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Should Gripen NG not have an article of its own like F/A 18 and Super Hornet ? It would seem with a different engine 40% more internal fuel, more hardpoints etc. Its a different aircraft. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 11:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Gripen is definate article in Swedish, and hence the translation would be The Griffin in English. Indefinite article Griffin would be just Grip in Swedish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bärlein ( talk • contribs) 13:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Please keep in mind when reading the above that *Ulla* ( talk · contribs) and John Anderson ( talk · contribs) are the same person after a checkuser done at their homewiki, svwp, so take lightly on their comments. GameOn ( talk) 11:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just done a count through of the sources used to reference statements in this article, and I've found more than 1/3rd lead back to its own manufacturer. This level seems quite high compared with other aircraft articles, and can be viewed as a conflict of interests, or even potential advertising in the more extremist opinions. I don't really have a radical problem with it, but I felt it necessary to point this out to editors concerned with this page's welfare. It may be an idea to crack open the independent journals and books to make sure the coverage is well rounded and involves many different areas of reflection, ultimately this would be an improvement upon the article. Kyteto ( talk) 21:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
How are we doing on this? Any major additions planned prior to nominating, or shall I press ahead with the GA Review when I clear some projects? Kyteto ( talk) 11:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like all the gripen.com links redirect to saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/ . The news page on saab.com only has releases back to 2009. So either they should be replaced with archive.org copies or other references. :( - Fnlayson ( talk) 02:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
IMHO the section is somewhat OTT and even smells a bit of schadenfreude. We don't see long lists in for example the F-16 article crowing about everytime some country decided not to buy it. Practically every time a country buys fighters (or any other major military equipment) it involves bids from multiple suppliers and every time all except one are "losers" - yet this article is the only one where such a big deal is made of "non-sales" that it has an entire section. Roger ( talk) 09:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
First there is no reason to even list which aircraft the Gripen lost out to. A simple list of links to the articles for the fighter competitions that the aircraft had failed to select in would suffice. Hcobb ( talk) 14:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
As of this morning, Nov 30, Switzerland has agreed to purchase 22 Gripens, however as far as I can see, it hasn't been stated whether they'll be the first gen C/D Gripens or the Gripen NG.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8424745&c=AIR&s=TOP ( 121.45.132.113 ( talk) 23:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC))
Finland may buy Gripens soon on a reconsideration. The finnish AF commander has publicly said they don't want any twinjets in the future, because of the high costs (even though the F-18 they have is probably the cheapest and least labour-intensive twinjet currently). Regarding the single-pipe jets, the F-35 JSF is a cost nightmare. Among the remaining unijet types Gripen is the most advanced one and the most proven. 82.131.210.163 ( talk) 11:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, it was reported in the news that something burning fell into a woman's hair, which then also caught fire, but the fire was quickly put out. The woman might have had some burns from this, but I don't remember if that was reported. This was the most serious personal injury, I think, and possibly the only one. I don't have any sources to back it up, I'm afraid. The Air Force really got away cheap (if you don't count the aircraft), having to pay only for that injury and one or two dozen bicycles that happened to be parked on the spot, and consequentially destroyed in the crash and the ensuing fire. And for the restoration of the place, of course.
Maybe one could phrase it that "no one was seriously injured"? HandsomeFella ( talk) 10:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
As there appears to be continual edit warring over addition/removal of the HAL Tejas to the comparible aircraft field - can something be done per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_33#Comparable_aircraft_.28again.29 to remove the comparible aircraft field or barring that, can someone implement long term semi-protection? Nigel Ish ( talk) 15:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The troll has also been appearing in other articles so this may not be the solution. FWiW, maybe the page can be protected? Bzuk ( talk) 04:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC).
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Saab link at the end of the first sentence is wrong. It should go to Saab AB not Saab the car company.
The current line reads "The Saab JAS 39 Gripen (English: Griffin) is a lightweight single-engine multirole fighter manufactured by the Swedish aerospace company Saab."
Saab is a car company while Saab AB is the aerospace company. 129.112.109.243 ( talk) 19:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
"In December 2007, as part of Gripen International's marketing efforts in Denmark, a deal was signed with Danish technology supplier Terma A/S which allows them to participate."
A corporation is singular and not plural. A corporation is not a human being, and the pronoun that goes with a corporation is "it", and NOT "they" or "them", and neither is "their" used. Use "its".
Hence, the sentence quoted above must conclude like this: a deal was signed with Danish technology supplier Terma A/S which allows it to participate.
Governments are also singular, so "they", "them", "their", "we", and "us" do not apply.
For more examples:
McDonnell Douglas proposed its
F - 18 Hornet for the competition. McDonnell Douglas later became a divison of the
Boeing Company.
Rolls Royce proposed its turbofan engines for the new
transport planes.
However, the
General Electric Company also submitted a proposal for its turbofan engines.
The
German Government decided that it would not purchase any more warplanes that were not manufactured in Germany for the
Luftwaffe. Hence, it would no longer fly any new warplanes that were made in the
United States or
Russia, despite its long history of flying ones from Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, and MiG.
98.81.11.27 (
talk)
00:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that Gripen is, due to its close coupled canards, supermaneuverable aircraft - namely, canards direct air flow over wing at high angle of attack, allowing it to achieve and sustain far higher angle of attack - and thus turn rate - than would otherwise be possible. 195.29.156.233 ( talk) 12:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Somebody might want to add this:
23 March 2012 http://www.bangkokpost.com/media/content/2012/03/26/FCB55A2DFA724D5D8CE867ED1A09F96B.jpg http://www.bangkokpost.com/multimedia/photo/285691/photos-of-the-week
"The Swedish Air Force has donated a Gripen 39A fighter aircraft to exhibit in the Royal Thai Air Force museum to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Thailand's first three air force soldiers. Photo by Surapol Promsaka Na Sakolnakorn." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.136.148 ( talk) 23:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The Gripen is tiny compared to the F-16 and is a much much closer match to the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle. Hcobb ( talk) 00:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
So the F-16 carries 50% more weaponry and fuel. So compare the Gripen not to a F-16, but 2/3rds of a F-16. Hcobb ( talk) 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
[2] Could someone translate if these would be new airframes or older A/B/C/D upgraded to E/F? -- SojerPL ( talk) 13:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_06_18_2012_p38-465770.xml Sources suggest the design will incorporate F-35-style diverterless supersonic inlets.
Not all source provide information about using Rb.71 by Gripen, [3] mention RB.74/AIM-9 and aim-120 integration in 1998. Skyflash pages mention only it was used by JA37 Viggen, F-4 Phantom II, Tornado ADV. My question is if Gripen is capable of illuminating the target for a passive radar missile or only for active guidence missile? -- SojerPL ( talk) 09:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
JAS 39B was developed as a schooling aircraft, intended for the export market-segment that did not adhere to the concept of simulator training as sole preparation for solo-flights. Flygvapnet (SwAF) was ordered to receive 12 aircraft to validate the performance.
The 39C/D have following sub-variants: 39EBS HU (Export Baseline Standard Hungary) are 39C/Ds with the NATO-link 16 installed. Gripen N was the upgraded C/D offered and rejected by Norway. 39X was the plane to be exported to Saudi-Arabia. No offer was made though.
Gripen NG (Next Generation) has become nicknamed Super-Gripen in Swedish media. This has caused a bit of confusion, since the manufacturer named it NG, while the official designation is JAS 39E for the one-seater and JAS 39F for the two-seated aircraft. 39NG have the subvariants Gripen DK intended for Denmark and Gripen IN for India's AF (not to be confused with the Sea Gripen intended for India's carrier fleet).
Sources are found on the Swedish wiki-page. /BP 78.70.77.35 ( talk) 13:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
It suffers from poor translations from Swedish. JAS 39 is NOT , and was not, intended as a multirole fighter where attack and rec are secondary funtions, but a "enhetsplan" which means the capability for all three functions are fully integrated in the same airframe. This was intended to keep full capability while greatly lower the costs of service compared to the previous 35/37 systems since only one infrastructure would be needed. Source "JAS 39 GRIPEN", ISBN93-973892-5-0, pages 60-80 /BP 78.70.77.35 ( talk) 14:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Dassault described the Rafale as being an omnirole fighter with semi-stealth capabilities.
In 2012, Lars Helmrich of the Swedish air force testified to parliament that the Gripen would be useless in air to air combat by 2020. { http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/flygplan/article3578741.ece "Gripen has to be modernized to meet air battles."}
The MoD says it can stagger on until 2030. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/flygplan/article3578621.ece
Can we at least move all of the pure NG stuff into a separate section?
For example:
Notes that AESA is just for NG. (So far.)
BTW: Compare 200 degree field of view PLUS IRST vs F-22s 120 degree field of view and no IRST... Hcobb ( talk) 20:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121119/DEFREG01/311190008/Sweden-8217-s-Possible-Gripen-Cut-Prompts-Force-Capability-Fears?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE “The government had initially favored acquiring 80 to 100 fighters. This was reduced to between 60 to 80 units last spring. Now it is talking of purchasing 40 to 60 aircraft,” said Staffan Danielsson, a member of Parliament with the ruling Center Party, who sits on the national Parliamentary Defense Committee.
According to hungarian press their Gripens' real top speed is only 1.45 Mach numbers (with pylons on, but without external stores or droptank).
It is well-known that the F-404 engine family has sluggish acceleration in the supersonic regime and the little Gripen probably runs low of fuel before it could go beyond M1.45 speed. Furthermore, she does not have variable intake flaps or shock cones to help her breath easily when going fast.
Another factor for the low Gripen top speed might be the status of the "Tolstoy" cockpit flip-switch. There is no proof hungarian JAS-39 EBS-HU ever flew set in the "War" position and the "Peace" position features extremely peaceful settings for all the Gripen's systems, to help lower wear and tear on the machinery, especially the turbine and save money. Maybe Gripen goes to M1.98765432 in "War" setting, who knows?
BTW, Hungary is not a large country, but it spans 700km east to west and MiG-29 have been regularly doing M1.6 there and MiG-21's of old were occasionally pushed to M2.05 (mandatory part of an 5-flight test regime done after significant repairs). 87.97.52.178 ( talk) 00:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20130130.aspx the JAS 39E is heavier (17 tons) that the existing 30C, has better electronics, a heavier payload (over four tons), and has a two seater version better able to handle ground attack and electronic warfare duties.
Can we have a super gripen stats block please? Hcobb ( talk) 17:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
That's my calculation on the Swiss deal. Hcobb ( talk) 10:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Also now that the stats are starting to diverge, is it time for a "Super Gripen" page yet? Hcobb ( talk) 19:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, as long as the manufacturer doesn't name the the new versions other than E/F (or NG, or whatever), there's no reason why we should. HandsomeFella ( talk) 09:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The Australian deal for 24 F/A-18F aircraft comes to about the same dollar figure as the Swiss deal, but for two more aircraft (each of which has about twice the engine power), and advanced jamming equipment. Or is that too OR to mention, even though the two aircraft have been bid against each other elsewhere? Hcobb ( talk) 00:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Aussie deal was the same price, but for a larger number of a much better aircraft than the Gripen. Hcobb ( talk) 03:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The Gripen is supposed to fight for real soon, not libyan recce, but with bombs, missiles and autocannon. South African ground and air forces are deploying to Entebbe in order to invade the Central African Republic and annihilate the Seleukide coup rebels who killed 13 SA para-troopers about a week ago. Black-led SA, while corrupt and economically struggling, still wants to be the african superpower and is planning for a show of overwhelming force, they want to do manhunt on the coupists. They want to take the place of France as the policemen of the black continent.
On the other hand, SAAF Gripen pilots fly very few hours per year, due to collapse of the national economy since the negro took control. It could be dangerous to send the pilots into combat with such lack of experience. 91.83.37.124 ( talk) 20:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
All the sources I've seen indicate that the dumping of the Euros at the feet of the Swiss was one of the elements in their consideration. Hcobb ( talk) 02:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The NATO response is more in line with NATO-Swedish relation articles. The notable aspect for this article is that the current Gripens were unavailable to respond to an incursion into Swedish airspace. Putting this in the same paragraph as the call for the upgrade is somewhat OR so drop NATO mention and move to bottom of Swedish service section? Hcobb ( talk) 01:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Despite having been discussed before, the article is virtually devoid of any information concerning bribery scandals, the widely publicized crashes in 1989 and 1993 or indeed anything even hinting at political controversy surrounding its development in Sweden.
Considering this was actually pointed out several years ago, and no one bothered to do anything about it, I've asked for a GAR and I'm putting up an POV-template until this is fixed properly. Peter Isotalo 16:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
That looks pretty good, I think we're getting to a reasonable balance here. Now who's interested in working on a comprehensive article about all the troubles? What should it's title be? @ Peter does the Swedish media have a general "label" for it such as "Gripen Scandal", "SAAB bribery case" or "Gripen-gate"? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 15:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I really wish that a discussion on this topic might have been allowed to have taken place before nominating the article for a GAR. A seven year old discussion of a radically different preceeding version of this article (less than 40% of the content of the article today originates from that article!) which did not touch on many of the issues you have rightly raised is not what I would commonly identify as a prior discussion. That being said, I agree with expanding the coverage of the bribery scandal; I just wish the means of developing this content had been more gradual. Kyteto ( talk) 11:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
It appears that the Brändström report says only that "The JAS project risked losing both credibility and trust", so cannot be used to support Peter's edits. But the resources referenced above do appear to support it. So it looks to me more like unskilled editing by Peter rather than PoV editing. On the "quick and resourceful" Government, the report does use the word "quickly" in this context, but I see no sign of Kyteto describing it as "resourceful". These are small misunderstandings in an otherwise well-informed and balanced bout of editing. I do hope you guys can give each other a little more credit for doing their best. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 17:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Since the GAR seemed to achieve nothing constructive I've closed it without delisting the article. Peter Isotalo 21:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)