Saab Gripen

[Bee_Sting]

The Saab Gripen is too underrated but this fighter jet has teeth. If can reach 9g's and just as maneuverable as the F-16:smartass::thumbup:

 

 

[GripenNG]

We eat Falcons for breakfast! :smilewink:

[Milli]

The Saab Gripen is too underrated but this fighter jet has teeth. If can reach 9g's and just as maneuverable as the F-16:smartass::thumbup:

 

 

 

Nice plane. Cheap and capable.

 

Regards,

Milli

[OttoPus]

Beautiful machine!

[Kid18120]

We eat Falcons for breakfast! :smilewink:

 

When you don't crash upon landing (joking, i love the 39 :thumbup: )

 

 

S!

[GripenNG]

When you don't crash upon landing (joking, i love the 39 :thumbup: )

 

 

S!

 

Never happend!! :D

[CoNa]

And now Brazil is will be the second largest Gripen owners, next to Sweden.

Snowden seemed to pull the plug on the F/A 18.

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/president-dilma-rousseff-announces-brazil-buying-swedens-saab-gripen-jet-fighters-1514060

[Bee_Sting]

We eat Falcons for breakfast! :smilewink:

The Gripen can hold it's own with the Falcon. The Gripen has performed well in Red Flag in 08 and did well in 13.

[Suchacz]

Gripen as an escort for our olympic gold medals from Sochi :thumbup:

 

[Milli]

Well done to the Czechs.

 

Regards,

Milli

[vanveken]

AK Gripen its a best light weght fighters on world. Its rights.... Proof and alse

[Scrim]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but what proof? There's absolutely zero real world (as in use it in combat) proof. And considering that I think we all know how every defense contractor and air force on the planet is more concerned about making their equipment look good in training, as opposed to put it through trials to evaluate if it indeed is good, I think we can rule out exercises.

[GripenNG]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but what proof? There's absolutely zero real world (as in use it in combat) proof. And considering that I think we all know how every defense contractor and air force on the planet is more concerned about making their equipment look good in training, as opposed to put it through trials to evaluate if it indeed is good, I think we can rule out exercises.

 

If it perfoms well in exercises it should perfom quite well in real conflicts as well - or do you say the Raptors is a bad airplane even tough it perfoms well in exercises but never ever had a real mission over enemy territory? With that attitude the Gripen should be a much better aircraft since it have participated in a real conflict such as in Libya and against the M23 guerilla (no official announcment) in Africa.

 

It all depends on how you use it, it´s the politicians who decides in what extent the airplane is to be used in conflicts, and the AF staff how they need to be exercised. The producers such as SAAB produce an aircraft ordered by the state according to a demand list - and that demand list ain´t put togheter for PR.

 

Gripen is probably the best light-weight multirole fighter (depending on how you classify the EF and Rafale) on the market in various aspects. And the proof? International Exercises, Unified Protector, M23 intervention, life-cycle-costs and just the fact it´s a well loved airplane by the pilots who fly it.

Edited February 24, 2014 by GripenNG

[Scrim]

What I quite clearly wrote is that it's naive to say a plane is even half decent based solely on exercises. It has not one single hour of flying in combat. Flying unarmed recon flights over Libya with no threat picture wasn't participating in a conflict, it was a political and commercial use of them, to gain favours with NATO, and to show it off to potential customers.

 

Political decisions about how to employ it doesn't mean a thing were it to participate in a war against even relatively outdated planes, such as in the Gulf war.

 

Am I saying it's a worthless, piece of crap plane worth less than the paper used for its manuals?

No, I'm saying that the complete absence of proof that it is, or probably is the best of its kind. No one can honestly say that something built explicitly for warfare can be proven to be good until it has taken part in war, where it has been fired upon, and fired back, all in anger. The only thing proven about it being the best in the world is the price tag on it, and the price of keeping it flying.

[aaron886]

I'm sure it's an excellent platform, but I'm not sure I would rank it higher than a modernized F-16. As always, it depends on much more than just the aircraft.

[GripenNG]

I'm sure it's an excellent platform, but I'm not sure I would rank it higher than a modernized F-16. As always, it depends on much more than just the aircraft.

 

Yeah I agree with you, it´s a bit cocky maybe to say it IS the best light weight multi role fighter. And a fully comprehensive picture of the systems and tactics is to say at least not available for the public.

 

What I quite clearly wrote is that it's naive to say a plane is even half decent based solely on exercises. It has not one single hour of flying in combat. Flying unarmed recon flights over Libya with no threat picture wasn't participating in a conflict, it was a political and commercial use of them, to gain favours with NATO, and to show it off to potential customers.

 

Political decisions about how to employ it doesn't mean a thing were it to participate in a war against even relatively outdated planes, such as in the Gulf war.

 

Am I saying it's a worthless, piece of crap plane worth less than the paper used for its manuals?

No, I'm saying that the complete absence of proof that it is, or probably is the best of its kind. No one can honestly say that something built explicitly for warfare can be proven to be good until it has taken part in war, where it has been fired upon, and fired back, all in anger. The only thing proven about it being the best in the world is the price tag on it, and the price of keeping it flying.

 

The Gripen flew CAP, AFAC and Reconnaissance missions, whilst being fully armed over an enviroment more hostile than you think. NATO later stated they were prioritizing the Swedish reconnaissance contribution for its quality and quick reporting of targets before it going cold.

 

The political rable is another discussion, but the fact that it perfomed well over Libya reaching it´s objectives tells you something about the plane. I do think your view of when something is "Combat Proven" is quite subjective.

 

Perfoming well in advanced combat exercises don´t give you the stamp "combat proven" - but it sure gives you reputation.

[Scrim]

No, it wasn't. How many Libyan fighter jets scrambled to intercept any foreign fighters, bombers, AWACs, etc? How many planes were shot down? Aside from that one plane that crashed, did any other ones even come close to the ground? And it is outright nonsense to say that it is better, or even has much of a reputation compared to planes like the F-16, that have actually dropped ordnance and downed enemy fighters. Also, most importantly, combat exercises are what the USAF used as proof that they had no issues during the Vietnam war, and what the RAF used as proof that they had even less problems before WW2.

[GripenNG]

No, it wasn't. How many Libyan fighter jets scrambled to intercept any foreign fighters, bombers, AWACs, etc? How many planes were shot down? Aside from that one plane that crashed, did any other ones even come close to the ground? And it is outright nonsense to say that it is better, or even has much of a reputation compared to planes like the F-16, that have actually dropped ordnance and downed enemy fighters. Also, most importantly, combat exercises are what the USAF used as proof that they had no issues during the Vietnam war, and what the RAF used as proof that they had even less problems before WW2.

 

Well do you belive the F-15C Eagle is a better airplane than the F-22 Raptor, just because it have more confirmed kill scores? Your theory don´t make sense, even tough you try to be so objective it backfires you into something almost naive way of thinking. The same way of thinking goes for the Gripen versus Falcon.

 

The F-16 have 20 years of longer service in far more political and military aggressive countries - so no wonder why it have more kill scores - but that ain´t a proof either for it being a better fighter. It is just used differently, and that´s why you should´nt compare aircraft in such a way.

 

Are you really serious about your theory about exercises? Red Flag was created just because US pilots had really big problems coping with the threat enviroment over Vietnam. I don´t even know if you are serious or not, but that is to me just as a stupid statement, as it for you hearing me say Gripen have a reputation for being a well perfoming fighter.

[El Hadji]

Hmmm... I'm thinking Brazil should have bought Bf-109's or Spits since they have more confirmed kills than most modern fighters. Stats can't lie.

[Vekkinho]

^^^

LOL!

[Scrim]

Well do you belive the F-15C Eagle is a better airplane than the F-22 Raptor, just because it have more confirmed kill scores? Your theory don´t make sense, even tough you try to be so objective it backfires you into something almost naive way of thinking. The same way of thinking goes for the Gripen versus Falcon.

 

The F-16 have 20 years of longer service in far more political and military aggressive countries - so no wonder why it have more kill scores - but that ain´t a proof either for it being a better fighter. It is just used differently, and that´s why you should´nt compare aircraft in such a way.

 

Are you really serious about your theory about exercises? Red Flag was created just because US pilots had really big problems coping with the threat enviroment over Vietnam. I don´t even know if you are serious or not, but that is to me just as a stupid statement, as it for you hearing me say Gripen have a reputation for being a well perfoming fighter.

 

Oh please, the differences between an F15C and an F22 are just so extreme that it's ridiculous to mention it in this context. They are two different generations, like an F16 and an F4. The Gripen and e.g. an F16 are not.

 

Am I saying that there is a direct ratio between number of kills an quality? No, that is the straw man argument you just made up. But there is definitely a difference in the quality one can prove to be inhibited by one fighter jet that has been used for its purpose, and one that has not. That difference is sufficiently large that you can't say the latter is the better in a case like this without betraying that you're full of nonsense. The only thing I said despite you putting words in my mouth, is exactly that you can not compare them due to this, and even less claim that the untested one is better.

 

Yes, I am deadly serious about training exercises. If you believe that such things as Red Flag are a panacea to buruecratic and political manipulation, then you are adorably naïve. So, the "threat environment" in Vietnam caused the US military to ensure setbacks in aerial warfare would never ever occur again? Then how come the considerably worse "threat environment" in the Pacific in early WW2 didn't cause them to ensure such a thing before the Vietnam war even started? By that logic there'd never have been setbacks in Vietnam.

[GripenNG]

Oh please, the differences between an F15C and an F22 are just so extreme that it's ridiculous to mention it in this context. They are two different generations, like an F16 and an F4. The Gripen and e.g. an F16 are not.

 

Am I saying that there is a direct ratio between number of kills an quality? No, that is the straw man argument you just made up. But there is definitely a difference in the quality one can prove to be inhibited by one fighter jet that has been used for its purpose, and one that has not. That difference is sufficiently large that you can't say the latter is the better in a case like this without betraying that you're full of nonsense. The only thing I said despite you putting words in my mouth, is exactly that you can not compare them due to this, and even less claim that the untested one is better.

 

Yes, I am deadly serious about training exercises. If you believe that such things as Red Flag are a panacea to buruecratic and political manipulation, then you are adorably naïve. So, the "threat environment" in Vietnam caused the US military to ensure setbacks in aerial warfare would never ever occur again? Then how come the considerably worse "threat environment" in the Pacific in early WW2 didn't cause them to ensure such a thing before the Vietnam war even started? By that logic there'd never have been setbacks in Vietnam.

 

I still don´t see any logic in your statement. Did you really don´t read what I wrote?

 

The F-16 and the JAS 39 have served under two different political systems. Such a comparison is dead already from the start. Instead you have to look at the technical data and how it really perfoms in advanced aerial exercises.

 

You don´t have to belive the proof, you can distrust exercises as much as you want, and whether or not the Libyan operation was a "real" war or not. But such as discussion belongs in another thread in my opinion. You have your proof under your nose, but it becomes quite annoying if we have to convince you about whether or not exercises and air campaigns are evidence or not for you!

 

Political use of the planes don´t change it´s technical data. And why would you belive the Gripen won´t perfom as well in full scale wars as the Falcon? What is your thought and evidence for that? And no, kill-scores against a less technical and trained enemy ain´t proof enough...

[Scrim]

Have I said it wouldn't? No. Have I said it's positively against all logic to proclaim it better, or even equal to those fighter jets we know for sure perform, because they have done so? Yes. What I argue against are those who claim that you can compare them. I am despite your lies not trying to compare them, which I stated very clearly over and over again.

 

Is it stupidly naïve to believe that exercises, especially those upon which long term top level political and financial decisions rest are not more corrupted by staff officers wishing to move on to make money and produce good results for their superiors and politicians? Yes. These "advanced aerial exercises" that you laud as ultimate proof of the performance of something that has never been called upon to perform in its intended role are just as liable to end up being disproved to the extent that they are not worth even a cent, by an actual war against an equally equipped and experienced enemy. Naïve, wish thinking people like you are the ones who ensured that it was widely accepted that the RAF with biplanes would find no match in the Luftwaffe prior the second world war.

 

I'm finished with this. The only thing I ever wrote was "beg my pardon, but there's no actual shooting war proof that this plane is as good as the manufacturer claims it to be. Seeing as how it is very logical to demand such proof before raising something to the sky and beyond, I thoroughly disagree that it's been proven to be the best of its kind", and you immediately made absurd wishful comparisons such as the F-22 and the F-15C. You've obviously chosen to suspend all logical thinking and submit completely to what for now remains nothing but sheer advertisement from politicians and the weapons industry after drinking absurd amounts of Gripen Kool Aid.

[ironmarc]

You guys are debating something completely meaningless. What matters in the Gripen deal is the full transfer of technology to Embraer, a more than capable plane manufacturer that is planning on venturing with military aviation. The Gripen's will be all built in brazilian soil, by Embraer engineers.

 

Now, as for their real combat use... First of all, I don't think they will ever be used for something other than shooting a plane full of cocaine trying to enter inside the country through the colombian or venezuelan borders, to land in some illegal hidden airfield in the middle of the jungle.

And that will happen only if the pilot is retarded enough to not oblige to land after a warning.

 

And to do that job, I guess the WWII Spitfire and Messerschmidt would be actually enough LOL

We actually have a training plane called Tucano that sometimes is used to patrol the borders and it's pretty much an Embraer-made P-51D Mustang with a turboprop engine.

 

Despite having some crazy individuals running some neighboring countries governments, these countries aren't Russia, China, anything like htat. They are a big joke, they are comparable to Cuba, they don't represent a threat to anyone but to their own people.

Brazil has the allie it needs: the NATO. The country has no history in wars, no reason to fight in any either, will be at most a small contributor in some war, like it did in the WWII, invading some part of Italy.

 

The only thing the Gripen's will be for, it's to show our neighbors that we have firepower to handle them, so they ought to respect the brazilian borders (and that doesn't mean a lot of firepower).

 

Then again, the biggest reason for this deal was probably to give firepower to Embraer, a private company, more than anything else.

I don't even think Snowden's had anything to do with it. The full transfer of technology was always a high priority in the demands for the deal.

[aaron886]

Tucano [...] pretty much an Embraer-made P-51D Mustang with a turboprop engine.

 

It's really not...