Gripen vs F-16
C D Edmondson
Which is the better plane?
No Americans or Sweeds need reply, and vise versa. :->
Christopher
Alain Godet
I'm French, so I can reply. I think the Gripen is far better than the
F16, because it is newer. The F16 is now completely outdated (like our
Mirage F1). Compared to the Rafale or the F-22, the Gripen is also far
cheaper. A good argument for export ;-)
--
=======================================================================
Alain Godet
alg...@aol.com
alg...@distributique.fr
Tout ce qui est dit ici n'implique que moi et pas mon employeur
"Ramer dans le sens du courant fait rire les crocodiles"
Proverbe africain
C D Edmondson
Henry Sokolski9001 <np...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <344DE0...@distributique.fr>,
> Alain Godet <alg...@distributique.fr> wrote:
> I'm an American, so I'll make no comment about the relative merits of the
>planes (this topic has been rehashed a few too many times for me <g>). A
>good argument against export, at least of the current model, is that it has
>U.S. engines, and therefore by U.S. law any export must be approved by the
>U.S. government. I know people don't like to hear it, but it _is_ a fact.
Hey don't knock it, American engines power a LARGE proportion of the
western fighters, and Im English.
Urban Fredriksson
In article <62i3l4$fh8$4...@despair.u-net.com>,
C D Edmondson <c...@ecom.u-net.com> wrote:
>Which is the better plane?
>No Americans or Sweeds need reply, and vise versa. :->
So you're not interested in the aircraft themselves, but
in people's perception of them?
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@kuai.se http://www.alfaskop.net/%7Egriffon/
Photos from my travels -> http://www.kuai.se/%7Egriffon/travels/travels.html
There is always a yet unknown alternative.
Ed Rasimus
Alain Godet <alg...@distributique.fr> wrote:
>I'm French, so I can reply. I think the Gripen is far better than the
>F16, because it is newer. The F16 is now completely outdated (like our
>Mirage F1). Compared to the Rafale or the F-22, the Gripen is also far
>cheaper. A good argument for export ;-)
I'm US, but I'm not picking the airplane, merely questioning the
choice.
Why is the F-16 "completely outdated"?? Can the Gripen fly appreciably
faster? Is it's G-available higher than 9? Does it have a smaller turn
radius? A heavier bomb load? Greater weapons accuracy? In-flight
refueling capability? Anti-radiation missile? Better A/A missile?
Improved navigation? LANTIRN equivalent?
Help us here with the choice, or is it merely "old"?
Ed Rasimus *** Peak Computing Magazine
Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
eertink@.nlr.nl
Alain Godet (alg...@distributique.fr) wrote:
: I'm French, so I can reply. I think the Gripen is far better than the
: F16, because it is newer.
That's no reason at all. why does newer have to be better? Besides, the
F-16 is still in production, so brand new ones are still available.
: The F16 is now completely outdated (like our Mirage F1).
Unlike the F1, The F-16 is still being produced, and older ones are being
upgraded (current MLU program), so there's no point,either.
: Compared to the Rafale or the F-22, the Gripen is also far
: cheaper. A good argument for export ;-)
Good point. Updating F-16's is cheaper still, though.
Now, to the original question: I think the aircraft are very comparable,
performancewise. I'm not familiar enough with Gripen details to make
objective comparisons, though.
On the whole, I think the classic statement will hold: The aircraft with
the best pilot in it is the best aircraft.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johan Eertink (Dutch) eer...@nlr.nl
All opinions in this post are strictly my own;
They do not represent NLR's view
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CaleyJ
>Help us here with the choice, or is it merely "old"?
Agreed. For an "old" plane, Bland Smith did a hell of a job with it at
Farnborough '96.
> Is it's G-available higher than 9?
No kidding. A plane may be able to pull itself apart doing g's (which, thanks
to limiters on modern aircraft, isn't supposed to happen) but that
manouverablity won't do it any good when the pilot is passed out behind the
"wheel."
For an "oldie" the F-16 sure is a heck of a fighter, to be around for this long
before being somewhat surpassed.
-Micah
John Dean
Yama wrote:
> In turn performance planes are roughly equal, F-16 has better wing
> aspect and thrust-to-weight ratio, Gripen has lower wing load and
> canards. Planes currently use practically same weapon systems. In pure
> combat performance, there is little difference between latest Viper
> model and current Gripen.
>
> Gripen, however, has better radar, smaller RCS, is lighter, is cheaper
> and easier to operate and maintain, is faster to turn around after
> mission, way easier and safer to operate from temporary bases.
Personally, I would hope that the Gripen was better, since it is a newer
aircraft. I would think that the Gripen design crew would be sitting in
front of a schematic of an F-16 saying "they got something good, but
what can we do to improve on it?"
Sisu
> Gripen, however, has better radar, smaller RCS, is lighter, is cheaper
> and easier to operate and maintain, is faster to turn around after
> mission, way easier and safer to operate from temporary bases.
>
I agree!
Can you start/land an F16 from a roadstrip about 400meters long?
Can you overhaul it whith conscripts only? In about 10 minutes?
Paul F Austin
EE Times had an employment ad for LockMart with a picture of a Gripen at
the head. Engines licensed from GE I know about. What about L-M?
--
Eat a live toad, first thing in the morning
and nothing worse will happen to you all day
-------------------------------------
Paul Austin
PAU...@HARRIS.COM
Sisu
>
> I'm an American, so I'll make no comment about the relative merits of
the
> planes (this topic has been rehashed a few too many times for me <g>). A
> good argument against export, at least of the current model, is that it
has
> U.S. engines, and therefore by U.S. law any export must be approved by
the
> U.S. government. I know people don't like to hear it, but it _is_ a
fact.
>
> Tim Hoyt
> Tim...@compuserve.com
>
Well, we build them ourself at Volvo Flygmotor. In Sweden it´s named RM12.
The basic engine might be Us, yes.(GE F404J) But it´s been highly upgraded
and now it´s fare mor effective than the US version.GE F404J version7270
kp, RM12 8170 kp)
//Sisu
Henry Sokolski9001
In article <62lnv4$69e$1...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>,
re...@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin) wrote:
>Henry Sokolski9001 <np...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>> I'm an American, so I'll make no comment about the relative merits
>> of the planes (this topic has been rehashed a few too many times for
>> me <g>). A good argument against export, at least of the current
>> model, is that it has U.S. engines, and therefore by U.S. law any
>> export must be approved by the U.S. government. I know people don't
>> like to hear it, but it _is_ a fact.
>
>Dont be to sure about that. The european engine developed for
>Eurofighter can be fitted and its a very good engine. But it might
>require high level politics to help pay for it. Such could be
>motivated by the US government sabotaging european aerospace industry
>by refusing to sell vital components. If that happens the US aerospace
>industry would gamble and perhaps loose an opportunity to sell newly
>manufactured equipment for sales of second had refurbished F-16:s. And
>it would be very good news for those lobbying for the strategic need
>of an independant european aerospace industry.
>
>Regards,
>--
>--
>Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society re...@lysator.liu.se
>Mail: Magnus Redin, Rydsvägen 214B, 584 32 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
>Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600
Magnus,
What I was saying is a fact is that the Gripen in its present configuration
requires the approval of US authorities for export. I know the Gripen has
been designed to take other engines, and that later models (if manufactured)
may use engines from European sources. We've gone around this before <g>.
The Eurofighter engine is a good one. It could easily work. I'm not sure
how quickly a new Gripen could enter into production, or whether new
production would be contingent on confirmed export orders. Financing would
be a problem, possibly, but a lot would depend on politics in Sweden, the
UK, and the US.
The costs of an independent European aerospace industry, especially one
capable of independently designing,producing, and exporting fighter aircraft
without US participation, would be very high. I'm not sure if a US veto
over engine parts would be enough to overcome the reluctance to make the
investment or not. I suspect, at a minimum, that the US would veto sales of
the current Gripen, particularly to new Central European NATO allies.
Depending on how cynical one is, opposition might be attributed either to
requirements for standardization with NATO air forces or to the fact that US
aerospace manufacturers have every intention of cementing those sales for
themselves (it's probably a little of both, and a lot of the latter). I
don't think the share of US construction in the Eurofighter engine is large
enough to encourage US manufacturers to support sale of components rather
than airframes--I think the profit margin and prestige of sales of airframes
(even F-16/F-18s)is probably a lot higher than that of being a partner in
the transfer of technology through a second country to a third country
(Sweden) so that a fourth country can buy Swedish aircraft. I just don't
think that sells well, either in the boardroom, on the factory floor, or in
the halls of Congress. Perhaps I am a cynic, however.
Respectfully,
Tim Hoyt
Tim...@compuserve.com
Paul Owen
Henry Sokolski9001 <np...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<62nver$7...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>...
> The Eurofighter engine is a good one. It could easily work. I'm not
sure
> how quickly a new Gripen could enter into production, or whether new
> production would be contingent on confirmed export orders. Financing
would
> be a problem, possibly, but a lot would depend on politics in Sweden, the
> UK, and the US.
Just being picky but don't forget EuroJet (the consortium which developed
the EJ-200) is a multinational concern, it would thus be a
UK/German/Italian/Spanish concern, not just a UK one.
Henry Sokolski9001
In article <344FB...@paju.oulu.fi>,
Yama <tj...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
>Henry Sokolski9001 wrote:
>
>> I'm an American, so I'll make no comment about the relative merits of
the
>> planes (this topic has been rehashed a few too many times for me <g>). A
>> good argument against export, at least of the current model, is that it
has
>> U.S. engines, and therefore by U.S. law any export must be approved by
the
>> U.S. government. I know people don't like to hear it, but it _is_ a
fact.
>
>So will history repeat itself?
>
>India chose to buy Viggens, but Americans torpedoed the deal because
>Viggen used American engine which was too fine and secret to be given
>pesky Indians who would sell it immediately to nearest Russian, same
>engine actually which is used in such super-secret military projects
>like DC-9.
>
>So India chose to buy MiG-27's instead. I hope Americans were happy.
The US has also done things like this to ISrael (the Kfir), and has leaned
on Taiwan about the export of their IDF (which I think has US technology in
the engine as well).
In fact, the plane India selected instead of the Gripen was the Jaguar. But
I don't think the US was so concerned about whether the Indians got an
advanced fighter, since there were alternatives available. Heck, it would
not have made one bit of difference to the US-Indian relationship in the
1970s if the Viggen _had_ been transferred. The INdo-Soviet relationship
grew neither closer nor farther apart as a result of the sale, and India
was never exactly a Soviet puppet anyway. The only people it would have
helped were the Swedes, who would have made a few bucks off the export of
arms. All in all, not exactly an earthshattering issue, in the grand scheme
of things.
The US was, rather, concerned about the export of US military technology in
violation of US law. The Russians may or may not have already had the
Viggen's engine technology or its equivalent. The primary concern was to
continue the legal precedent that the US retains control over military
related technology when it's transferred to another country, and that
technology cannot be re-transferred without US permission. We've been
chasing Israel (unsuccessfully) on this issue for almost a decade now, with
regards to exports to China. We have bothered the South Koreans about
illegal exports of M-16 rifles and other products. This wasn't a case
solely against either Sweden or India, but rather an upholding of US policy.
Sweden knew about the law (in both the Viggen and Gripen case), so it didn't
come as a surprise.
Finally, it's the law. If you don't like it, and there are lots who don't,
the way to change it is in Congress.
Will history repeat itself? Probably. Why should the US let Sweden sell an
aircraft with US engines to a US ally? I'm sure there are reasons on both
sides, but when it comes down to it I don't think that Sweden, which is not
a US ally or a NATO member, is more politically powerful than US aircraft
manufacturers. It may annoy the Swedes, and even some business interests in
the UK (which is helping market the Gripen), but I suspect those interests
have neither the weight nor the constitutency necessary to change US law and
policy.
Just my two cents.
Tim Hoyt
Tim...@compuserve.com
Idon't speak for my boss or my organization. These are the ramblings of a
slightly deranged mind.
Henry Sokolski9001
In article <62l2eh$jd7$1...@despair.u-net.com>,
c...@ecom.u-net.com (C D Edmondson) wrote:
>Henry Sokolski9001 <np...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <344DE0...@distributique.fr>,
>> Alain Godet <alg...@distributique.fr> wrote:
>
>>>I'm French, so I can reply. I think the Gripen is far better than the
>>>F16, because it is newer. The F16 is now completely outdated (like our
>>>Mirage F1). Compared to the Rafale or the F-22, the Gripen is also far
>>>cheaper. A good argument for export ;-)
>>>--
>>>=======================================================================
>>>Alain Godet
>>> alg...@aol.com
>>> alg...@distributique.fr
>>>Tout ce qui est dit ici n'implique que moi et pas mon employeur
>>>"Ramer dans le sens du courant fait rire les crocodiles"
>>> Proverbe africain
>
>> I'm an American, so I'll make no comment about the relative merits of the
>>planes (this topic has been rehashed a few too many times for me <g>). A
>>good argument against export, at least of the current model, is that it
has
>>U.S. engines, and therefore by U.S. law any export must be approved by the
>>U.S. government. I know people don't like to hear it, but it _is_ a fact.
>
>Hey don't knock it, American engines power a LARGE proportion of the
>western fighters, and Im English.
I'm not knocking it. Just making an observation--there're a lot of people
who believe the Gripen is an obvious export product, and at least one
barrier remains to exports. As aircraft get ever more expensive and the
international aerospace industry continues to decline, it will be ever more
of a problem -- the number of remaining engine manufacturers for high
performance combat aircraft probably won't grow, so suppliers will have some
leverage over the end-product (if they want it).
Tim Hoyt
Tim...@compuserve.com
Katana
I dont know about you...but i sure as hell wouldnt trust any damn CONSCRIPT
to repair/refuel/rearm My aircraft....are you really that stupid????? I
remember the German's doing this in WW2 and they didnt fair too well either.
Magnus Redin
Henry Sokolski9001 <np...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> The costs of an independent European aerospace industry, especially
> one capable of independently designing,producing, and exporting
> fighter aircraft without US participation, would be very high.
It was worth it when Airbus and ESA were created for production of
civilian airframes and satellite launches. The cost were high but both
were successfull.
> I'm not sure if a US veto over engine parts would be enough to
> overcome the reluctance to make the investment or not. I suspect, at
> a minimum, that the US would veto sales of the current Gripen,
> particularly to new Central European NATO allies. Depending on how
> cynical one is, opposition might be attributed either to
> requirements for standardization with NATO air forces or to the fact
> that US aerospace manufacturers have every intention of cementing
> those sales for themselves (it's probably a little of both, and a
> lot of the latter).
The German government recommends Gripen for the newly free central
european countries and Brittish Aerospace is doing the NATO
standardization of avionics, etc.
> I don't think the share of US construction in the Eurofighter engine
> is large enough to encourage US manufacturers to support sale of
> components rather than airframes-- I think the profit margin and
> prestige of sales of airframes (even F-16/F-18s)is probably a lot
> higher than that of being a partner in the transfer of technology
> through a second country to a third country (Sweden) so that a
> fourth country can buy Swedish aircraft. I just don't think that
> sells well, either in the boardroom, on the factory floor, or in the
> halls of Congress. Perhaps I am a cynic, however.
I was refering to the licence production of RM12 wich is based on F404
and wich gives license money to USA, technology transfer from Sweden
to USA and I suspect some manufacturing of new parts.
And I were comparing that to sales of second hand airframes.
And last Sweden is already transferring technical and industrial
knowledge including manufacturing of parts of the Gripen airframe to
the intended customers. These countries are not thirld world
countries, they have "only" had a very rough time with communist rule
and can be as prosperous as Germany within a few decades.
US technology is very good, that is why so manny parts are bought from
the US but its not allways the best or the only source.
Henry Sokolski9001
In article <01bcdfbb$3cf99800$0ef6ee82@default>,
"Sisu" <"REMOVE"si...@cavalry.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I'm an American, so I'll make no comment about the relative merits of
>the
>> planes (this topic has been rehashed a few too many times for me <g>). A
>> good argument against export, at least of the current model, is that it
>has
>> U.S. engines, and therefore by U.S. law any export must be approved by
>the
>> U.S. government. I know people don't like to hear it, but it _is_ a
>fact.
>>
>> Tim Hoyt
>> Tim...@compuserve.com
>>
>
>Well, we build them ourself at Volvo Flygmotor. In Sweden it´s named RM12.
>The basic engine might be Us, yes.(GE F404J) But it´s been highly upgraded
>and now it´s fare mor effective than the US version.GE F404J version7270
>kp, RM12 8170 kp)
>
>
>//Sisu
Great! But the technology itself is proprietary to the US. That's US law,
and the agreement which Sweden chose to abide by in the case of both the
Viggen and the Gripen. I don't want to harp about this (perhaps I already
am harping)--the issue isn't where the stuff is built, but where the
technology came from. If the Swedes want to export the Gripen, they either
have to get US permission or a new engine. Alternatively, they could tell
the US to go to hell and sell it anyway, but I suspect that would result in
trade sanctions and other problems.
All the best,
TimHoyt
Tim...@compuserve.com
I don't speak for my boss or my organization. These are the ramblings of my
own deranged mind <g>.
Massa
If the engines were capable of producing more thrust, then why wouldn't we
tweak them ourselves?
Sisu <"REMOVE"si...@cavalry.com> wrote in message
<01bcdfbb$3cf99800$0ef6ee82@default>...
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) said:
>And, you've got to really appreciate the kind of government that
>conscripts its people or are your conscripts impressed after capture
>on the high seas.
Gee, I seem to recall that *your* government conscripted people to fight in
that war you are so proud of your service in. Most European countries have
national service, even in peace time. The US has the luxury of having a huge
manpower base and potential enemies that are far away and more likely to fight
them using bombers and missles than waves of tanks and people. Consequently
they haven't had to draft in a little while. Countries that live next door to
their potential enemy need to have a relatively large standing army compared
to their man power base, so a year or two of national service is the norm. I
can't say it's necessarily a bad thing, either.
Then again I'm from a country that hasn't needed a draft since 1945. And even
that draft nearly caused a constitutional crisis.
--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com) I don't buy from spammers.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,
for there you have been, there you long to return." -- Leonardo da Vinci.
Yama
Massa wrote:
> If the engines were capable of producing more thrust, then why
> wouldn't we
> tweak them ourselves?
Thats something to think about.:)
Alain Godet
Don't make me say that the Super Etendard and the F8 are not
obsolescent. Of course they are. And the F-18 is not obsolescent. And,
as an ex Navy Officer (during my military service), I deaply regret that
we did not lease some F-18 while waiting for the Rafale M to be ready.
But I still think that the F-16 is outdated, as the Mirage F1 is !
Christoph Schlegel
Magnus Redin schrieb in Nachricht <62okdl$9pp$1...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>...
>Henry Sokolski9001 <np...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>> The costs of an independent European aerospace industry, especially
>> one capable of independently designing,producing, and exporting
>> fighter aircraft without US participation, would be very high.
>
>It was worth it when Airbus and ESA were created for production of
>civilian airframes and satellite launches. The cost were high but both
>were successfull.
Yep. Or look at Tornado, EF2000 or (for God's sake <g>) at French planes.
These are the products of an independant European aerospance industry. It
doesn't have to be created anymore, it already exists and has been so for
decades.
>The German government recommends Gripen for the newly free central
>european countries and Brittish Aerospace is doing the NATO
>standardization of avionics, etc.
When did the German government do so? I've been thinking Germany's position
was that first and foremost C3 equipment should be improved up to NATO
standards, whereas the modernization of the actual weapons systems on the
other hand could very well wait another few years.
BTW, Germany's position towards new tanks to be aquired by the new NATO
members is of course that Leopard IIs would be very suitable...<g>
>These countries are not thirld world
>countries, they have "only" had a very rough time with communist rule
>and can be as prosperous as Germany within a few decades.
Hmmmmm.......
;-)
best regards,
Christoph
Jukka Raustia
Ed Rasimus (thu...@rmii.com) wrote:
: And, you've got to really appreciate the kind of government that
: conscripts its people or are your conscripts impressed after capture
: on the high seas.
What's wrong with conscription? Government finances education,
justice and social security. If you have to spent a year training
to defend your homeland against aggressors, it's not a bad deal :)
It's popular and respected in Nordic countries. Haven't seen
draft strikes recently :) (not in Finland after 1905, but
then Finland was part of russia and it's a completely
different story...) Some oppose armies in general, they go
for non-armed civilian service, but principle of doing mandatory
service for the government for a year isn't opposed.
Professional army is viable option for countries like USA or UK, which are
safe from direct land attack. You can't just say something isn't
right in a foreign country just because you don't accept with it.
It's largely different cultural background, and expereiences
in past.
Besides, doesn't USA have draft for wartime anyway?
Cheers!
--
Jukka Raustia, su...@kastelli.edu.ouka.fi, Sailing, Scouting, Telemark
rapt...@mailexcite.com
In article <344e8346...@news.rmi.net>,
thu...@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:
>
> Alain Godet <alg...@distributique.fr> wrote:
>
> >I'm French, so I can reply. I think the Gripen is far better than the
> >F16, because it is newer. The F16 is now completely outdated (like our
> >Mirage F1). Compared to the Rafale or the F-22, the Gripen is also far
> >cheaper. A good argument for export ;-)
>
> choice.
>
> Why is the F-16 "completely outdated"?? Can the Gripen fly appreciably
> faster? Is it's G-available higher than 9? Does it have a smaller turn
> radius? A heavier bomb load? Greater weapons accuracy? In-flight
> refueling capability? Anti-radiation missile? Better A/A missile?
> Improved navigation? LANTIRN equivalent?
>
>
> Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
> *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
> *** (http://www.zdnet.com)
You Left out "Can the Gryphon deliver JDAM"? Of course not.....
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Magnus Redin
"Katana" <rfe...@firstnethou.com> writes:
> I dont know about you...but i sure as hell wouldnt trust any damn
> CONSCRIPT to repair/refuel/rearm My aircraft....are you really that
> stupid????? I remember the German's doing this in WW2 and they didnt
> fair too well either.
*snicker* Been there, done that. :) I did my military service as a
drafted aeroplane mechanic on recoinnance Viggens, SF 37 and SH 37.
It has worked very well for the whole Swedish airforce for manny
decades. But there is allways one officer per aeroplane working
together with the conscripts. In peactime there is one officer and one
fully trained conscript and a trainee per aeroplane plus conscripts
handling film changeout for the recoinance aeroplanes.
It takes about 30 minutes to make it ready to fly in peacetime with
one or two conscripts. I have my short checklist at home but its the
conscript or conscripts who waves in the aeroplane to the right place
on the flightline, puts the ... (rubber thingy) between the wheels,
secures live ammunition, put up the ladder for the pilot, checks that
the rocket chair is secured, untangles and checks the straps, refuel
(The next pilot often decides to fill the droptank at the last minute.
;-) ), fills oxygen and radar air, takes a look around the airframe to
see if there is any bird impacts or so, rearms (I only handled
Sidewinders), checks that the airintakes, pitot tube and alpha sensors
are unfouled, pulls security pins, takes away the ladder and takes
part of the wave off procedure. The officer double checks the
aircrafts status, oil level in the engine, air intakes, pitot tube,
alpha sensor and anything that seems odd. Usually he dosent do much.
;)
In the morning do the conscripts make a larger check of the aeroplanes
status. Checks the tire preassure and fills them, checks all position
and floodlights and changes any bad bulbs, check if there are any
loose rivets on the wings leading edges, check if any screws has been
lost in the thrust reverser and replaces lost ones, polishes the
canopy, cleans the aeroplane. Only simple stuff.
The most advanced maintainance the conscripts do is to change tires
and brakes, lubrikate the landing gear and small paintjobs. They also
help with changing engines but that only happen about once per
consript so you cant learn it well.
In wartime do the same officer lead a troop of about 20 conscripts and
the readymaking is done in a mobile way. All equipment are on trucks
and cars and is set up at a random roadside readymaking parking
"pocket" in a few minutes right before the aeroplane arrives. The
readymaking is done "F1 pitstop style" by about 10 conscripts working
at the same time and is done in about 10 minutes. (Cant do it faster
then the kerosenepump... ;-) )
If you dont believe me visit an airshow where it is demonstrated and
talk to the conscripts doing it if you dont beliveve they realy are
conscripts. And I dont think you need to be a high level VIP to visit
a field exercise.
Gripen is designed to be even easier to turn around. Unfortunately I
have not had a good opportunity to see it. :(
Yama
Krister Engvoll wrote:
> What pisses me off is that Norwegian politicians are going to buy a
> bunch of new F16s instead of the clearly superior Gripen. USA is a
> bigger brother than Sweden you know..
Why you just pile up your army in the Norwegian borders...just to
encourage them:)
> Damn, SAAB lost a lot of money on screwing up in public, instead of in
>
> some secret US desert.
Agreed, there were huge fuss about Gripen crashes in Finland, but nobody
was interested about YF-22 crash.
Mike Kopack
I've seen F-16's 'quick-turned' in under ten minutes, after we lost
2 acft on a mission over Baghdad (pilots became POW's) we threw out the
books and proved that you can load weapons and fuel at the same time. As
the acft taxied in, the fuel trucks were in place, as were the weapons
guys with Mk 84's. The pilot got out just long enough to get the blood
flowing again, and back in. In the end we didn't launch out the second
mission, as we recieved word that F-111's were over the downed pilots
position.
Mike Kopack
ex F-16 Crew Chief 401TFW / 614TFS Torrejon AB, Spain, deployed to
Doha, Qatar
please also see the Gulf War info on my web page:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/1115/index.html
Yama wrote:
> > I'm sure you must mean quick-turn/regeneration, i.e. refuel, re-arm,
>
> > return to flight. In fact, unless you've found a way to really
> > increase fuel pressure out of the average tank truck, you've either
> > got an airplane with a really small fuel load or you "overhaul" an
> > empty bird.
>
> Well, considering that Rafale, EF2000 and F-22 claim 15 - 20 mins
> turn-arounds, Saab claim sounds completely valid.
>
CaleyJ
>: Compared to the Rafale or the F-22, the Gripen is also far
>: cheaper
And far less effective (at least in the case of the F-22)
The Gripen and F-22 are no where near the same performance class.
Assuming a Gripen pilot could find an F-22 without being killed from from a
distance first (which is what the F-22 is designed to do in the first place),
he would be faced with an aircraft more powerful than his, and with better
(well, according to Lockeed Martin) manouverablity. In any case, the Raptor
will pull anything the Saab can, and (maybe) vice versa. And if the F-22 had
a good pilot (and the U.S. has some good ones) the Gripen pilot (even if he
was of equal caliber to the U.S. pilot) would be up a certain creek.
But that is of course, assuming the Gripen got withing effective range. When
your facing an aircraft designed to be "invisible" to radar, this wouldn't be
an easy task.
So, of course the F-22 is more expensive, but I would rather have 4 JAS 39's
for 1 F-22 that could dispel of all of them without even giving away its
definite position. Apparently, with only a few hundred in the books for
ordering, this is what the USAF will have to focus on doing in future strifes.
And the F-22 should be marvelous at it.
-Micah
Paul J. Adam
In article <8777465...@dejanews.com>, rapt...@mailexcite.com
writes
> You Left out "Can the Gryphon deliver JDAM"? Of course not.....
Neither can the F-22... yet.
Unless you've moved off 14" racks and the MIL-1553 bus for JDAM, why
should it be so much harder to fit it to and qualify it on the Gripen
than, say, the F-16?
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Paul Owen
Krister Engvoll <eng...@phys.ntnu.no> wrote in article
<34509A...@phys.ntnu.no>...
> What pisses me off is that Norwegian politicians are going to buy a
> bunch of new F16s instead of the clearly superior Gripen.
Isn't that order still pending, i.e. it's between the EF2000 (superior to
both the Gripen and F-16 ;) ) and the new block F-16's? Or is this a
different order?
C D Edmondson
gri...@canit.se (Urban Fredriksson) wrote:
>In article <62i3l4$fh8$4...@despair.u-net.com>,
>C D Edmondson <c...@ecom.u-net.com> wrote:
>>Which is the better plane?
>>No Americans or Sweeds need reply, and vise versa. :->
>So you're not interested in the aircraft themselves, but
>in people's perception of them?
Yep, a plane is just a machine.
C D Edmondson
su...@kastelli.edu.ouka.fi (Jukka Raustia) wrote:
>Ed Rasimus (thu...@rmii.com) wrote:
>: And, you've got to really appreciate the kind of government that
>: conscripts its people or are your conscripts impressed after capture
>: on the high seas.
> What's wrong with conscription? Government finances education,
>justice and social security. If you have to spent a year training
>to defend your homeland against aggressors,
Aggressors? what aggressors does Sweeden have, to the east is Russia
who's broke and who's soldiers, saliors and pilots are to busy looking
for something to eat, and who has the Baltic fleet rusting away, to
the west is Norway, who have no hostile intentions to Sweeden as they
have no territory lost to Sweeden, to the north is Finland who if are
hostile will be to Russia for taking terrority from them, so the only
'enemy' must be little Denmark in the south, or <lol> Holland, OR
<ROFLMAO> Belgium.
Oh and before you all say Germany, Kole is too busy chasing his dream
of a federal europe to bother going to war, a hitler he is not.
And as for us British, well, we have better things to do. :>
Christopher
Carl Crosby
So, to waste some bandwith, what about next year? ...decade? ...century?
Urban Fredriksson
In article <62qemj$k...@koeln.shuttle.de>,
Christoph Schlegel <juergen....@raptor.k.shuttle.de> wrote:
>Magnus Redin schrieb in Nachricht <62okdl$9pp$1...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>...
>>The German government recommends Gripen for the newly free central
>>european countries and Brittish Aerospace is doing the NATO
>>standardization of avionics, etc.
>When did the German government do so?
When Volker Rühe visited Sweden in August (around 20-21:st
I think). And it's not really a surprising statement
considering the new nations about to join NATO will also
join EU at around that time, and the EU content of Gripen
is a bit more than its NATO content (about 70% compared to
60%) and they can hardly be expected to purchase EF2000s.
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@kuai.se Military aviation: weekly news, the
http://www.alfaskop.net/%7Egriffon/aviation/ rec.aviation.military FAQ.
Latest updates: (Oct 22): More photos from the Saab airshow Sept 7:th
Urban Fredriksson
Ed Rasimus wrote:
> "Sisu" <"REMOVE"si...@cavalry.com> wrote:
>> >Can you overhaul it whith conscripts only? In about 10 minutes?
> I'm sure you must mean quick-turn/regeneration, i.e. refuel, re-arm,
> return to flight. In fact, unless you've found a way to really
> increase fuel pressure out of the average tank truck, you've either
> got an airplane with a really small fuel load or you "overhaul" an
> empty bird.
That's what he means.
As to "average tank truck", have you really never heard of
pressure refuelling? Common here in Sweden and sometimes
that's what sets the limit on how quickly you can turn
around fighters. For example, a team of five can rearm and
refuel a pair of Drakens in less than 10 minutes (because
it sits so low over the ground, pylons and refuelling
point is higher up on a Viggen) and adding more people
helps very little.
I think the figure Lockheed is proud of is that it's been
documented that a F-16 has been turned around in 12
minutes. If someone knows the _requirement_ and staff
needed for differnt load outs, could you please post it?
(The representative from Lockheed posting here didn't want
to post anything but mission capable rate -- which of
course is interesting too.)
Christoph Schlegel
CaleyJ schrieb in Nachricht
<19971025210...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>
>[most of F-22 worshipping snipped]
>
>So, of course the F-22 is more expensive, but I would rather have 4 JAS
39's
> for 1 F-22 that could dispel of all of them without even giving away its
> definite position. Apparently, with only a few hundred in the books for
> ordering, this is what the USAF will have to focus on doing in future
strifes.
> And the F-22 should be marvelous at it.
"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed"
Darth Vader
best regards,
Christoph
Samuel Sporrenstrand
F-22 has better manouverablity than the Gripen?? Not a chance!!
The F-22 was designed for BVR/Stealth capability, not for exellent manouverablity.
One of the resasons the USAF bought the F-22 was because it had BETTER manouverablity than the YF-23!
--
Best regards // Samuel Sporrenstrand
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
\ / *URL: www.aircraft.base.org
_\_/_ *E-Mail: all...@swipnet.se
*----/_(.)_\----* *Contact: Samuel Sporrenstrand
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CaleyJ wrote:
>
> >: Compared to the Rafale or the F-22, the Gripen is also far
> >: cheaper
>
> And far less effective (at least in the case of the F-22)
>
> The Gripen and F-22 are no where near the same performance class.
>
> Assuming a Gripen pilot could find an F-22 without being killed from from a
> distance first (which is what the F-22 is designed to do in the first place),
> he would be faced with an aircraft more powerful than his, and with better
> (well, according to Lockeed Martin) manouverablity. In any case, the Raptor
> will pull anything the Saab can, and (maybe) vice versa. And if the F-22 had
> a good pilot (and the U.S. has some good ones) the Gripen pilot (even if he
> was of equal caliber to the U.S. pilot) would be up a certain creek.
> -----------------------------------
Samuel Sporrenstrand
Krister Engvoll wrote:
>
> Yama wrote:
>
> > So India chose to buy MiG-27's instead. I hope Americans were happy.
>
> Sure they are, they gave SAAB another nudge toward their end as warplane
> manufacturers, helping rid off competition.
>
> And the Indians ended up with inferior aircraft. ( If it was Mig-27 and
> not Su-27)
>
> What pisses me off is that Norwegian politicians are going to buy a
> bigger brother than Sweden you know..
>
Well, SAAB didn´t want any other country to build the Gripen themselves which
ifact Norway wanted. Thats one of the reasons why the deal broke.
Urban Fredriksson
In article <62t1i7$cq$1...@despair.u-net.com>,
C D Edmondson <c...@ecom.u-net.com> wrote:
>Aggressors? what aggressors does Sweeden have, to the east is Russia
>who's broke and who's soldiers, saliors and pilots are to busy looking
>for something to eat, and who has the Baltic fleet rusting away,
The last cannot be completely true, as in the last few
years they've been able to stage larger landing exercises
in the Baltic than they've done since the early 1980's.
But you're right in that the current Swedish defence
doctrine assumes there are no potential aggressor at the
moment, and thus says it's OK if it takes us a year to get
as ready as we were a decade ago.
Christoph Schlegel
Carl Crosby <29cr...@mail.telis.org> schrieb in Nachricht
<3452D4...@mail.telis.org>...
>C D Edmondson wrote:
>
>[Aggressors snipped]
>
>> Oh and before you all say Germany, Kole is too busy chasing his dream
>> of a federal europe to bother going to war, a hitler he is not.
>>
>> And as for us British, well, we have better things to do. :>
>>
>> Christopher
>
>So, to waste some bandwith, what about next year? ...decade? ...century?
United States of Europe.
(ducks and puts flame proof suit on...)
best regards,
Christoph
Krister Engvoll
Samuel Sporrenstrand wrote:
>
> Well, SAAB didn´t want any other country to build the Gripen themselves which
> ifact Norway wanted. Thats one of the reasons why the deal broke.
>
Correct, the americans actually got the Norwegian politicians to believe
that we built 50% of the parts here. It wasnt true and wont be next time
either, Talk about beeing the 51. state..
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Krister Engvoll
Laboratoriet for Radiologisk Datering
Sem Sćlandsvei 5
7034 Trondheim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tlf. jobb 73 59 33 11
tlf. priv 73 88 88 15, mobilsvar 924 10 704
e-mail: eng...@phys.ntnu.no
http://www.phys.ntnu.no/~engvoll
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Krister Engvoll
Some Swede said:
> > the west is Norway, who have no hostile intentions to Sweeden as they
> > have no territory lost to Sweeden, to the north is Finland who if
What about Jamtland and Harjedalen, he-he, soon we come to collect...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Krister Engvoll
Laboratoriet for Radiologisk Datering
Sem Sælandsvei 5
Yama
Christoph Schlegel wrote:
"Witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational Advanced
Tactical Fighter"<grin>
Sisu
Well, what I ment with "overhaul" was refuling, re-arming, filling of
liquide oxygene and an check of the entire aircraft, and that can and has
been done in Sweden for about 20 years or somthing.
Both the J/A/S 35 Draken (Dragon), the AJ/JA/SH/SF/SK 37 Viggen
(Thunderbolt) and the newest, the JAS 39 Gripen (Grioffon) is made to be
refuled and rearmed with young Swedish conscripts after about 3 month
service in the airforce, with an officer managing the team of about 12 men.
This system is used everyday at the Swedish airforce bases as well as in
the "woods" were the Swedish airforce will be stationd in a crise
situation.
Starting and landing on a standard road strip, about 800 m long and 12m
wide.
And wat´s wrong with conscripts? We do trust them!
//Sisu RSAF
Katana <rfe...@firstnethou.com> skrev i inlägg
<62oq99$1...@freddy.firstnethou.com>...
> I dont know about you...but i sure as hell wouldnt trust any damn
CONSCRIPT
> to repair/refuel/rearm My aircraft....are you really that stupid????? I
> remember the German's doing this in WW2 and they didnt fair too well
either.
>
Henry Sokolski9001
In article <62okdl$9pp$1...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>,
re...@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin) wrote:
>Henry Sokolski9001 <np...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>> The costs of an independent European aerospace industry, especially
>> one capable of independently designing,producing, and exporting
>> fighter aircraft without US participation, would be very high.
>
>It was worth it when Airbus and ESA were created for production of
>civilian airframes and satellite launches. The cost were high but both
>were successfull.
I'm curious -- do you think that the future military aerospace market will
be as favorable as the commercial space and aviation markets were? That
hasn't been my impression. If the outlook is not favorable, how much would
European firms be willing to invest and, ultimately, spend on production?
I'm not arguing that it can't be done, but I think it's not an easy
investment to make, and I think realistic assessments of the potential
export market will have to be made to justify it (I'm not, as yet, convinced
by any of the industry estimates I've seen here in the US).
>
>> I'm not sure if a US veto over engine parts would be enough to
>> overcome the reluctance to make the investment or not. I suspect, at
>> a minimum, that the US would veto sales of the current Gripen,
>> particularly to new Central European NATO allies. Depending on how
>> cynical one is, opposition might be attributed either to
>> requirements for standardization with NATO air forces or to the fact
>> that US aerospace manufacturers have every intention of cementing
>> those sales for themselves (it's probably a little of both, and a
>> lot of the latter).
>
>The German government recommends Gripen for the newly free central
>european countries and Brittish Aerospace is doing the NATO
>standardization of avionics, etc.
Then I guess it may be more of the latter. But my point remains -- there
are significant hurdles to overcome in the US. I know that the F-16 line is
dependent on exports, and that it is a political hot potato. I imagine the
F-18 line may not be quite so vulnerable, because of F-18/E-F orders, but I
think the argument against US job losses will still be a compelling one. I
work with Congress (at least, some of the time), and it would be an easier
sell to allow exports if the potential exporter were a NATO ally, rather
than Sweden, but I'm not sure even that would change things.
>
>I was refering to the licence production of RM12 wich is based on F404
>and wich gives license money to USA, technology transfer from Sweden
>to USA and I suspect some manufacturing of new parts.
>
>And I were comparing that to sales of second hand airframes.
Even second-hand airframes are better than none.
>
>And last Sweden is already transferring technical and industrial
>knowledge including manufacturing of parts of the Gripen airframe to
>the intended customers. These countries are not thirld world
>countries, they have "only" had a very rough time with communist rule
>and can be as prosperous as Germany within a few decades.
I'm aware of that. I also know about some of the offsets that Sweden has
proposed, including partial production. Those may be attractive to the
potential customers, but I don't think they get over the hurdle in the US,
which remains convincing the US to permit transfer of the engines.
>
>US technology is very good, that is why so manny parts are bought from
>the US but its not allways the best or the only source.
And I've never argued differently, in all the interchanges we have had on
this forum. The problem here is political.
Respectfully,
Tim...@compuserve.com
Thomas Ristvall
Krister Engvoll skrev i meddelandet <345458...@phys.ntnu.no>...
>Some Swede said:
>
>> > the west is Norway, who have no hostile intentions to Sweeden as they
>> > have no territory lost to Sweeden, to the north is Finland who if
>
>What about Jamtland and Harjedalen, he-he, soon we come to collect...
We'll be lookin' out for your arse!
RSwA MPJ
/Thomas Ristvall
________________________________________
<thomas....@mailbox.swipnet.se> <http://home2.swipnet.se/~w-27317/>
Like the Murphy's; life's to short to be bitter!
Katana
>And wat´s wrong with conscripts? We do trust them!
>
>//Sisu RSAF
>
in concentration camps to build warfighting equipment as in ammo, guns
ect......
Kat
Scott Hillard
>F-22 has better manouverablity than the Gripen??
Yes.
> Not a chance!!
Oh really?
>The F-22 was designed for BVR/Stealth capability,
It was designed for air superiority - a true successor to the F-15.
If it was designed merely for BVR/ Stealth, perhaps you could explain
the need for thrust vectoring, and such a huge fucking wing?
> not for exellent manouverablity.
Bzzzzzzt. Lie.
>One of the resasons the USAF bought the F-22 was because it had BETTER manouverablity than the YF-23!
So much for your bullshit theory then, eh son?
>Best regards // Samuel Sporrenstrand
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> \ / *URL: www.aircraft.base.org
> _\_/_ *E-Mail: all...@swipnet.se
> *----/_(.)_\----* *Contact: Samuel Sporrenstrand
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>CaleyJ wrote:
>>
>> >: Compared to the Rafale or the F-22, the Gripen is also far
>> >: cheaper
>>
>> And far less effective (at least in the case of the F-22)
>>
>> The Gripen and F-22 are no where near the same performance class.
>>
>> Assuming a Gripen pilot could find an F-22 without being killed from from a
>> distance first (which is what the F-22 is designed to do in the first place),
>> he would be faced with an aircraft more powerful than his, and with better
>> (well, according to Lockeed Martin) manouverablity. In any case, the Raptor
>> will pull anything the Saab can, and (maybe) vice versa. And if the F-22 had
>> a good pilot (and the U.S. has some good ones) the Gripen pilot (even if he
>> was of equal caliber to the U.S. pilot) would be up a certain creek.
>> -----------------------------------
----------
Wine is strong, a King is stronger, women are even stronger, but truth will conquer all.
Henry Sokolski9001
In article <34507E78...@raita.oulu.fi>,
Yama <tj...@raita.oulu.fi> wrote:
>Henry Sokolski9001 wrote: I
>
>> The US was, rather, concerned about the export of US military
>> technology in
>> violation of US law. The Russians may or may not have already had the
>>
>> Viggen's engine technology or its equivalent.
>
>However, at same time USA had no trouble selling their latest product,
>F-16, to Venezuela.
Who said anything about being fair? We also managed to avoid selling the F
16 (until recently) to Chile, which wanted them, or Brazil or Argentina.
Our arms sales policy in Latin America, and worldwide, has occasionally been
a bit odd. But it doesn't have much to do with Saab.
>
>> illegal exports of M-16 rifles and other products. This wasn't a case
>>
>> solely against either Sweden or India, but rather an upholding of US
>> policy.
>> Sweden knew about the law (in both the Viggen and Gripen case), so it
>> didn't
>> come as a surprise.
>
>Actually it did, because it was generally believed that even Carter
>would have not been that illogical. Decision was widely criticized, not
>only in Sweden but also in USA, and it is often considered as a primal
>example of the failure of Carter's arm-export policy.
>
We obviously differ. The decision may have been widely criticized in
Sweden, but it wasn't in the US. It is not considered to be the primal
example of the failure of Carter's arms export policy in the US -- in fact,
it is considered insignificant and rarely mentioned at all. A better
example for the inconsistencies of Carter's policy would be his refusal to
sell handguns to the Royal Ulster Constabulary (part of the UK -- the
Northern Irish Police Force) because of accusations of human rights
violations against them.
Sweden knew the law. If it came as a surprise, perhaps it was deluding
itself -- no disrespect intended.
Henry Sokolski9001
In article <62qemj$k...@koeln.shuttle.de>,
"Christoph Schlegel" <juergen....@raptor.k.shuttle.de> wrote:
>Magnus Redin schrieb in Nachricht <62okdl$9pp$1...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>...
>>Henry Sokolski9001 <np...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>
>>> The costs of an independent European aerospace industry, especially
>>> one capable of independently designing,producing, and exporting
>>> fighter aircraft without US participation, would be very high.
>>
>>It was worth it when Airbus and ESA were created for production of
>>civilian airframes and satellite launches. The cost were high but both
>>were successfull.
>
>
>Yep. Or look at Tornado, EF2000 or (for God's sake <g>) at French planes.
>These are the products of an independant European aerospance industry. It
>doesn't have to be created anymore, it already exists and has been so for
>decades.
I think integration is the problem, and it will cost money and jobs. It
will also probably require France to make some difficult decisions about
Dassault. Again, my point is that it will be expensive and difficult, not
that it can't be done or that the capability doesn't exist. But would
Dassault, for instance, be willing to turn down production of the Rafale or
its follow-on in order to produce the Gripen as part of a unified European
aeropsace industry? It has already declined opportunities including the
Tornado and EF2000.
Gregoire
design here" plane. If the france have left the Eurofighter it's mainly
because the plane doesn't fit the need of the french air force and navy.
Neither the EF2000 nor the gripen do. The french was looking for a twin
engin strike aircraft with air to air capability. There were also a need
for a naval version of the aircraft. France is the only european
countries with real carrier wing and i belive that a rafale is a much mor
effecient naval plane than a harrier. In fact as a naval olane it only
have 2 competitors The f18e and the sukoi.
Now none of the two other european plane are able to land on a carier.
So none of them for the navy.
For the air force
The Sab 39 is single engine. The french air force was realy looking for a
twin engins so no gripen
The EF2000 is a air-air figther I have serious doubt about its capacity
as a conventional strike fighter. OK it can launch the storm shadow and
other wery expensive weapon but I belive that for the delivery of a basic
bomb the rafale is much beter
The range of the EF2000 is too short to fit the need of the french air
force.
Now a last look
In the RAF AMI(Italian air force) and Luftwafe, the EF2000 will take the
place of the Toranado f3, The F4F and the F104. It will only be in charge
at the begining of air to air mision. In the french air force the rafale
will take the place of the Jaguar (strike) then of the F1ct and cr
(ground attack and recce with a secondary air to air mission) then of teh
mirage 2000n (nuclear bomber) then of the mirage 2000d (strike bomber)
but never of the fighter version of the 2000
Hope that help
Gregoire
Paul Owen
Gregoire <bo...@cf.ac.uk> wrote in article <345798...@cardiff.ac.uk>...
> The french was looking for a twin
> engin strike aircraft with air to air capability.
Sounds like the EF2000 to me, a multi role aircraft.
> France is the only european
> countries with real carrier wing
For now .... on their remaining carrier.
> and i belive that a rafale is a much mor
> effecient naval plane than a harrier.
What do you mean efficient? In space terms the Harrier is far superior
requiring far less complex and smaller carriers as their base. If you mean
the French Navy wanted a craft which was capable of protecting an entire
carrier group which was also capable for AG missions then their may be some
agreement (of course this also leads into the French insistence about
certain elements of the Horizon project .... like the definition of the
term 'area defence'). The JSF will though .......
> In fact as a naval olane it only
> have 2 competitors The f18e and the sukoi.
And the JSF in later years ... and at the rate the French Navy seem to be
receiving Rafale's it may have been worth the wait! ;)
> Now none of the two other european plane are able to land on a carier.
If they had stayed with EuroFighter they could've used significant amounts
of the capital invested in Rafale to obtain a navalised EF2000.
> The EF2000 is a air-air figther I have serious doubt about its capacity
> as a conventional strike fighter.
You can have any doubts you like ...... but it is a multi role aircraft
capable of accepting a range of AG ordnance with all the systems necessary
for dropping them and getting the craft to its destination. The UK are to
replace their Jaguars with EF2000's .. thus your argument doesn't hold
water.
> OK it can launch the storm shadow and
> other wery expensive weapon
You mean like Paveway III, Brimstone, etc.? Expensive in what terms? .....
a not so easy question ;)
> but I belive that for the delivery of a basic
> bomb the rafale is much beter
Source? Reason? Does the Rafale have the defensive capabilities of the EF?
> The range of the EF2000 is too short to fit the need of the french air
> force.
What is the range of the Rafale? How efficient are the Snecma engines in
the aircraft?
> Now a last look
> In the RAF AMI(Italian air force) and Luftwafe, the EF2000 will take the
> place of the Toranado f3,
And Jaguar.
(PS : double f in Luftwaffe ;) )
> at the begining of air to air mision. In the french air force the rafale
> will take the place of the Jaguar (strike)
See above.
The fact is the French could have had a fighter with greater paper
specifications at no greater cost ... the program wasn't going their way so
they exercised their right and left the program.
Yama
Henry Sokolski9001 wrote:
>
> In article <34507E78...@raita.oulu.fi>,
> Yama <tj...@raita.oulu.fi> wrote:
>
> >Henry Sokolski9001 wrote: I
> >
> >> The US was, rather, concerned about the export of US military
> >> technology in
> >> violation of US law. The Russians may or may not have already had the
> >>
> >> Viggen's engine technology or its equivalent.
> >
> >However, at same time USA had no trouble selling their latest product,
> >F-16, to Venezuela.
>
> Who said anything about being fair? We also managed to avoid selling the F
> 16 (until recently) to Chile, which wanted them, or Brazil or Argentina.
> Our arms sales policy in Latin America, and worldwide, has occasionally been
> a bit odd. But it doesn't have much to do with Saab.
I can't help wondering whether one reason was to discourage Swedes
trying to import JA-37 in future. AJ-37 didn't offer anything
spectacular compared to other tactical fighters of that time, but
Jaktviggen would have kicked butt any other single-engined fighter at
the time.
Paul Owen
Gregoire <bo...@cf.ac.uk> wrote in article <3458D...@cardiff.ac.uk>...
> > What do you mean efficient? In space terms the Harrier is far superior
> > requiring far less complex and smaller carriers as their base. If you
mean
> > the French Navy wanted a craft which was capable of protecting an
entire
> > carrier group which was also capable for AG missions then their may be
some
> > agreement (of course this also leads into the French insistence about
> > certain elements of the Horizon project .... like the definition of the
> > term 'area defence'). The JSF will though .......
>
> Well let sea a fight betwen a harrier task force and a rafale task
> force task force lets say 20 planes (Half the cdg and 2 RN cv)
> Rafale load with 2 ans (supersonic anti ship misile ) or even exocets and
> let say 6 mica
> For the sea harrier 1 harpoon ;-) 2 aim9 and 2 aim 120
Try 2 ASRAAM, not AIM-9 (assuming the RN have placed their orders ... ;) )
> (I hope they can
> take off)
> The rafale have twice the range of the sea harriers
> Now if you do not like the rafale use a f18 instead the result will be
> the same.
I was asking about your definition of efficient ..... not who would win a
fight .. I think I answered that myself.
> > And the JSF in later years ... and at the rate the French Navy seem to
be
> > receiving Rafale's it may have been worth the wait! ;)
>
> It should have been better to buy f18 10 years ago but politics is
> politics
This is very true.
> They have leave eurofighter because the plane do not fit the requirement
> of tehfrench governement. The need was for an f18 kind of plane and the
> eurofighter is a sort of f14 (to use us navy plane comparaison)
They left the consortium because the fighter was more like the BAe EAP (and
agile future aircraft) than the Rafale proposal. Sort of answers both our
points.
> > You can have any doubts you like ...... but it is a multi role aircraft
> > capable of accepting a range of AG ordnance with all the systems
necessary
> > for dropping them and getting the craft to its destination. The UK are
to
> > replace their Jaguars with EF2000's .. thus your argument doesn't hold
> > water.
> > Look at the official specification
Official 1994 (updated) ESR spec is for a multi-role aircraft optimised for
AA combat (as was called for in the 1987 ESR-D spec). It's quite capable at
both, and should prove excellent in the AA role.
> > > but I belive that for the delivery of a basic
> > > bomb the rafale is much beter
> >
> > Source? Reason? Does the Rafale have the defensive capabilities of the
EF?
> >because the plane have been design to do so.
..........
> > > The range of the EF2000 is too short to fit the need of the french
air
> > > force.
> >
> > What is the range of the Rafale? How efficient are the Snecma engines
in
> > the aircraft?
> Range of the rafale 1090km low 1850km high
> range of the ef2000 600km low 1390km high
Ground attack (lo-lo-lo) : 601km
Ground attack (hi-lo-hi) with 3LGBs, TIALD (or Litening ;) ), 4SRAAM,
3MRAAM : 1389km
What was the Rafale carrying in the above scenario?
> weapon load (maxi) of the rafale 8 ton
Hardpoints? That's what counts here more than total carriage, 13 on EF2000
(3 wet).
> > And Jaguar.
>
> Yes but only after a few time if not why is the raf improving the jaguar
> this year
Because the AG squadrons will form after an initial role out of AA
squadrons, should be around 2006/7. The fact is it is quite capable as an
AG platform ... could you point me to a source that suggests it isn't?
> So fix your figure and wonder why is BAe propose the the
> couple JAS 39/EF 2000 The argumentt is use the ef as a fighter and the
> jas as a fighter bomber
I think I've had this argument with you before. The stated reason by BAe
for their involvement in the Gripen is simply to have the best of all
worlds. An expensive multi-role capable AA platform (with a limited number
of customers and to which BAe have only partial marketing rights,
Australia, Middle East and as secondary marketer in South Korea) and a
lower cost highly capable system (with potentially many more customers and
with global marketing rights). Simple economics.
The simple reply is look at the European SR, it states (as does the RAF)
that the requirement is for a multi-role aircraft. The RAF see the need not
only for air superiority but for AG defence/offence too (ask the nice man,
GC Ned Frith ;) )
Patrick Hayes
Gregoire <bo...@cf.ac.uk> writes:
> I am agree Dassault will never agree to built a Gripen or any other "no
> design here" plane. If the france have left the Eurofighter it's mainly
> because the plane doesn't fit the need of the french air force and navy.
Um, this isn't the reason France left the EF, though in hindsight it
may appear so. France left the EF because Dassault considered it it be
too "heavy", "high-tech", and expensive. Workshare was also an issue, but
essentially, Dassault wanted a lighter, lower tech, lower-cost
plane. The market outside europe for a lighter-weight plane was judged
much larger than that for a fighter which was designed for a NATO/WARPAC
confrontation. An F16 competitor rather than an F15 competitor if you
will.
The subsequent transformation of this light-weight, land-based fighter
into the multi-role semi-stealty land and carrier based fighter with
zero sales outside France (and few in France) can only be described as
a comical/tragical opera.
> Now none of the two other european plane are able to land on a carrier.
> So none of them for the navy.
The Rafale as initially planned couldn't either. Should the carrier-based
Rafale be judged a success, it would be the the first successful
land->carrier conversion since the sea-fury. On the down side, the cost
of the program (development + production) is IMHO the principal reason that
the follow-on to the Charles-de-Gaulle was cancelled.
Chirac (who as prime-minister took the decision to convert the Rafale)
has publicly stated since, that if he had the opportunity to do it
over again, he would have bought F18's instead. 2 carriers with F18's
wins compared to 1 carrier with Rafales if only because the CDG has to
be refitted periodically and during these periods we'll have
effectively ZERO carriers.
> For the air force
> The Saab 39 is single engine. The french air force was realy looking for a
> twin engins so no gripen.
L'Aeronavale has a multi-engine requirement. L'armee de l'air does not.
> In the RAF AMI(Italian air force) and Luftwafe, the EF2000 will take the
> place of the Toranado f3, The F4F and the F104. It will only be in charge
> at the begining of air to air mision. In the french air force the rafale
> will take the place of the Jaguar (strike) then of the F1ct and cr
> (ground attack and recce with a secondary air to air mission) then of the
> mirage 2000n (nuclear bomber) then of the mirage 2000d (strike bomber)
> but never of the fighter version of the 2000
The Rafale _has_ to do/be everything for the french armed forces. Given the
amount invested, there's no money left and thus no other choices possible.
Pat
Henry Sokolski9001
In article <3458ED...@paju.oulu.fi>,
Yama <tj...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
IN the Carter administration, a choice was made to attempt to pursue a more
moral arms sales policy. It was far from consistent. The policy itself was
not aimed specifically at halting Swedish defense exports. It _was_
intended to maximize US control over transferred technology: in teh 1960s,
for instance, the Luftwaffe transferred F-86s to IRan, which gave them to
Pakistan (then under US embargo because of the 1965 conflict) in violation
of US law. The Carter Administration wanted to enforce existing laws, and
Sweden got caught (so did Israel, with efforts to sell the Kfir to South
America -- the Kifr used US J-79 engines).
But I think its fair to assume that the US had no intention of letting
Sweden export the Viggen. The Viggen had (briefly) been held up as an
option in the great NATO aircraft sale of the mid-1970s, competing with the
F-16, Mirage F1, and (then) YF-17. I'm not sure if the US leaned on Sweden
about exports at that point, or if the Viggen simply wasn't competitive.
But we certainly leaned hard on exports to India -- I suspect, actually,
that we were more comfortable with our allies getting the sale than Sweden
anyway, but we certainly weren't going to let Sweden transfer US technology.
I've heard two versions of the story -- one that the Swedes made the offer
to test the waters, and the other that they made the offer attempting to
bypass US law (I guess those two aren't really that different, except in
intent). I'm not sure which is true (do you know, Urban?). But I don't
think the refusal to allow the export, at the time, should have come as much
of a surprise to the Swedish government, even if it wasn't the answer they
wanted to receive.
Just my 2 kroner <g>
Tim...@compuserve.com
Calum Gibson
CaleyJ wrote in message <19971025210...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>>: Compared to the Rafale or the F-22, the Gripen is also far
>>: cheaper
Remember the saying Quantity has a quality all of it's own. Lets be be
realistic the F22 is only ever going to be in service with the USAF, nobody
else will be able to afford it.
>
>And far less effective (at least in the case of the F-22)
The F22 is still only a prototype the gripen is a production a/c. Who knows
what problems will arise with the raptor.
>The Gripen and F-22 are no where near the same performance class.
>
>Assuming a Gripen pilot could find an F-22 without being killed from from a
> distance first (which is what the F-22 is designed to do in the first
place),
> he would be faced with an aircraft more powerful than his, and with better
> (well, according to Lockeed Martin) manouverablity. In any case, the
Raptor
> will pull anything the Saab can, and (maybe) vice versa. And if the F-22
had
> a good pilot (and the U.S. has some good ones) the Gripen pilot (even if
he
> was of equal caliber to the U.S. pilot) would be up a certain creek.
If it lives up to Lockeed Martin PR it will be a legendary a/c
unfortunately most a/c fail to live up to their manufacturers PR. Still I
believe the F 22 will be a good fighter but only for the US and only in
limited numbers.
>
>But that is of course, assuming the Gripen got withing effective range.
When
> your facing an aircraft designed to be "invisible" to radar, this wouldn't
be
> an easy task.
The F22 won't be invisible to radar, look at it's shape, big fins and big
intakes. Sure it will be stealther than most but not invisible.
>
>So, of course the F-22 is more expensive, but I would rather have 4 JAS
39's
> for 1 F-22 that could dispel of all of them without even giving away its
> definite position.
I disagree, most countries will want a force of for arguments sake 28 a/c
instead of 8. Remember if you have 8 a/c 1 or 2 will out on sceduled
maintenance add 1or 2 down again for little snags and suddenly you have
only 4.( Malaysia and F/A 18D's a example) can you afford to lose even one
of those. The figure stay roughly the same for 28 a/c, say they have 6 out
that still leaves 22. Using your 4 to 1 analogy the gripen is ahead by 6
Apparently, with only a few hundred in the books for
> ordering, this is what the USAF will have to focus on doing in future
strifes.
> And the F-22 should be marvelous at it.
>
I agree that the F 22 will probably be a great fighter but my point is that
only a few will be able to afford it and only in small numbers.
See ya
Calum Gibson<g...@shoal.net.au>
>
C D Edmondson
shil...@ozemail.com.au (Scott Hillard) wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:35:13 GMT, c...@ecom.u-net.com (C D Edmondson)
>wrote:
>>Which is the better plane?
>For what task?
Air to air combat!
Henry Sokolski9001
In article <63fmp6$1iv$5...@despair.u-net.com>,
c...@ecom.u-net.com (C D Edmondson) wrote:
>Gregoire <bo...@cf.ac.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>>weapon load (maxi) of the rafale 8 ton
>
>Cost of Rafale $40 million.
>
>>jas 39 +4.0 tons
>
>Cost of JAS 39 $20 million.
>
>Result, 2 for one and an eight ton weapon load.
>
>DUCE!
>
That might be a little simplistic. You also need an extra pilot (an
expensive proposition over the long term), and extra ground crew (not so
expensive in Sweden, but expensive in France), and a whole lot of extra
overhead for the increased force structure (2 for 1 in aircraft implies
twice as many squadrons). Then there's the issue of replacement parts
(predominantly French versus predominantly imported, if you're a Frenchman
buying a Gripen), of employment at French factories (and reelection for the
government officials responsible for making such decisions)... Politics and
Economics enter into these decisions in a lot of different ways.
Respectfully,
Tim...@compuserve.com
Marcus Jakt
Henry Sokolski9001 wrote:
> Ummm...at the risk of (again) involving politics in a discussion of
> aerospace technology, I suspect it had a lot to do with the fact that Norway
> and the US have been NATO allies for 45 years, and Sweden chose to stay
> neutral. And, again, the US would have had to approve the sale of the
> Gripen to Norway.
>
> Tim...@compuserve.com
I'm new to this NG thing, so hope this works...
Specifically:
> And, again, the US would have had to approve the sale of the
> Gripen to Norway.
On what grounds would they deny Saab/Bae this? Why would the US have
problems with approving the sale of US technology to a NATO partner? I
reckon the same goes for Saab's/Bae's marketing efforts in Eastern
Europe. Aren't Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic also in/going to
be part of NATO?
Regards,
M. Jakt
Henry Sokolski9001
In article <345F4F...@ic.ac.uk>,
Marcus Jakt <jm...@ic.ac.uk> wrote:
Given the choice between allowing another state make a major sale including
significant US technology, and making the sale itself, the US has in the
past refused to permit re-transfer (the classic case is the Israeli effort
to sell the Kfir fighter to Latin America, but this thread has also
discussed the veto over Viggen sales to India -- both occurred in the
1970s). I'm guessing that the US will veto the sale of Gripens to Central
Europe as well. The Gripen's engine is based on US technology, and US law
prohibits re-transfer to a third party without US permission.
All the best,
Tim...@compuserve.com
<no_Spam!>
Magnus Redin <re...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
: "Christoph Schlegel" <juergen....@raptor.k.shuttle.de> writes:
: > Yep. Or look at Tornado, EF2000 or (for God's sake <g>) at French
: > planes. These are the products of an independant European aerospance
: > industry. It doesn't have to be created anymore, it already exists
: > and has been so for decades.
: Wonder who Saab wants to be "little brother" to if the US government
: tries to hinder their business?
: Btw, is there realy any US successor to the F-16 planned? F-18E/F is a
: lot larger and more expensive and JAST (I hope I got the acronym
: right) seems to become a lot more capable and expensive.
: Perhaps both F-16 and Gripen is in a class of aeroplanes the USAF
: dosent need as much in the future? But that is pure speculation. It
: would somewhat make sense if the USAF isent spending much on F-16
: upgrades.
: Regards,
Magnus Redin
Henry Sokolski9001 <np...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> I'm curious -- do you think that the future military aerospace
> market will be as favorable as the commercial space and aviation
> markets were? That hasn't been my impression. If the outlook is not
> favorable, how much would European firms be willing to invest and,
> ultimately, spend on production? I'm not arguing that it can't be
> done, but I think it's not an easy investment to make, and I think
> realistic assessments of the potential export market will have to be
> made to justify it (I'm not, as yet, convinced by any of the
> industry estimates I've seen here in the US).
I am not sure such decisions only are made on what is profitable. If
the US decides to use its political influence to seriously harm an
european industry it might be conciderd worth it. (I dont realy think
either will happen. ) Military spending and strategic investments are
nearly allways made with an overall loss untill you realy need them
wich you wish you wont.
> Then I guess it may be more of the latter. But my point remains --
> there are significant hurdles to overcome in the US. I know that the
> F-16 line is dependent on exports, and that it is a political hot
> potato.
Is the F-16 line important for US defence? There is hundreds of
surplus used F-16:s if there should be a war of attrition wich is
unlikely. And the USAF has little need for new ones. This will sooner
or later leave F-16 production as a "jobs" program and its the right
time to downsize such and save tax money when there is shortage of
skilled workers in manny other industries.
> I imagine the F-18 line may not be quite so vulnerable, because of
> F-18/E-F orders,
F-18 E/F cant be discontinued untill there is a new proven airframe
(JSF?) since that would leave USN flattops withouth a source for new
aeroplanes. It would be logical if USA plans to leave the
power-projection role.
> but I think the argument against US job losses will still be a
> compelling one. I work with Congress (at least, some of the time),
> and it would be an easier sell to allow exports if the potential
> exporter were a NATO ally, rather than Sweden, but I'm not sure even
> that would change things.
Why when times are as good as they are?
It might be more important with selling and developing new high-tech
componenets for Gripen and its upgrades. That will give more usefull
skills and abroad funded experiences that can be used in future US
fighters.
> Even second-hand airframes are better than none.
Better then selling brand new subsystems?
> And I've never argued differently, in all the interchanges we have
> had on this forum. The problem here is political.
Its a lot easier to solve technical problems.
Btw, I hope Gripen will be sold to democratic countries.
Marcus Jakt
Henry Sokolski9001 wrote:
> Given the choice between allowing another state make a major sale including
> significant US technology, and making the sale itself, the US has in the
> past refused to permit re-transfer (the classic case is the Israeli effort
> to sell the Kfir fighter to Latin America, but this thread has also
> discussed the veto over Viggen sales to India -- both occurred in the
> 1970s). I'm guessing that the US will veto the sale of Gripens to Central
> Europe as well. The Gripen's engine is based on US technology, and US law
> prohibits re-transfer to a third party without US permission.
>
> All the best,
> Tim...@compuserve.com
OK, well fair enough; in the case of the Israelis attempting to
sell Kfirs to Latin America, the Americans could argue that their
policy was to oppose a high-technology (perhaps esp. aerospace) arms
race in that region. In the case of the Swedes trying to sell Viggens
to India, the Americans could argue that they opposed the sale of
_any_ technology specifically intended for military application to
that country -even modified DC-9 engines (as far as I understand, the
US has historically been more allied with India's arch-enemy, Pakistan).
Whether or not the actual reason for the prevention of these
sales had more rogueish origins (pushing Saab out so others could
land the deal), at least the US had the pretext of a more 'noble',
if you like, reason to block the sales.
But when it comes to the sale of US technology to Central European
nations, many of them soon to be NATO-members, surely the US would
not be so undiplomatic as to right out declare that they will block
such a sale purely for the purpose of job-security for F-16 factory
workers back home? These countries are not really located in world
'hot-spots' in the way that many Latin American countries are (or
rather, have been) or India is.
I have previously heard that the US discriminate even among NATO
partners in the amount of military technology they transfer (is
this correct, or have I got this one wrong?), but I would imagine
that Norway would here be among the 'A-members', if you will, and
entrusted more hi-tech arms than say Greece or Turkey (who rattle
their sabres far too much for comfort). I've followed this and other
threads quite a while now, and you seem to know about these things,
so would the new Central European nations fall into such a lower
category? Now I know that Norway will NOT be buying the Gripen, but if
for instance Denmark or Holland (not likely, I know) one day
decide on the Gripen, surely the US could not present such an
argument and (yet again?) deny Saab/Bae sales.
If as you say, any Gripen exports would be vetoed by the US, what
would the effect of swapping the engine for a EJ-200 or Rafale engine
be? I know previously it has been stated that the Gripen could then be
exported, but the engine is not the only US component in this plane.
What about the flight-control software (didn't US firms help out with
this?), the APU, the ejection-seat, whatever else of US origin; would
these also have to be swapped?
Regards,
M. Jakt
Henry Sokolski9001
In article <63o764$26k$1...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>,
re...@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin) wrote:
>"Christoph Schlegel" <juergen....@raptor.k.shuttle.de> writes:
>
>> Yep. Or look at Tornado, EF2000 or (for God's sake <g>) at French
>> planes. These are the products of an independant European aerospance
>> industry. It doesn't have to be created anymore, it already exists
>> and has been so for decades.
>
>Wonder who Saab wants to be "little brother" to if the US government
>tries to hinder their business?
Looks like BAe, don't you think? I'm guessing that because of the business
deal. OTOH, BAe is also involved in the JAST (I don't know if you got the
acronym right or not, but at least _we_ know what we're talking about <g>),
so that might prove complicated. Not France, I'd wager, since Dassault
appears to still be going its own way. But they might be able to buy an
engine from somewhere in Europe -- isn't there a new SNECMA engine with a
huge amount of thrust?
There might still be an economics of scale problem, depending on the price
of a new version, Sweden's requirements, and the outlook of the export
market for a future version. I don't know how that will play out.
>
>Btw, is there realy any US successor to the F-16 planned? F-18E/F is a
>lot larger and more expensive and JAST (I hope I got the acronym
>right) seems to become a lot more capable and expensive.
I think JAST is the planned successor of sorts. The F-16 came about, in
part, because the US was trying to maintain force structure in the mid-1970s
with declining budgets -- the F-16 initially was supposed to be much less
complex and effective (and expensive <g>) than it ended up being. The
increased spending of the late Carter and Reagan years allowed the USAF to
buy large numbers of a much more effective plane (but still considerably
cheaper than the F-15).
I'm not sure what will happen by about 2005. The US defense budget is
unlikely to increase significantly, operating costs are increasing, manpower
costs are increasing, and the force structure is declining. I think that
the USAF will face the choice of either a shrinking force structure with
very sophisticated aircraft (an F-22/JAST kind of mix) or a stabilized force
structure with some kind of cheaper (future F-16) model worked in. I'm not
sure what the economics of such a plane would be. There's not enough money
for future procurement as it is, and the Quadrennial Defense Review did
little to solve the problem.
>
>Perhaps both F-16 and Gripen is in a class of aeroplanes the USAF
>dosent need as much in the future? But that is pure speculation. It
>would somewhat make sense if the USAF isent spending much on F-16
>upgrades.
F-16 upgrades keep the current force structure with some qualitative
improvement. I'm not sure how long that can continue, though. For the
short-term, it makes some sense. Over the long-term, however, it's not a
solution -- just a "Band-Aid" <g>.
The other issue is exports. F-16s and Gripens make a lot more sense for
most countries than F-22s or EF-2000s. I don't know what the world
aerospace market will look like in 2005 or so, but I think most countries
will still prefer quantity to quality, assuming they can get something
fairly capable (unlike the Q-5 orJ-6 <g>). OTOH, fighters produced
primarily for export have had rocky histories -- the F-5 did pretty well,
but the F-20 was a disaster.
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>--
>Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society re...@lysator.liu.se
>Mail: Magnus Redin, Rydsvägen 214B, 584 32 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
>Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600
All the best,
Tim...@compuserve.com
Scott Hillard
On 25 Oct 1997 08:43:05 +0200, gri...@canit.se (Urban Fredriksson)
wrote:
>>Can the Gripen fly appreciably faster?
>In this newsgroup there hasn't been much written about
>F-16s super cruise capability.
Perhaps because it has no such capability?
>As opposed to Hornet's and Gipen's and lots of other fighters.
Really? The Hornet and Gripen have supercuise capability?
>>Is it's G-available higher than 9?
Is the pilot's?
Scott Hillard
>> And the F-22 should be marvelous at it.
>"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed"
>Darth Vader
That's what the people of Alderan said.
Whoops.
Scott Hillard
>F-22 has better manouverablity than the Gripen??
Yes.
> Not a chance!!
Bzzzzzt. Lie.
>The F-22 was designed for BVR/Stealth capability,
The F-22 was designed as an uncompromising air superiority fighter.
> not for exellent manouverablity.
Bzzzzzt. Lie.
Any idea what a wing that big, or thrust vectoring, or a tremendous
T:W performance does for manouverability?
Henry Sokolski9001
In article <63o8bi$2gh$1...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>,
re...@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin) wrote:
>Henry Sokolski9001 <np...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
<snip>
>I am not sure such decisions only are made on what is profitable. If
>the US decides to use its political influence to seriously harm an
>european industry it might be conciderd worth it.
I think if the US deliberately clobbered, say, the EF-2000, it might me more
motivation for unifying the aerospace industry in Europe than picking on the
Gripen. Maybe I've misread European politics, but I'm still not sure a
slight to Sweden is as much a driver in EU politics as a slight to the
Germans.
>(I dont realy think either will happen. )
I'm afraid it's almost a certainty that the US will not allow the Gripen to
be exported to the new NATO states, and if it doesn't allow that I don't
think any kind of case can be made (here -- I'm sure that are lots of
arguments, but I'm talking about in the halls of Congress and in the offices
of the State Department that license technology transfer) for export to the
rest of the world.
>Military spending and strategic investments are
>nearly allways made with an overall loss untill you realy need them
>wich you wish you wont.
Again, I agree -- I'm just not sure how seriously Europe is looking at the
likelihood of another conflict in the near future. Justifying existing
programs and industries is a lot easier than explaining the requirements for
an expensive and painful rationalization of the aerospace industries of the
NATO states, with or without France. There has to be a pretty persuasive
reason, and I'm not sure there's one that resonates in the European
population as a whole -- yet. But who knows?
>
>> Then I guess it may be more of the latter. But my point remains --
>> there are significant hurdles to overcome in the US. I know that the
>> F-16 line is dependent on exports, and that it is a political hot
>> potato.
>
>Is the F-16 line important for US defence? There is hundreds of
>surplus used F-16:s if there should be a war of attrition wich is
>unlikely. And the USAF has little need for new ones. This will sooner
>or later leave F-16 production as a "jobs" program and its the right
>time to downsize such and save tax money when there is shortage of
>skilled workers in manny other industries.
The F-16 production line is no longer important for US defense, to the best
of my knowledge (assuming we aren't planning a near term buy of more
airframes). But it's located in Texas, which has a lot of electoral votes
and is an important stronghold for the Republican Party. The F-16 line has
been a jobs program for years -- and those jobs are dependent on exports.
The Congressional delegation from Texas (which makes up roughly 5% of
Congress) isn'tgoing to want to give up American jobs so that Sweden can
sell the Gripen. At least, that's my read on it.
>> I imagine the F-18 line may not be quite so vulnerable, because of
>> F-18/E-F orders,
>
>F-18 E/F cant be discontinued untill there is a new proven airframe
>(JSF?) since that would leave USN flattops withouth a source for new
>aeroplanes. It would be logical if USA plans to leave the
>power-projection role.
We're not getting out of the power projection role anytime in the near
future, anyway.
>> but I think the argument against US job losses will still be a
>> compelling one. I work with Congress (at least, some of the time),
>> and it would be an easier sell to allow exports if the potential
>> exporter were a NATO ally, rather than Sweden, but I'm not sure even
>> that would change things.
>
>Why when times are as good as they are?
They're never good enough, in any industrialized democracy. Propping up an
existing defense industry (L-M's F-16 plant, for instance) isn't nearly as
politically dangerous as letting it die (the unemployed vote against you).
Keeping the production capacity open through exports also means that the
production line doesn't go defunct (which is happening elsewhere in the US
aerospace industry) -- that may not be a compelling strategic reason, but
it's good enough for a lot of analysts.
At the bottom line, in the eyes of Congress, we're talking about jobs and
money. For all that the Republican Party supports laissez faire capitalism,
it doesn't apply to the defense industry, which is monopsonist and requires
certain levels of government funding and support (since the government is
the only buyer). It also requires some level of preservation, even if it's
expensive. Preserving the F-16 line is expensive financially, but more
expensive to political interests.
>It might be more important with selling and developing new high-tech
>componenets for Gripen and its upgrades. That will give more usefull
>skills and abroad funded experiences that can be used in future US
>fighters.
I suspect those arguments would be more persuasive here if US industry
weren't already engaged in several long-term aerospace R&D projects of
considerably more sophistication than the Gripen. They _are_ strong
arguments for some of the European producers, who would probably get a lot
out of assisting the Gripen (or,perhaps, Sweden would get as much out of
involvement in the EF-2000 or its successor?).
>
>> Even second-hand airframes are better than none.
>
>Better then selling brand new subsystems?
Financially, I suspect so. Even used F-16s go for a lot more money, and
have a lot more US workshare, than a generous slice of the Gripen (engine,
avionics, and possibly weapons systems). Plus, again, it keeps the line
open in Fort Worth.
>
>> And I've never argued differently, in all the interchanges we have
>> had on this forum. The problem here is political.
>
>Its a lot easier to solve technical problems.
It sure is. My experience, though, is that politics enters into most things
once it gets off your desk and out of your office <g>. The politics of
defense, in both the US and in Europe, gets extremely irrational in economic
and technical terms, but what can you do?
>
>Btw, I hope Gripen will be sold to democratic countries.
I understand, but I'm pretty pessimistic (could you tell? :-) )
All the best,
Henry Sokolski9001
In article <3471b639...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
shil...@ozemail.com.au (Scott Hillard) wrote:
Scott,
Maybe I'm just a literalist, but I think he was expressing an opinion,
rather than reciting facts. "Lie" might be a strong term to use here. How
about "Wrong," or even "I don't think so" instead?
Or maybe I'm just too polite for newsgroups <g>
Paul Owen
Henry Sokolski9001 <np...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<63soqm$6...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
> In article <63o8bi$2gh$1...@newsy.ifm.liu.se>,
> re...@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin) wrote:
>
> >Henry Sokolski9001 <np...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >
> <snip>
> >I am not sure such decisions only are made on what is profitable. If
> >the US decides to use its political influence to seriously harm an
> >european industry it might be conciderd worth it.
>
> I think if the US deliberately clobbered, say, the EF-2000, it might me
more
> motivation for unifying the aerospace industry in Europe than picking on
the
> Gripen.
To clobber the sale of the EF2000 to any non-partner nation would require a
fundamentally deeper intrusion into any deal on the part of the US than
that required to prevent the sale of the Gripen, for obvious reasons. Thus,
as you suggest, any deliberate attempt to destroy a sale of the EF2000
would gain far greater attention than the U.S. preventing the sale of the
Gripen ... however, on a deeper level it would be yet another indication
of the US's attitude towards 'free' trade and competition.
> I'm afraid it's almost a certainty that the US will not allow the Gripen
to
> be exported to the new NATO states
Isn't BAe is pushing hard on this point?
> I suspect those arguments would be more persuasive here if US industry
> weren't already engaged in several long-term aerospace R&D projects of
> considerably more sophistication than the Gripen.
You mean just like European aerospace industries are .. JSF, FOAS, X-31,
FTT, EF2000, etc. ;) One thing the U.S. could learn from SAAB is how to
build a capable fighter for little cost, something the U.S. (and Europe)
seem to have forgotten lately.
> They _are_ strong
> arguments for some of the European producers, who would probably get a
lot
> out of assisting the Gripen
Like what? BAe are assisting in sales, NATO integration and further
development. Again, something we can learn (or remember!) is how to build a
low cost aircraft.
Marcus Jakt
Henry Sokolski9001 wrote:
>
> Central Europe may be the largest sale for the next decade. Poland keeps
> muttering about wanting as many as 250 aircraft, depending on the report,
> and Czechoslovakia and Hungary might pony up for another 100-150, if the
> deal is right (although they'll almost certainly order fewer). Even at 200
> aircraft,however, it's a significant amount of work and money. Lockheed
> Martin (and McD, with the F-18) are pulling out all the stops on this sale,
> and the leverage permitted by the use of US engines in the Gripen is going
> to be very hard to overlook. I don't think it's politically possible for
> the US to allow Sweden to make the sale.
>
> >Now I know that Norway will NOT be buying the Gripen, but if
> >for instance Denmark or Holland (not likely, I know) one day
> >decide on the Gripen, surely the US could not present such an
> >argument and (yet again?) deny Saab/Bae sales.
>
> Holland are both partners on the F-16, so there might be a built-in
> incentive in terms of future co-production and license agreements for both
> countries to "buy American." I just don't see a lot of incentives for the
> US to permit Sweden, instead of US firms (even with multinational
> production) to export aircraft to NATO, or anywhere else if we can find a
> reason to prevent it. In the 1950s, it wasn't such a big deal -- the market
> was larger, and Sweden (at the time) was viewed as more of a political
> military asset to NATO than in recent years. But at the time, Sweden's
> aerospace industry was also more reliant on British than American
> technology.
As has been pointed out on numerous occasions in this and other
threads, I guess it is true that Saab knew what restrictions they
would be subject to when they chose the GE404 design for the Gripen
(somewhat modified by Volvo, and with a Volvo afterburner...yes?),
so I guess it may well be unfair to call the American institutions
'treacherous'. However, I would hope that in future Saab would
co-operate more with the European aerospace industry, rather than
with, as it turns out, the problematic Americans.
> >
> >If as you say, any Gripen exports would be vetoed by the US, what
> >would the effect of swapping the engine for a EJ-200 or Rafale engine
> >be?
>
> That takes away the engine problem, which is a big one. It also might take
> time to get the production/upgrade line started, at which point the Central
> European sale might have been resolved.
Given that it may turn out to be not <<politically possible for the US
to allow Sweden to make the sale>> as you say, and I fear you may well
be all too correct in this assertion, I hope Saab/BAe are doing their
damnest to get hold of a Snecma M88-2 (correct spec. for Rafale??) or
EJ200 (more likely I guess, given BAe's involvement) for integration
into the Gripen airframe. The Gripen C/D's for the SwAF I know are,
as yet, slated to receive US-design engines, but I would hope that
Saab/BAe have contingency plans for a US-veto such as you describe
with regard to possible export-Gripens. Also, it seems to me the
Central Europeans are taking their time with regard to making their
minds up about what jet to purchase. How long before they do, and
how much longer would it take to integrate a different engine into
the Gripens? How soon after a final decision are these countries
scheduled to receive new aircraft? I would imagine (though I have,
it is true, little knowledge of the matter) that it would not be
before the early years of next decade.
Another thought: the US can veto the sale of Gripens to a foreign
country, but what if the SwAF were to allow their Gripens (or Viggens
for that matter, as offered to the Poles as a temporary intermediate
at one stage) to be _leased_ to another country, could the US veto
that? If not, Saab/BAe could simply beef up production to supply enough
planes for both the SwAF and others.
Finally, the US blocking a BAe/Saab sale does not unequivocally mean
that US firms would instead cash in. Think what would happen if a
country shortlisted the Gripen, some French plane (I guess Rafale or
Mirage 2000-5, expensive and perhaps not altogether in the same class
as the Gripen; but isn't the Mirage 2000-5 being offered to Chile and
maybe Brazil -thereby in competition with the Gripen), and _then_ a
US plane (probably F16 or F/A18, right?). Very possibly a Russian
plane would be in the competition. The Gripen (with US engines)
could be put out of the show, but the Americans couldn't other but
directly out-compete the French and Russian planes. Say the French win,
then the US would lose the chance of supplying all those sub-systems and
engine design, and win nothing at all from the competition (assuming
the Gripen were to do _really_ well in such circumstances).
> All the best,
> Tim...@compuserve.com
Just some thoughts...
Regards,
M. Jakt
Paul Owen
Scott Hillard <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in article
<3472b69d...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
> On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 14:37:44 +0100, "Christoph Schlegel"
> <juergen....@raptor.k.shuttle.de> wrote:
>
> >> And the F-22 should be marvelous at it.
>
> >"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed"
> >Darth Vader
>
>
> That's what the people of Alderan said.
Alderaan .. actually ;)
Magnus Redin
Marcus Jakt <jm...@ic.ac.uk> writes:
> Finally, the US blocking a BAe/Saab sale does not unequivocally mean
> that US firms would instead cash in. Think what would happen if a
> country shortlisted the Gripen, some French plane (I guess Rafale or
> Mirage 2000-5, expensive and perhaps not altogether in the same
> class as the Gripen; but isn't the Mirage 2000-5 being offered to
> Chile and maybe Brazil -thereby in competition with the Gripen), and
> _then_ a US plane (probably F16 or F/A18, right?). Very possibly a
> Russian plane would be in the competition. The Gripen (with US
> engines) could be put out of the show, but the Americans couldn't
> other but directly out-compete the French and Russian planes. Say
> the French win, then the US would lose the chance of supplying all
> those sub-systems and engine design, and win nothing at all from the
> competition (assuming the Gripen were to do _really_ well in such
> circumstances).
Intresting thought, its a new angle for me. There are lots of
scenarios. Wonder what can happen when the Chinease get real good with
their rouge production of Russian designs?
Mike Kopack
Who knows, they've been counterfitting MiG's for what 40 years? And we
thought they had a problem with software and CD's...
Mike
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/1115/index.html
Bertil Jonell
In article <6356cv$2...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Henry Sokolski9001 <np...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Viggen's engine technology or its equivalent.
>>
>>However, at same time USA had no trouble selling their latest product,
>>F-16, to Venezuela.
>
>Who said anything about being fair?
"Free trade for Me, but not for Thee."
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
Christoph Schlegel
Paul Owen schrieb in Nachricht <01bcbbc4$5c437480$58e82ac2@tfx>...
No, it was Darth Vader, shortly before he nearly strangled that Imperal
admiral who'd made some jokes about The Force. The people of Alderaan never
knew what happend to them, though - as did Admiral Tarkin, who died on the
Death Star ("Evacuate? In our moment of success?")
...ahhh, Star Wars :-)
best regards,
Christoph
C D Edmondson
shil...@ozemail.com.au (Scott Hillard) wrote:
>On 25 Oct 1997 08:43:05 +0200, gri...@canit.se (Urban Fredriksson)
>wrote:
>>>Can the Gripen fly appreciably faster?
>>In this newsgroup there hasn't been much written about
>>F-16s super cruise capability.
>Perhaps because it has no such capability?
>>As opposed to Hornet's and Gipen's and lots of other fighters.
>Really? The Hornet and Gripen have supercuise capability?
>>>Is it's G-available higher than 9?
>Is the pilot's?
Here is a technical comparison I was e-mailed between the Grippen and
the F-16, don't reply to me, it comes from a guy called Kurt Plummer
who e-mailed it to me so send any of your comments to him at
ch1...@earthlink.net
1) EW
I don't think the JAS-39's self protect system is quite complete.
There
is, at best, only an internal pulse-repeat jammer for terminal
range-deceive on missiles I think. The more complex EriJammer 300
suppression pod (or similar) is not yet fully squadron-active I don't
think (and I don't like 'pods' in general...;).
At the same time, the ALQ-184 is about the only U.S. pod in active
service which can deal with the latest monopulse and quick-active
scanning systems and then only from certain (profile) angles. All
internal ALQ-165 is still probably a little better, at least in terms
of
total threat count and emissions angles if not lobe forming and
beam-steer but it is effectively guaranteed to be a non-happener for
even the .50d Weasels because of a couple of dumb Congressmen.
Neither plane has an effective Missile Approach Warning System, at
least
in standard squadron issuance. I think some of our 'Bosnian Beat'
police cruisers have a quick reaction capability interim system...
The Swedish BOL chaff SRM rail launchers gives between 210-240
'slices'
of minichaff each but these may be individually less effective in
total
mass (more shots per effective decoy); even though the wingtip
position
scatters the filaments faster in the vortices, making a faster
bloom-gate fill.
Sweden is only now experimenting with towed decoys (non fibre optic so
probably analogue/unprogrammable) while the U.S. ALE-50 TAAED is
currently a USN-only 'specialty' as far as I know. The JAS also have
a
relatively small count of 'big-block' ejectors of only X6 holes which
are usually flare dedicated and set X2 or X4 in the rear of JA-37
stores
pylons. May or May not be installed in the Gripen yet.
U.S. F-16's are also limited however, having only X4 ALE-40/47 systems
which is a maximum of perhaps 90 chaff and 12 /shared/ flares... The
Israeli's by comparison like between 300-400 total counts, a fact
supported by F-15E interdiction combat in the Gulf.
2) Performance
I think that the ca. 21K pound takeoff limiter for an ACM configured
Gripen is a little shy of fuel-endurance. Especially if you also want
a
decent 'multirole' (strike w/ selfdefence AAM/ARM) or 'combat
persistence' loadout of say AAM. With an 18Klbst RM-12, even 'burning
down' to combat weights is apt to be dangerous in terms of required
early fight-leave panic.
Fighting heavy will cost you a BUNCH of the Gripen's canard-agility
and
this is further complicated by the range of FCS limiters installed to
inhibit slow speed departures due to excessive (nose pointing for SRM
say) controls inputs that have caused that spate of crashes.
JAS-39 /supposedly/ accelerates very well based on 'cleanliness' of
the
overall design but I have my doubt's as canards, even CCV'd, don't
usually confer this and the T/Wr is low, even at 'combat weight'.
The F-16 is now thoroughly outclassed as a 'pointer' but at altitude
esp., it can still 'move' around the circle on the strength of the
F-110
or 110-129 better than the Gripen. It balances this against a heavy
wingloading which means you cannot afford to become slow without being
forced (vertically), nose-down, out of the fight plane. The F-16 has
always suffered a little in linear acceleration due to it's own LERX
shaping and other turn-booster aerofeatures but Power Is All and that
110-129 will push awfully damn hard.
Overall- Both probably average between 21-22`/sec instantaneous and
14-17`/sec sustained but the Falcon will own the high speed part of
the
envelope and perhaps have a wider overall G 'bubble' within it (in the
129 engined versions this margin is apt to be particularly wide). The
Gripen is likely cleaner and 'quicker' perhaps (roll-to-set on turns,
higher overall alpha : roll retained yaw stability margins etc.) but
is
also still in it's FCS development infancy with such things as
non-differential capable canards and some degree of 'safety dampening'
partly acting against its wing trailing edge controls...
RADII is apt to be the controlling factor for both sides, an F-16
hauling paired 370's to feed the engines apetite will usually come in
heavy on the wing (90lbs/sq'?) and be a fair porker in terms of added
stores drag to boot.
This is especially reflected in it's (usual, USAF) strike role'ing
where
the Falcon will add even more A/G/Rack/EW/Targeter stores interference
whereas the Gripen is a designed ACM/interceptor crate and will come
off
the runway fairly clean with just a big 390 gallon tank and 2-4 AAM's.
If the roles are reversed, the marginally lower SFC of the refanned
F-404 will have to be set against a pitifully small fuel quotient of
the
Gripen and the F-16 will kick ass, particularly if you can move the
ECM
out to the middle wing pylon and switch-down to a smaller 310 gallon
centerline jug.
3) Weapons
AIM-120 is 'standard' now for both services MRM but the USAF will have
more and (probably) also possess EW source coding vs. /any/ export
nation's Gripen. I have a hard time seeing the Swedes and 'U.S.'
going
at it but they are known for 'rekeying' their seekers in the past...
The Swede's did /evaluate/ the French MICA but this was not accepted
on
their own planes and so may not have been fully qualified. It also
(IMO) doesn't have the ranged FPole/NEZ endgame 'reach' of AMRAAM.
The French too are pretty share-cooperative on operating PRF's and
ECCM
algo's etc. on their weapons at least in major combined NATO coop's...
FMRAAM is the ramjet successor to the RB.73 and /this/ will definitely
'challenge' AIM-120A/B and even C but probably not the 'Phase 3' (D?)
AMRAAM. Both weapons are in any case scheduled to come out at about
the
same time- ca. 2005-2007.
Bk.90 vs. LGB/JDAM
DWS-39 dispenser-gliders are probably the /best/ weapons for grouped
targets, particularly armor. LGB comes second and JDAM is of course
best for fighting when the weather or surface defences don't support
'direct' targeting.
The problem is they range from about 50K dollars to well over a
quarter
million. The U.S. will again weapon-cache more of the latter weapons
that the Swedes or exporters can afford the former. However the
Falcon
may not be excessively compatible with GPS weapons (at first) by
virtue
of having a less capable SAR/DBS mapping option than say the F-15E's
APG-70. LGB are also limited by their need for LANTIRN or like
(LITENING/ATLIS etc.) TPods which, in addition to their own costs,
usually requires the purchase of the expensive and heavy (Blk.40)
strike
dedicated airframe.
AIM-9X vs. L/M
The X-Ray will reach us about the time the Swedes are looking into
their
own new-gen SRM (MICA IIR being a likely competitor) but long /after/
most 'threat nations' will have standardized on the Python or Archer
series. At anyrate, for now they are using the L or S (europroduction
version) of the venerable old configuration Snake and this will
require
the most out of their 'pointability' advantage over the 16. Our 16's
9M-8/9 is more or less the same but with superior IRCCM and AWACS to
support longer and more angles-advantaged setups.
AGM-65D vs. AGM-88
Well stocked within both Air Forces and fairly readily available to
even
FMS purchasers. The use of the I2R Maverick is definitely a 'complex'
weapon to define targeting on and will require a hard nose point and
heads-down interval to employ. It certainly has a lower max-range
than
HARM but given the typical lo-lo (terrain masked) profile of a
non-U.S.
(poor) strike team; threat-LOS problems and TFR/SAR mapping switchoffs
may have more of an effect than actual flight-range.
A boresighting TFLIR again helps here and JAS doesn't have this option
/at all/ while F-16/LANTIRN problems rear their ugly head again...
However, it is also useful against non-emitter and even
non-SEAD-encountered targets as a secondary weapon /far/ cheaper than
Bk-90...
The AGM-88 is MUCH heavier by comparison but will fly perhaps 1/3
farther at low and 2/3 from medium altitude. If sufficiently
sophisticated, the RWR/ELS system can directly hand to the weapon
which
in turn can shoot through up to a 210`/5G 'circle' arc around the
aircraft. Auto-threat prioritization and ID (of air to air as well)
'supplementary RWR' functions can also be given to a fairly 'dumb'
airplane; allbeit one which must be equipped with a MilStd. 1553 MUX.
HARM is useless against non-RF threats however but again, SEAD is
getting to be So Important that I would be seriously surprised if an
Israeli or British option is not taken up by the Swedes and any
serious,
strike-minded, export customer.
4) Sensors and Miscellany
The Gripen PS-05 has been persistently criticized for it's comparitive
lack of ECCM and plain detection range on air threats. APG-66 was
originally similar but the better APG-68 makes the nose of the
late-blk.
F-16's incredibly nose-heavy.
In any case, the 30-40nm reliable detection range is likely 'good
enough' for even AMRAAM work since 'seeing beyond shooting' is only
useful if you have the supersonic endurance and acceleration necessary
to force an engagement. Neither light-fighter has the thrust, wings or
fuel to do this IMO, and BOTH the U.S. and Swede's will likely back
fighter sales with AEW if needed. Hawkeye and Erieye both make
excessive onboard sensoring almost more of a threat than utility if
you've got experienced (trusting) pilots able to navigate a wide,
quiet,
intercept vector. Datalinks/GPS make even this not too big a deal...
The LANTIRN, as I mentioned before, requires a relatively heavy,
dedicated, F-16 variant and adds quite a bit of drag when uploaded.
Such that 'multirole' ACM becomes nearly impossible due to pitch/G
limits with them aboard.
The JAS is scheduled to get the 'ORIS' or somesuch IRST fairing ahead
of
the canopy but though it will be A/G qualified with a laser, the
engagement envelope is just to limited by it's above-nose positioning
to
be useful with cheap SALH weapons, even if these are not rendered
obsolte after the century turns.
It also has yet to even be /test-installed/ as an operative evaluation
kit within the Gripen.
The F-16 has, by far, the best out of cockpit visibility of ANY
aircraft, _Bar None_ (well, possibly not the F-22 but it ain't here
yet!;) In tests over the Italian Deci ACMI ranges, the ability to
push
the fight beyond certain 'sill limit' angles with adversary training
(Luftwaffen) MiG-29's using helmet sights/Archer allowed Blk.40
Falcons
of the 512th to beat these A/A dedicated platforms fairly handily in
1994.
JAS will again get HMS and probably do so before the 'Pacer' systems
we
are dorking around with which will make the visibility problem less
threatening. Yet I _am_ disappointed by the 'razorback' appearance of
the Gripen design, a fact made worse by the production versions
avionics
spine and perhaps a function of having 'bomb first/fighter later' role
reversal(?).
For What It's Worth-
Pilot Skills are indeed a high-qualifier for 'combat capability' in
any
airframe. The Swede's are severely time-limited in their play-time on
this but then again, so are we now that we've made the mistake of
commiting to an excess of ops and roles within squadrons. Thank God
the
Albino Eagles are not really capable in any other role (yet) but 'Air
Superiority'...
Though their overall utility is to be doubted IMO, I /do/ appreciate
the
guns-modes of both the fighters (JA-37 as well as JAS). Depending
upon
which story you read, these are either 'coupled' (differential fine
gunline steering of the fighter in response to pilot HUD pipper
aimpoint
joystick control) or even fully 'automatic' (target lock, move to
within
XX degrees of envelope entrance and hit a 'commit' button for
completely
automatic 'hip shot' by the autopilot).
By Comparison- Various USAF/USN reports I've heard quoted state only
between 1 in 5 and 1 in 7 of even the hottest of todays 'Tigers' can
effectively employ the Vulcan, air to air...
Tarver Engineering
On 9 Nov 1997 12:25:28 GMT, d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
wrote:
>In article <6356cv$2...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>Henry Sokolski9001 <np...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>> Viggen's engine technology or its equivalent.
>>>
>>>However, at same time USA had no trouble selling their latest product,
>>>F-16, to Venezuela.
>>
>>Who said anything about being fair?
>
> "Free trade for Me, but not for Thee."
The US sold her best weapons to Iran when Iran provided our oil. Why
should we treat Venezuela any different.
No one said the US objects to Gripen sales, only that the sale could
be vetoed by the US.
John
Paul Owen
Christoph Schlegel <juergen....@raptor.k.shuttle.de> wrote in article
<644vli$h...@koeln.shuttle.de>...
> Paul Owen schrieb in Nachricht <01bcbbc4$5c437480$58e82ac2@tfx>...
> >
> >
> >Scott Hillard <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in article
> ><3472b69d...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
> >> On Sun, 26 Oct 1997 14:37:44 +0100, "Christoph Schlegel"
> >> <juergen....@raptor.k.shuttle.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> And the F-22 should be marvelous at it.
> >>
> >> >"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed"
> >> >Darth Vader
> >>
> >>
> >> That's what the people of Alderan said.
> >
> >
> >Alderaan .. actually ;)
>
>
> No, it was Darth Vader
But Alderan IS spelt Alderaan that was the point ...... ;)
73503...@compuserve.com
On Fri, 07 Nov 1997 11:07:37 +0000, Marcus Jakt <jm...@ic.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >Now I know that Norway will NOT be buying the Gripen, but if
> > >for instance Denmark or Holland (not likely, I know) one day
> > >decide on the Gripen, surely the US could not present such an
> > >argument and (yet again?) deny Saab/Bae sales.
> >
> > On the contrary, I'm almost certain that we would. In addition, Denmark and
> > Holland are both partners on the F-16, so there might be a built-in
> > incentive in terms of future co-production and license agreements for both
> > countries to "buy American." I just don't see a lot of incentives for the
> > US to permit Sweden, instead of US firms (even with multinational
> > production) to export aircraft to NATO, or anywhere else if we can find a
> > reason to prevent it. In the 1950s, it wasn't such a big deal -- the market
> > was larger, and Sweden (at the time) was viewed as more of a political
> > military asset to NATO than in recent years. But at the time, Sweden's
> > aerospace industry was also more reliant on British than American
> > technology.
>
> As has been pointed out on numerous occasions in this and other
> threads, I guess it is true that Saab knew what restrictions they
> would be subject to when they chose the GE404 design for the Gripen
> (somewhat modified by Volvo, and with a Volvo afterburner...yes?),
> so I guess it may well be unfair to call the American institutions
> 'treacherous'. However, I would hope that in future Saab would
> co-operate more with the European aerospace industry, rather than
> with, as it turns out, the problematic Americans.
and anticipated future SwAF requirements and export opportunities.
>
> Given that it may turn out to be not <<politically possible for the US
> to allow Sweden to make the sale>> as you say, and I fear you may well
> be all too correct in this assertion, I hope Saab/BAe are doing their
> damnest to get hold of a Snecma M88-2 (correct spec. for Rafale??) or
> EJ200 (more likely I guess, given BAe's involvement) for integration
> into the Gripen airframe. The Gripen C/D's for the SwAF I know are,
> as yet, slated to receive US-design engines, but I would hope that
> Saab/BAe have contingency plans for a US-veto such as you describe
> with regard to possible export-Gripens. Also, it seems to me the
> Central Europeans are taking their time with regard to making their
> minds up about what jet to purchase. How long before they do, and
> how much longer would it take to integrate a different engine into
> the Gripens?
depend, at least in part, on financing -- the Czechs aren't
eager to spend a lot of money on defense right now, and the
Poles were having problems raising the money earlier in the
year, if I recall. Still, I got the impression that mid-1998
was a deadline of sort for orders, and that all three states had
hoped to make them sometime this year.
> How soon after a final decision are these countries
> scheduled to receive new aircraft? I would imagine (though I have,
> it is true, little knowledge of the matter) that it would not be
> before the early years of next decade.
lease almost immediately, and later replace with new aircraft
(I thought that waswhat they'd offered the Czechs). ONe argument
for early replacement is NATO-standardization, but I'm not sure
how much impact that will actually have.
>
> Another thought: the US can veto the sale of Gripens to a foreign
> country, but what if the SwAF were to allow their Gripens (or Viggens
> for that matter, as offered to the Poles as a temporary intermediate
> at one stage) to be _leased_ to another country, could the US veto
> that? If not, Saab/BAe could simply beef up production to supply enough
> planes for both the SwAF and others.
not be permitted.
> Finally, the US blocking a BAe/Saab sale does not unequivocally mean
> that US firms would instead cash in. Think what would happen if a
> country shortlisted the Gripen, some French plane (I guess Rafale or
> Mirage 2000-5, expensive and perhaps not altogether in the same class
> as the Gripen; but isn't the Mirage 2000-5 being offered to Chile and
> maybe Brazil -thereby in competition with the Gripen), and _then_ a
> US plane (probably F16 or F/A18, right?).
2000. At the risk of provoking flames, the Mirage 2000 hasn't
done all that well in export competitions against the F-16, and
is more expensive. I'm not sure if the French are willing to
offer the big offset packages that McD and L-M have alreadyt
set up -- the financial incentives are a big part of the deal.
> Very possibly a Russian
> plane would be in the competition.
dropped by all three countries.
>The Gripen (with US engines)
> could be put out of the show, but the Americans couldn't other but
> directly out-compete the French and Russian planes. Say the French win,
> then the US would lose the chance of supplying all those sub-systems and
> engine design, and win nothing at all from the competition (assuming
> the Gripen were to do _really_ well in such circumstances).
L-M) are the "movers and shakers" in the US -- producers of
components are so reliant on them for business (and make a lot of
money at it) that they're unlikely to lobby for "second-best"
and support the Gripen. Politics and money make this whole
deal a rather grisly business.
Me again, by another e-mail account.
Tim...@compuserve.com
--
Posted using Reference.COM http://www.reference.com
Browse, Search and Post Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog.
InReference, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting.
73503...@compuserve.com
On 9 Nov 1997 12:25:28 GMT, d9be...@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) wrote:
> In article <6356cv$2...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
> Henry Sokolski9001 <np...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>> Viggen's engine technology or its equivalent.
> >>
> >>However, at same time USA had no trouble selling their latest product,
> >>F-16, to Venezuela.
> >
> >Who said anything about being fair?
>
> "Free trade for Me, but not for Thee."
>
legal, contractual agreement when it licensed the technology for
U.S. engines in both the Viggen and the Gripen. That agreement
requires that Sweden abide by U.S. laws restricting re-transfer
of that technology to third countries without U.S. permission.
Sweden didn't _have_ to buy U.S. engines -- it chose to do so,
I presume, because they were the best available for the designs
in question at the time of purchase. But the agreements do not
commit the U.S., morally or legally, to acquiesce in Sweden's
export efforts, particularly when those efforts are competing
with U.S. aircraft manufacturers. That's why that legislation
exists, and it makes good sense for American business. By
accepting those restrictions, Sweden recognizes that "Free trade"
is inapplicable.
You could make a morality-based case that banning Swedish exports on
moral grounds, as the Carter Administration might have been
trying to do, is incongruous if the US maintains arms exports
to the same countries. That was the gist of my comment "Nobody
said it was fair." Realistically, however, both the U.S. and
Sweden, and most other arms producers, practice arms export
policies which are not morally consistent, including
sales to human rights violators, rogue regimes, illegal technology
transfer, and bribery (most of these are technically illegal
in the U.S., by the way, but that doesn't mean it doesn't
happen <g>).
But free trade doesn't wash. It has never applied to the arms
industry in the first place, which is highly politicized in
nature. RElatively speaking, the international trade in arms
is much freer now than it was during the Cold War, when arms
transfers were more closely linked to political allegiance and
support for the US or the USSR. During the Cold War, therefore,
it was not entirely surprising to find Sweden, a neutral, having
some difficulty selling US technology. Now it is simply a matter
of good business, from the US perspective. The US is friendly
enough with Sweden to transfer top-of-the-line engine, avionics, and
weapons technology, but not without restrictions regarding re-transfer.
This allows Sweden to defend itself, but does not support Swedish
defense jobs based on exports at the cost of US jobs based
on exports. MAke sense?
TimHoyt
Gregoire
> Sorry, there aren't two new ones. If I remember correctly Clemenceau has or
> will retire this year or next, leaving only Foch, this will be retired when
> the Charles de Gaulle enters service in 1999(?). The sister ship to this
> has been cancelled, thus France have and will have only one carrier. So ..
Well the old clem is no more in service retirment in sumer 97 It will be
use as spare for the Foch is still is still in service and will be use as
an emergency aircraft carier (only in use when the CdG is in
refbubishement)
>
> > >> and i belive that a rafale is a much mor
> > >> effecient naval plane than a harrier.
> >
> > >What do you mean efficient?
> >
> > Could be the fact that it can land on a carrier - the EF2000 can't.
>
> What has this to do the statement 'efficient' and a discussion of the
> Harrier, the person who made the statement replied in kind to my question
> .. please try reading the thread before making comments.No the efficiency is not th efact to land on carier but the fact
that the rafale can take of and land from a carier with much more weapon
and with a much more important range than the harier (An than the EF2000
also)
>
> > Well, I suppose it could, but it wouldn't take off from there.
>
> Really? Look up the take-off requirement of the EF2000, you'll be
> surprised.
That have no thing to do with ability to take of from a carrier have you
ever eard abot catapult and the constraint that the plane cell receive
when she is catapult from a carrier (by the way look at the take of
rquirment of the F14 and the one of the F16 with only this figure it can
be wonder witch is the naval plane)
>
> > >In space terms the Harrier is far superior
> > >requiring far less complex and smaller carriers as their base.
> >
> > So is the Cessna 150 - like the Harrier, it is less capable than
> > Rafale.
>
> yes and you are wrong to deliver the same quantity of weapon the rafale have a less important volume than thr harrier (witch is not realy a
fighter bomber but much more a fighter)
>
> >
> > Nope, far too late. It will be at least 2015 before LM get fully
> > tooled up for JSF production (yes, I believe they will defeat Boeing).
> > It will be a few years after that before you can get your hands on
> > sufficient export models.
>
> Take a look at how many Rafale's have been and are being delivered to the
> French Navy.how many JSF are now flying ow many rafale M are flying how many carier
take of landing for the JSF and how many for the rafale. The problem of
the rafale delivery is only a financial problem.
>
> >If you try to have a navalised version of the EF200 wich is also optimised for air to ground mision and no more for air to air you have
something that got the performance of the Rafale. and the final argument
is that the rafale is much more beautifull than the EF2000
Gregoire
Paul Owen
Gregoire <bo...@cf.ac.uk> wrote in article <3468F8...@cardiff.ac.uk>...
> > Really? Look up the take-off requirement of the EF2000, you'll be
> > surprised.
>
> That have no thing to do with ability to take of from a carrier have you
> ever eard abot catapult
Yes .... I believe the steam cat. was invented in a country other than
France or America ...... ;)
> and the constraint that the plane cell receive
> when she is catapult from a carrier (by the way look at the take of
> rquirment of the F14 and the one of the F16 with only this figure it can
> be wonder witch is the naval plane)
The TO for an air combat equipped EF2000 is ~300m. The TO for a the F-14 is
~400m I think, same for the F-18 (F-16 = ~550m(?)). If they can depart from
a carrier (even though they may require a cat) then the EF2000 could also,
I suspect with minimal changes for a cat assisted TO(?) .. as it goes I
think though I'm not sure that the length of a Nimitz class carriers flight
deck is ~1000ft, thus the EF2000 has at a squeeze(?) enough TO distance
(although you'll have to clear the entire deck length!). If I'm wrong I'm
wrong .. but remember how the Rafale started out ..... it certainly wasn't
in the naval role. You are also forgetting that rumours existed (and
persist in existing) that the RN were/are interested in the excellent STOL
characteristics of the EF2000 for this very reason. Landing is definitely
another matter (and would probably result in the upper and lower fuselage
of the EF2000 being separated(!)) ... but then I wasn't commenting on this.
> > Take a look at how many Rafale's have been and are being delivered to
the
> > French Navy.how many JSF are now flying ow many rafale M are flying how
many carier
> take of landing for the JSF and how many for the rafale. The problem of
> the rafale delivery is only a financial problem.
I'm not having a go at the Rafale so I think you should calm down a little.
The point is the JSF should have significantly better capabilities at a
lower price (in theory!). Although this is in the future ... the very
expensive CdeG won't be around till the turn of the century and France will
have an operational carrier for only some of the time (obviously .. keeping
the Foch going just to make up for the incompetence of canceling a second
Nuclear carrier I would think is a poor substitute, ask people what they
think about Britain purchasing two large carriers and keeping a refitted
Invincible going instead of purchasing three new carriers, you'll get some
'interesting' replies!) .. perhaps France should have delayed their choice
of naval aircraft and replacement carriers?
> > >If you try to have a navalised version of the EF200 wich is also
optimised for air to ground mision and no more for air to air you have
> something that got the performance of the Rafale. and the final argument
> is that the rafale is much more beautifull than the EF2000
I think once again you are forgetting that both the EF2000 and Rafale were
and are designed as multi-role platforms. You persist in believing the
EF2000 isn't capable of AG missions, once again I suggest you look at the
ESR which laid out the requirements for the EFA. I would also recommend you
attend any lectures being given by Ned Frith at the current time, I'm sure
he will be willing to argue with you over your conclusions about the
'apparent lack' of an AG role. Better looking? Don't think so, they are
both as bad as one another from some angles.
Matt Clonfero
Scott Hillard <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>> France is the only european
>>> countries with real carrier wing
>
>>For now .... on their remaining carrier.
>
>You ARE aware of the two new ones, aren't you?
Yep - the one they can afford, and the one they can't.
>>> and i belive that a rafale is a much mor
>>> effecient naval plane than a harrier.
>>What do you mean efficient?
>Could be the fact that it can land on a carrier - the EF2000 can't.
Harrier != EF2000.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt.
--
================================================================================
Matt Clonfero: Ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk | To Err is Human
My employers and I have a deal - They don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy
speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
Paul J. Adam
In article <346dcf3d...@news.ozemail.com.au>, Scott Hillard
<shil...@ozemail.com.au> writes
>On 29 Oct 1997 21:41:49 GMT, "Paul Owen" <NOS...@netcomuk.co.UK>
>wrote:
>>For now .... on their remaining carrier.
>
>You ARE aware of the two new ones, aren't you?
Which two? There's Charles de Gaulle, and the proposed second CVN hasn't
even had its keel laid.
>>If they had stayed with EuroFighter they could've used significant amounts
>>of the capital invested in Rafale to obtain a navalised EF2000.
>
>Why bother?
Because they'd have received a better aircraft for a lower price?
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Scott Hillard
>> France is the only european
>> countries with real carrier wing
>For now .... on their remaining carrier.
You ARE aware of the two new ones, aren't you?
>> and i belive that a rafale is a much mor
>> effecient naval plane than a harrier.
>What do you mean efficient?
Could be the fact that it can land on a carrier - the EF2000 can't.
Well, I suppose it could, but it wouldn't take off from there.
>In space terms the Harrier is far superior
>requiring far less complex and smaller carriers as their base.
So is the Cessna 150 - like the Harrier, it is less capable than
Rafale.
>> In fact as a naval olane it only
>> have 2 competitors The f18e and the sukoi.
>And the JSF in later years ... and at the rate the French Navy seem to be
>receiving Rafale's it may have been worth the wait! ;)
Nope, far too late. It will be at least 2015 before LM get fully
tooled up for JSF production (yes, I believe they will defeat Boeing).
It will be a few years after that before you can get your hands on
sufficient export models.
Besides, JSF would mean less commonality between the Air Force and
Navy, as JSF cannot adequately fulfil the roles required of the French
Air Force.
>If they had stayed with EuroFighter they could've used significant amounts
>of the capital invested in Rafale to obtain a navalised EF2000.
Why bother?
Paul Owen
> On 29 Oct 1997 21:41:49 GMT, "Paul Owen" <NOS...@netcomuk.co.UK>
> >For now .... on their remaining carrier.
>
> You ARE aware of the two new ones, aren't you?
Sorry, there aren't two new ones. If I remember correctly Clemenceau has or
will retire this year or next, leaving only Foch, this will be retired when
the Charles de Gaulle enters service in 1999(?). The sister ship to this
has been cancelled, thus France have and will have only one carrier. So ..
where is the second one?
> >> and i belive that a rafale is a much mor
> >> effecient naval plane than a harrier.
>
> >What do you mean efficient?
>
> Could be the fact that it can land on a carrier - the EF2000 can't.
What has this to do the statement 'efficient' and a discussion of the
Harrier, the person who made the statement replied in kind to my question
.. please try reading the thread before making comments.
> Well, I suppose it could, but it wouldn't take off from there.
Really? Look up the take-off requirement of the EF2000, you'll be
surprised.
> >In space terms the Harrier is far superior
> >requiring far less complex and smaller carriers as their base.
>
> So is the Cessna 150 - like the Harrier, it is less capable than
> Rafale.
Read the thread.
> >And the JSF in later years ... and at the rate the French Navy seem to
be
> >receiving Rafale's it may have been worth the wait! ;)
>
> Nope, far too late. It will be at least 2015 before LM get fully
> tooled up for JSF production (yes, I believe they will defeat Boeing).
> It will be a few years after that before you can get your hands on
> sufficient export models.
Take a look at how many Rafale's have been and are being delivered to the
French Navy.
> Besides, JSF would mean less commonality between the Air Force and
> Navy, as JSF cannot adequately fulfil the roles required of the French
> Air Force.
It can't? .... explain
> >If they had stayed with EuroFighter they could've used significant
amounts
> >of the capital invested in Rafale to obtain a navalised EF2000.
>
> Why bother?
Think about it ... then you may see the point.
Urban Fredriksson
In article <644mvg$dad$1...@despair.u-net.com>,
C D Edmondson <c...@ecom.u-net.com> wrote:
>Here is a technical comparison I was e-mailed between the Grippen and
>the F-16, don't reply to me, it comes from a guy called Kurt Plummer
>who e-mailed it to me so send any of your comments to him at
>ch1...@earthlink.net
>The Swedish BOL chaff SRM rail launchers gives between 210-240
>'slices'
>of minichaff [...]
160 actually.
>Sweden is only now experimenting with towed decoys (non fibre optic so
>probably analogue/unprogrammable)
This must be old information, as research has been going
on for quite some time. The BO2D will enter production
next year.
See: http://www.celsiustech.se/CTE/prod/BO2D/index.html
> The JAS also have a
>relatively small count of 'big-block' ejectors of only X6 holes which
>are usually flare dedicated and set X2 or X4 in the rear of JA-37
>stores
>pylons.
The BOP/B only has place for 6 MJU-10 or standard 55 mm
cartridges, or 15 MJU-7, that much is right, but
presumably one of BOY units correspond to BOP/A as well,
which at least I don't know how many can be fitted.
>The JAS is scheduled to get the 'ORIS' or somesuch IRST fairing ahead
>of
>the canopy but though it will be A/G qualified with a laser, the
>engagement envelope is just to limited by it's above-nose positioning
>to
>be useful with cheap SALH weapons, even if these are not rendered
>obsolte after the century turns.
The Swedish air force doesn't plan on using IR-OTIS as a
laser designator for ground targets.
>It also has yet to even be /test-installed/ as an operative evaluation
>kit within the Gripen.
No, that's been done on Viggen.
>Pilot Skills are indeed a high-qualifier for 'combat capability' in
>any
>airframe. The Swede's are severely time-limited in their play-time on
>this [...]
I don't agree. Training areas are close to bases so flying
hours are put to better use; The Swedish air force doesn't
have the reputation others do of not training
realistically all the time.
--
Urban Fredriksson gri...@kuai.se Military aviation: weekly news, the
http://www.alfaskop.net/%7Egriffon/aviation/ rec.aviation.military FAQ.
Latest updates: (Oct 22): More photos from the Saab airshow Sept 7:th
Patrick Hayes
"Paul Owen" <NOS...@netcomuk.co.UK> writes:
> Scott Hillard <shil...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in article <346dcf3d...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
> will retire this year or next
The Clemenceau is gone. Last flight off was in early august IIRC.
> So ... where is the second one?
Canceled due to the excessive cost of navalizing he Rafale.
> Take a look at how many Rafale's have been and are being delivered to the
> French Navy.
Even the 48 odd Rafales that the previous government had ordered have been put
back on hold...
>>> If they had stayed with EuroFighter they could've used significant
>>> amounts of the capital invested in Rafale to obtain a navalised EF2000.
>> Why bother?
> Think about it ... then you may see the point.
The navalization of the Rafale is a large part of why the program has become
so expensive. What makes you think that navelizing a multi-national program
would be less expensive? I am of the opinion that it would have been harder to
convince the other member states that a naval version was desirable if France
would be the only one to benifit.
Pat
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Patrick.Hay...@renault.fr (33) 01.41.04.64.20
--------------------------------------------------------
73503...@compuserve.com
On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 23:22:26 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" <pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <346dcf3d...@news.ozemail.com.au>, Scott Hillard
> <shil...@ozemail.com.au> writes
> >>If they had stayed with EuroFighter they could've used significant amounts
> >>of the capital invested in Rafale to obtain a navalised EF2000.
> >
> >Why bother?
>
Absolutely. But it wouldn't have been a _French_ aircraft.
Nationalism remains strong in a couple of the European aircraft
industries (France, Sweden), and will be a significant obstacle
(as I alluded earlier in this thread) to rationalization and a
true Euro-aerospace industry. The Rafale follow-on, in whatever
shape or form it might take, will be an expensive and probably
very difficult project to afford or complete.
TimHoyt
>
> --
> There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
> praiseworthy...
>
> Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
>