Thailand picks Swedish fighters over Russia's

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2004-10-08 01:01pm

Yes, take that Russkie

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-10-08 01:10pm

SAAB's a good company.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-10-08 01:26pm

What a shock, buying 20 single engine fighters to replace the F-5 instead of 6 Flankers.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-08 01:28pm

Gustav32Vasa, don't forget that the Swedish state will purchase foodstuffs from Thailand for the same amount of cash ($230 million) that the fighters cost.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-10-08 01:33pm

Say what you will abut SAAB, but one thing is for sure, they make the coolest looking fighters in thw world.

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2004-10-08 02:00pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:Say what you will abut SAAB, but one thing is for sure, they make the coolest looking fighters in thw world.

I agree. Just look at the FILUR.

Loner · Post by **Loner** » 2004-10-08 02:50pm

The Gripen is a damn nice looking fighter.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-08 04:10pm

Loner wrote:The Gripen is a damn nice looking fighter.

Yes, but it's untested.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-08 04:12pm

I always loved the Drakan. Now that looked mean.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-08 06:13pm

Yes, J35 Draken (or Dragon in English) is a really good-looking fighter. It can take quite a heavy payload and can reach Mach 2.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-08 06:27pm

Shit, I said Drakan, not Draken. My mistake. I had a nice Airfix of that plane years ago, painted it all in black too with the Swedish AF insignia on.

Z-Ha-Dum · Post by **Z-Ha-Dum** » 2004-10-09 02:07am

Mange the Swede wrote:Yes, J35 Draken (or Dragon in English) is a really good-looking fighter. It can take quite a heavy payload and can reach Mach 2.

The Draken is reputed to be the most aerodynamically advanced fighter of its time. But has it ever seen combat?

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-10-09 02:24am

What a shock, buying 20 single engine fighters to replace the F-5 instead of 6 Flankers.

Exactly. The JAS 39 is a fine replacement for F-5 Tigers, that doesn't say anything about it's non-existent status as a fighter next to a Super Flanker. It's got short range, small payload, and it's underpowered. It's got no real advantages to speak of.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-10-09 03:18am

Only that it's hard to have 6 Flankers in 20 places.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-10-09 03:24am

Mange the Swede wrote:Yes, but it's untested.

To be fair, so's many of the components of a "Super Flanker" I suppose by that you are meaning some things like the Su-30MKI or -MKK model.

Only recently did they find out their brand new N011M Bars (actually, I've read some stuff saying some the radar uses some ten year old components) radar turned out to be unable to scan electronically as far as they want, and so the electronic scanning was cut to 40 degrees either way (they boasted 60 or 70 before).

By the way, though tests were supposedly done with higher powered stuff, and they detected a Su-27 at 330km (or so they said), the version they are actually putting out only seems to have a 4-5kW peak power transmitter.

And isn't it true that while the Russians are only boasting 3m SAR resolution for their latest Zhuk-MS radars, the PS-05 is more like 1m?

I wonder what's the problem. It isn't like Russia had no experience in building phased arrays before...

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-09 03:27am

Z-Ha-Dum wrote:
Mange the Swede wrote:Yes, J35 Draken (or Dragon in English) is a really good-looking fighter. It can take quite a heavy payload and can reach Mach 2.
The Draken is reputed to be the most aerodynamically advanced fighter of its time. But has it ever seen combat?

No, I don't believe that any of the Swedish fighters have seen combat, that was why I wrote in an earlier post in this thread that JAS39 Gripen is untested. Personally, I think that Sweden should have taken part in the Eurofighter project instead, as I think that that fighter has so much more potential than JAS. But it's also an employment issue here in Sweden. If I'm to be extremely honest, I think that JAS is inferior to other modern fighters in terms of engine power (JAS powerplant is rated at 54 kN without afterburner, while the powerplant of a Su-27 Flanker one of the more likely adversaries, is rated at 79.43 kN without afterburner), turn radius and that it hasn't proved itself. And I certainly hope that the flight control system doesn't malfunction in a critical moment again.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-09 03:32am

You made a number of good points, Kazuaki. My post above only deals with the regular Flanker which is quite a capable fighter.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-10-09 03:45am

Mange the Swede wrote:No, I don't believe that any of the Swedish fighters have seen combat, that was why I wrote in an earlier post in this thread that JAS39 Gripen is untested.

Oh, you mean in combat. I really don't think Flankers have really been in combat either, except by one shitty African 3rd World nation who beat a few MiG-29s with 'em.

Personally, I think that Sweden should have taken part in the Eurofighter project instead, as I think that that fighter has so much more potential than JAS.

That's like saying the F-15 has more potential than the F-16. It is so much larger. On the other hand, the Gripen actually managed to get its butt out of the factory and into the flight line before year 2000. Feel a little pride for your little country.

If I'm to be extremely honest, I think that JAS is inferior to other modern fighters in terms of engine power (JAS powerplant is rated at 54 kN without afterburner, while the powerplant of a Su-27 Flanker one of the more likely adversaries, is rated at 79.43 kN without afterburner),

Umm, not too fair unless you also compare the weight.

turn radius and that it hasn't proved itself.

Interesting, so you know the turn radius of the Gripen (the spec sheet I got says the "minimum turn radius" is 450m for the Flanker, at an unknown altitude and speed scenario, and the sustained turned rate is IIRC over 24 degrees / second in aerobatic formation)?

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-09 04:13am

I remember reading about the turn radius for JAS a while back (some 7-8 years ago). I can't remember the figures exactly, I will have a look and see if I can get a hold on that book again. Of course, it contained non-classified information and could have been inaccurate.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-10-09 05:45am

Mange the Swede wrote:I remember reading about the turn radius for JAS a while back (some 7-8 years ago). I can't remember the figures exactly, I will have a look and see if I can get a hold on that book again. Of course, it contained non-classified information and could have been inaccurate.

All the figures we get are unclassified anyway, and the guys who know the classified stuff would be very careful not to yak it out over a web-board.

Give me what you got anyway. Thanks.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-09 06:22am

Mange the Swede wrote:
No, I don't believe that any of the Swedish fighters have seen combat, that was why I wrote in an earlier post in this thread that JAS39 Gripen is untested. Personally, I think that Sweden should have taken part in the Eurofighter project instead, as I think that that fighter has so much more potential than JAS.

Then you're completely ignorant of the budgetary limits, and the operating requirements of the Swedish Air force. Eurofighter could only produce a plan to expensive for the job, and bringing in yet another country, which would naturally demand its a share of the work, would probably only drive each aircraft's price up further. With the Gripen Sweden has gotten the perfect fighter for its need, and is earning a considerable amount of money on export orders going to a strong nitch market.

But it's also an employment issue here in Sweden. If I'm to be extremely honest, I think that JAS is inferior to other modern fighters in terms of engine power (JAS powerplant is rated at 54 kN without afterburner, while the powerplant of a Su-27 Flanker one of the more likely adversaries, is rated at 79.43 kN without afterburner), turn radius and that it hasn't proved itself.

Why would you even make such a comparision? The Su-27 is a heavyweight air supremacy fighter, the Gripen is a lightweight multirole fighter/reconassiance and strike aircraft. A direct comparision is pointless, of course the bigger heavier fighter will win. BUt it will also cost far more, as shown by this deal, both to buy and more importantly to operate. That single engine makes a big cost differance.

And I certainly hope that the flight control system doesn't malfunction in a critical moment again.

Actually, in the event the flight control computer blows out (and the redundant ones), the canards are blown off by explosive bolts, which makes the plane stable and flyable by the pilot without computer assisted controls. Though a total control failure is still of course possibul, if all the emergency computers which process only the unassisted data and the quadruple redundancy wires are all severed. But its more likely that other damage is going to bring the plane down first, such as large chunks of control surfacnes being blown off, the engine exploding or the fuel tanks bursting into flames...

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-09 06:58am

You are aware of course Sea Skimmer, that JAS Gripen is totally dependent on its electronic flight control system. It has been shown time and again that when it fails, the pilot can't control the aircraft.

Actually, I don't think that Sweden needs JAS. IMO, Sweden should have made the same thing Finland did, bought some Superhornet instead. In reality I prefer a strong helicopter gunship fleet complemented with a few dozen fighters. That would be adequate for our needs. Sweden haven't got any enemies today that really poses a danger. Some of us are still vary about what might happen in Russia in the future, but today there aren't any threats.

Kazuaki, I will look for the book and return later.

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-10-09 07:49am

Good for us

Plus they look damn neat.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-10-09 09:10am

Mange the Swede wrote:Actually, I don't think that Sweden needs JAS. IMO, Sweden should have made the same thing Finland did, bought some Superhornet instead. In reality I prefer a strong helicopter gunship fleet complemented with a few dozen fighters. That would be adequate for our needs. Sweden haven't got any enemies today that really poses a danger. Some of us are still vary about what might happen in Russia in the future, but today there aren't any threats.

Pal, look on the bright side. At least your country didn't build the frigging F-2, such an embarassing, overpriced exercise that even their own government gives up on it (it finally became official back in August). It doesn't even have GPS for some unknown reason (I wonder how many pilots will resort to buying civilian handheld GPS to help out navigation), the radar is unreliable and really, by modern standards (21st century), the known parameters of the radar is at best mediocre.

At least the Gripen is actually a pretty decent light fighter. How often does that flight control system crap out anyway?

*Technically, I was born in Hong Kong, and really feel no strong ties with any country. But I do hold a Japanese passport and a Japanese name, and honestly, I couldn't help but feel my face go red as I learn about the F-2.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-10-09 09:28am

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote: Only recently did they find out their brand new N011M Bars (actually, I've read some stuff saying some the radar uses some ten year old components) radar turned out to be unable to scan electronically as far as they want, and so the electronic scanning was cut to 40 degrees either way (they boasted 60 or 70 before).

Yeah, that was overcome by adding some mechanical scanning, so it worked out to +/- 40 degrees electronic scan and +/- 30 degrees mechanical scan, working out to 70 degrees total in azimuth, and 40 degrees in elevation.

By the way, though tests were supposedly done with higher powered stuff, and they detected a Su-27 at 330km (or so they said), the version they are actually putting out only seems to have a 4-5kW peak power transmitter.

Hadn't heard that.

And isn't it true that while the Russians are only boasting 3m SAR resolution for their latest Zhuk-MS radars, the PS-05 is more like 1m?

The Zhuk-MS isn't an electronically scanned phased array. The N031 Sokol (previosuly Zhuk-MSF) is, and is much more advanced- it will probably achieve greater than the older Zhuk-MS.

I wonder what's the problem. It isn't like Russia had no experience in building phased arrays before...

Well, the N011M Bars as you said retains some components from the initial never-entered-service N011 radar of the late 80s early 90s, before Russia got access to a lot of improved electronics- namely the Ts200 programmable signal processor (PSP). This will change soon- the Indian Su-30MKIs (which are the only ones with Bars) will be equipped with Indian-designed components with increased performance. This was planned from the outset, but they couldn't do it in the timeframe required so the N011M with the Ts200 was provided.

Secondly, the N011M Bars is NIIP, while the N031 Sokol is NIIR-Phazotron. Though NIIP seems more popular with the RuAF right now, it all depends on who can design an AESA (AFAR to the Russians) radar for the PAK FA program. NIIP currently has favor, it seems.

NIIP, for their part, is designing a new radar, "Irbis", that will further improve on N011M Bars performance; apparently including quicker mechanical scan servos to achieve more satisfactory scan performance (probably combined with increased electronic-scan performance, as updating just the servos would be an easy exercise for N011M Bars, not necessitating a new radar design- unless it's N011M1 or some such ...)