+Fates 63 Posted January 18, 2008 It's down to two. Eurofighter has withdrawn the Typhoon from competitions for a new combat aircraft to replace F-16s in Denmark and Norway. Both countries are partners in the U.S.-led Lightning (Joint Strike Fighter) program but are considering alternatives before committing to production F-35s. The European consortium was particularly hopeful of dislodging Norway from the F-35 program and promised the country more than $7 billion worth of industrial participation in return for a Typhoon order. Earlier, Eurofighter awarded development contracts worth $50 million to Norwegian industry. Now the Danes and Norwegians have only the enhanced Saab Gripen to evaluate against the F-35. (Details of Saab’s development program, including a new engine and radar, and structural changes to boost weapons carriage and range, can be found in AIN’s Farnborough Show editions from last year. Click here to read.) That program was confirmed in October when Saab received a $94 million contract from the Swedish government. The Gripen team has offered Norway $25 million of this work. The two Nordic countries will probably decide this year, once the cost and schedule of the F-35 program becomes clear. http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-...Hash=0ecfc91ebe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkomatic 7 Posted January 18, 2008 How about that, an all-Nordic Gripen? Man, bet it plays ride of the Valkyries Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUFF 8 Posted January 18, 2008 Eurofighter pulled out in December. Interestingly the Swedes are complaining that the offsets being required from Lockheed aren't as high as those that they are being asked for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted January 18, 2008 Well, the difference is the F-35 is still in development, the Gripen is in service, plus there are already many other countries involved with the F-35. That said, I don't think the Gripen would be a bad choice at all. They could certainly get hold of them faster. Wouldn't they be the first Gripens in NATO if they did? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+hgbn 91 Posted January 18, 2008 I hope that we go for Gripen... The Drakens we had was some very good aircraft and they died to early in RDAF service ( Damh those politicians right after the Cold war was won) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nesher 629 Posted January 18, 2008 thanks for the article.. :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kesegy 5 Posted January 18, 2008 Wouldn't they be the first Gripens in NATO if they did? Wikipedia: Current operators Czech Air Force: 14 Gripens on lease, including two dual-seaters. Hungarian Air Force: 14 Gripens on lease, including two dual-seaters (C/D versions). The final three aircraft were delivered in December 2007 Both Czech Republic and Hungary are NATO members since 1999. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted January 22, 2008 I wasn't sure which E Euro countries were in NATO yet vs only applied. I don't pay as close attention as I used to. I got married in 1998. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkomatic 7 Posted January 24, 2008 (edited) We should sell them F-22 also...that would be cool...and C-17... See, foreign military sales are not as scary as you guys make it out to be... If you are a member of the Danish Defense Community and would like to inquire about this ad... * I am not insulting the Danes as I actually have a very high regard for them and it is a beautiful country full of wonderful people...cant take a joke, please seek counseling Edited January 24, 2008 by sparkomatic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted January 24, 2008 Yes, it would be great to see the Danish F-22. The only one. As they couldn't afford to buy more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longestpants 1 Posted January 24, 2008 I think they should put more consideration on the Gripen, a tried and true machine, than the F-35, which is still in development and will take a few years after release to work all the kinks out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkomatic 7 Posted January 24, 2008 Yes, it would be great to see the Danish F-22. The only one. As they couldn't afford to buy more. Well...we have like 120...and can get maybe 11 in the air on the same day... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ST0RM 145 Posted January 24, 2008 I too am backing the Gripen. I'm not in favor of the F-35 at all. We wont get them in the numbers that are needed to replace the Vipers/Hawgs/Hornets/Harriers anyhow, so why bother? Making do with less is BS when the current gen of aircraft are still formidable. Just purchase new ones at a fraction of the cost and incorporate new technology. Just my $.02 Storm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkomatic 7 Posted January 25, 2008 Like making more F-15 with v3 radar and tweaked engines? The production line is still open...oh yeah! Still cheaper than the 40,000 airmen Moseley sold to buy 110 F-22... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atreides 144 Posted January 26, 2008 What I find amazing is how they justify the F-35 replacing the A-10, is it as survivable as the A-10 ? Heck NO. And to gripe further the F-35 doesn't even have the punch of an A-10. Don't get me wrong the aircraft is good, we (Canadian's) have alot invested in the project and Canadian firm's are seeing an unprecedented return on their investment with regard's to the F-35 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Viggen 523 Posted January 26, 2008 It's not just how survivabilty and that it can't pack as much of a punch. Loiter time for CAS is going to be limited. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkomatic 7 Posted January 26, 2008 Simple...the USAF brass hates the A-10...period, dot...yes, real people love it and it just keeps proving itself (dont start flaming, I love the A-10, let us talk about fast mover politics and getting away from an Army support role)...so no way the post-modern USAF will pay $ to keep fulfilling a mission it feels it should not have to do, especially since the Army basically tried to force the USAF to keep doing it in a manner of speaking by abandoning their Comanche project. Nothing does CAS or FAC-A better than a Hawg...nothing...but those arent priority missions for a USAF that cant field sufficient numbers of F-22A...and if you read another post, you will see that nearly the entire USAF fleet has some potentially crippling issues. Focus, it is not about what is best for the job, it is about what we can pay for, priorities, and politics...if the Army wants a CAS bird so bad, they can help pay for it, Airmen dont need CAS (Sandy's, yes, CAS, no) but bullet catchers do Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Viggen 523 Posted January 26, 2008 I thought the Army wasn't allowed to operate fixed wing jet aircraft. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkomatic 7 Posted January 26, 2008 helping paying for and operating are different Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Viggen 523 Posted January 26, 2008 helping paying for and operating are different Ah I read that wrong. I though you said the Army wanted to have its own CAS/FAC-A birds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jug 99 Posted January 26, 2008 It's not just how survivabilty and that it can't pack as much of a punch. Loiter time for CAS is going to be limited. Boys and girls, in my opinion, it is all about numbers. If we can buy 10 tweaked F-15s instead of 1 F-22, that is a good thing. If the Danes can buy 10 Gripins vs 1 F-35, that is a good thing. I can assure you in a war of attrition my F-15s will take losses, but I'll still be shooting when the other guy is out picking up the pieces. If you will remember that was the idea of the F-16. Low cost small fighter where you could buy lots of them. Speaking of numbers, how many tweaked Su-27s could the US buy for every F-22 or F-35. Judging from the reliability of missiles in combat and from what I have seen in the confines of this game, drag the F-4s out of the boneyard and load em up with gun pods. Real low tech stuff, point the nose and pull the trigger - everything in front of you dissappears. If I can put 50 up against your super-fighter, you're toast. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkomatic 7 Posted January 26, 2008 Rather in the vein of what the PRC was doing with some of its MiG-19 types...converting them into UAV-lites...no doubt the intent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longestpants 1 Posted January 26, 2008 The danger with that is becoming like a TIE fighter. The plane (starfighter) is incredibly cheap and, just like the pilot assigned to it, expendable. Victory will be expected through sheer force of numbers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkomatic 7 Posted January 27, 2008 Oh, they took the pilots out of the MiG-19, turned them into UAV's...most likely in a TALD - IADS overwhelming role making it even more expendable Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gosquidgo 0 Posted January 28, 2008 Actually, one F22 is better than ten F15s. I'll have to dig up some recent articles on the Red Flag and other excercises that F22s have taken part in. The kill ratio was something like 69-1 and that the loss was only because a Raptor pilot got ballsy and crossed the merge with three F16s. He killed all three but a heater from the last F16 got him too. In all the other engagements, the other planes couldn't even find the Raptors. Pilots transitioning from the F15 to the F22 couldn't believe how one-sided and easy the engagements became. Another big factor is the cost of training and retaining the pilots, not mention the associated costs of support personnel, aircraft maintenance and other costs. The more planes and pilots you have, the greater the cost. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
