7 ms·

I'm such a fan of the Gripen. It's significantly cheaper to operate than the F-35, with around 4 to 5 Gripen flight hours for the same cost as one F-35 flight h

I'm such a fan of the Gripen. It's significantly cheaper to operate than the F-35, with around 4 to 5 Gripen flight hours for the same cost as one F-35 flight hour. While it doesn't have stealth capabilities, it does have over the horizon radar, can carry the Meteor air-to-air missile which has a 100km range and was specifically designed to operate in a "distributed and de-centralised" manner; that is from rough, but still paved, runways and highways. I really wish they'd send a couple of squadrons of Gripens to Ukraine, because I think they'd be the perfect aircraft for that theatre.

sofixa 4y ago
Yep, and especially for smaller countries with smaller air forces and budgets, having more Gripens makes more sense than having fewer but more expensive F-35s. The risk of not being able to properly maintain them down the line and ending up with 3-4 operable planes is too high for the advantages of stealth (which IMO comes more into play when on the offence, which Finland probably won't be anytime soon). Agree about Ukraine too. Sending highly sophisticated jets that will take months to learn is wasting Ukraine's time - Gripens, maybe Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s make the most sense.
- oblio 4y ago
  > maybe Mirage 2000s Stopped being produced 15 years ago. > MiG-29 Ukraine can't get new ones. > Gripens Could be an option, but available only in low numbers. The Ukraine war will be won through stocks and new production. Ukraine can't afford a dead-end platform. Especially because "sending highly sophisticated jets that will take months to learn". The F-16 is probably the best option, still being made, but much more importantly, available in large numbers, thousands of them out there.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > The Ukraine war will be won through stocks and new production. Or on the diplomatic table. While I agree it is a good thing to send Ukraine all we reasonably can, it is a nonzero probability Putin gets into hot water and ousted - bad health, pissed-off bureaucracy, domestic protests once he's forced to conscript people in central (ethnic) Russia.
    - oblio 4y ago
      > Or on the diplomatic table. While I agree it is a good thing to send Ukraine all we reasonably can, it is a nonzero probability Putin gets into hot water and ousted - bad health, pissed-off bureaucracy, domestic protests once he's forced to conscript people in central (ethnic) Russia. Ukraine being a part of Russia is a mainstream opinion in Russia. It's a core part of Russian propaganda abroad and has been so since the 1800s (Novorossya). I'm not saying it's impossible, but a new leader will adopt many of the nationalist tropes. Russia completely leaving occupied territories, especially Crimea, diplomatically, will be extremely hard to do. And Ukraine without Crimea will always be exposed. It's too easy to choke off their maritime access without it.
      - mschuster91 4y ago
        The thing is, Russian economy is in shambles. The only major trading partners they have left is China and India... and the West won't ever open up unless Russia at the very least leaves the occupied territories, which leaves the Ukrainians free to focus on regaining Crimea.
        oblio 4y ago
        Some countries can be hellbent on self-destruction if they feel their "national pride" is being offended. And European messaging is... strongly in favor of Ukraine but at reduced/no cost for Europe. So in practice European messaging is actually weak. There are quite a few big European economies that would want to open up the Russian economy again. Conflicting interests are still fighting it out and we can't be sure which side will out. It could very well be that the winning political side in the West says a chopped up Ukraine is sufficient at the end of this war. We'll see, it's super hard to predict.
        sorenjan 4y ago
        Don't be so sure. Trump wants to "end the war" by cutting off help to Ukraine and force them to "negotiate" with Russia, i.e. surrender their territory. Orban is making things harder than necessary for EU to show a united front against Russia. Who knows what the political reality will be in a few years if the war continues then, too many wants things to go back to normal even if that means appeasing Putin.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > Stopped being produced 15 years ago. Doesn't really matter when there are hundreds in stock (recently decommissioned or soon to be decommissioned) - they're faster to deliver than ones that are yet to be produced. > Ukraine can't get new ones. They don't need new ones, they need flying ones, yesterday. The proposed swaps with various NATO countries like Bulgaria sounded like the best option - Ukraine gets jets they can fly today, and the other country gets an upgrade for their help.
- nordsieck 4y ago
  > The risk of not being able to properly maintain them down the line and ending up with 3-4 operable planes is too high for the advantages of stealth (which IMO comes more into play when on the offence, which Finland probably won't be anytime soon). I guess, it really depends on your threat model. If you assume that Russia is the main threat, and assume that what's going on in Ukraine is what future combat would likely look like, forward deployed SAMs are the main threat to aircraft. I have to imagine that advanced stealth capabilities would really help Sweden maintain an air capability in such an environment. From what I understand, the Ukrainian airforce has taken a pretty severe beating (understandably). Heck - the Russian airforce has been pretty limited as well - they do run sorties, but they aren't exactly operating with impunity.
- fnrslvr 4y ago
  Small, high-GDP countries like the nordics are also likely to rear a small amount of the high-quality pilots required for operating fighter jets. Maximizing those pilots by putting them in exquisite, high-end aircraft, with strong interoperability with aircraft operated by close allies (in this case most of the rest of NATO), makes a lot of sense.
brohee 4y ago
It's crazy that Finland is OK with only being able to fly their planes 20 minutes a day. I get they are so fast that intercept from takeoff isn't much longer than intercept from up in the air but still...
miroljub 4y ago
> I really wish they'd send a couple of squadrons of Gripens to Ukraine, because I think they'd be the perfect aircraft for that theatre. With or without pilots?
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  I think with pilots would amount to, in practice, a declaration of war from Sweden to Russia. So that's not going to happen. And since Sweden applied for NATO membership, it's not even a theoretical possibility at this point I'd say. But even without pilots, and crewed by Ukrainian pilots lacking training on the system, I think the ability to lob 100 km range missiles over the horizen, has to be worth something.
mlindner 4y ago
Are those numbers still accurate? F-35 was a lot more expensive early on and a lot of number comparisons are stuck on those early production numbers rather than later ones.
- phillc73 4y ago
  I took the estimate from the Wikipedia page where the 2021 cost comparison numbers show a x4.5 difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Operational_costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Operational...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
CydeWeys 4y ago
> While it doesn't have stealth capabilities That makes the Gripen a non-starter for picking a new aircraft to base your air force around in 2023. Stealth is now the single-most important factor, bar none. Non-stealthy aircraft are sitting ducks to a wide variety of threats. > it does have over the horizon radar, can carry the Meteor air-to-air missile which has a 100km range Yes see this is the kind of capability that allows stealthy aircraft like the F-35 to completely obliterate a Gripen at long range, with the Gripen never having a chance of even detecting the F-35. And of course the F-35 has long range air-to-air missiles for it too.
- dosshell 4y ago
  You make it sound as stealth is a boolean value. Stealth is not that easy. It depends on many factors. Stealth from whom, when, systems, where, and how much. There is a probability (only indirect rumors) that F-35 can already be detected in some situations on some systems (global eye?) and there is definitely no guarantee that F-35 will keep it's stealth ability in the future.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    Yes, but whatever improvements in radar will happen in the future, if they can see a stealthy jet twice as far, they can see a non-stealthy jet twice as far too. If the window of vulnerability of a stealthy jet goes from 2 minutes to 4 minutes, the one for non-stealthy could go from 20 minutes to 40 minutes. You still want the stealthy jet.
  - moremetadata 4y ago
    Its trickle down economics effect is certainly not stealth! Its not stealth from satellites either.
  - CydeWeys 4y ago
    Ironically, you're the one treating stealthiness as a boolean value here: > there is definitely no guarantee that F-35 will keep it's stealth ability in the future. Of course as radar and computer systems improve it's likely that stealthy airplanes will become detectable from farther away, but they're not just gonna lose their stealthy characteristics entirely, in a boolean manner!

sofixa 4y ago

Yep, and especially for smaller countries with smaller air forces and budgets, having more Gripens makes more sense than having fewer but more expensive F-35s. The risk of not being able to properly maintain them down the line and ending up with 3-4 operable planes is too high for the advantages of stealth (which IMO comes more into play when on the offence, which Finland probably won't be anytime soon). Agree about Ukraine too. Sending highly sophisticated jets that will take months to learn is wasting Ukraine's time - Gripens, maybe Mirage 2000s, MiG-29s make the most sense.

oblio 4y ago
> maybe Mirage 2000s Stopped being produced 15 years ago. > MiG-29 Ukraine can't get new ones. > Gripens Could be an option, but available only in low numbers. The Ukraine war will be won through stocks and new production. Ukraine can't afford a dead-end platform. Especially because "sending highly sophisticated jets that will take months to learn". The F-16 is probably the best option, still being made, but much more importantly, available in large numbers, thousands of them out there.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > The Ukraine war will be won through stocks and new production. Or on the diplomatic table. While I agree it is a good thing to send Ukraine all we reasonably can, it is a nonzero probability Putin gets into hot water and ousted - bad health, pissed-off bureaucracy, domestic protests once he's forced to conscript people in central (ethnic) Russia.
  - oblio 4y ago
    > Or on the diplomatic table. While I agree it is a good thing to send Ukraine all we reasonably can, it is a nonzero probability Putin gets into hot water and ousted - bad health, pissed-off bureaucracy, domestic protests once he's forced to conscript people in central (ethnic) Russia. Ukraine being a part of Russia is a mainstream opinion in Russia. It's a core part of Russian propaganda abroad and has been so since the 1800s (Novorossya). I'm not saying it's impossible, but a new leader will adopt many of the nationalist tropes. Russia completely leaving occupied territories, especially Crimea, diplomatically, will be extremely hard to do. And Ukraine without Crimea will always be exposed. It's too easy to choke off their maritime access without it.
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      The thing is, Russian economy is in shambles. The only major trading partners they have left is China and India... and the West won't ever open up unless Russia at the very least leaves the occupied territories, which leaves the Ukrainians free to focus on regaining Crimea.
      - oblio 4y ago
        Some countries can be hellbent on self-destruction if they feel their "national pride" is being offended. And European messaging is... strongly in favor of Ukraine but at reduced/no cost for Europe. So in practice European messaging is actually weak. There are quite a few big European economies that would want to open up the Russian economy again. Conflicting interests are still fighting it out and we can't be sure which side will out. It could very well be that the winning political side in the West says a chopped up Ukraine is sufficient at the end of this war. We'll see, it's super hard to predict.
      - sorenjan 4y ago
        Don't be so sure. Trump wants to "end the war" by cutting off help to Ukraine and force them to "negotiate" with Russia, i.e. surrender their territory. Orban is making things harder than necessary for EU to show a united front against Russia. Who knows what the political reality will be in a few years if the war continues then, too many wants things to go back to normal even if that means appeasing Putin.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > Stopped being produced 15 years ago. Doesn't really matter when there are hundreds in stock (recently decommissioned or soon to be decommissioned) - they're faster to deliver than ones that are yet to be produced. > Ukraine can't get new ones. They don't need new ones, they need flying ones, yesterday. The proposed swaps with various NATO countries like Bulgaria sounded like the best option - Ukraine gets jets they can fly today, and the other country gets an upgrade for their help.
nordsieck 4y ago
> The risk of not being able to properly maintain them down the line and ending up with 3-4 operable planes is too high for the advantages of stealth (which IMO comes more into play when on the offence, which Finland probably won't be anytime soon). I guess, it really depends on your threat model. If you assume that Russia is the main threat, and assume that what's going on in Ukraine is what future combat would likely look like, forward deployed SAMs are the main threat to aircraft. I have to imagine that advanced stealth capabilities would really help Sweden maintain an air capability in such an environment. From what I understand, the Ukrainian airforce has taken a pretty severe beating (understandably). Heck - the Russian airforce has been pretty limited as well - they do run sorties, but they aren't exactly operating with impunity.
fnrslvr 4y ago
Small, high-GDP countries like the nordics are also likely to rear a small amount of the high-quality pilots required for operating fighter jets. Maximizing those pilots by putting them in exquisite, high-end aircraft, with strong interoperability with aircraft operated by close allies (in this case most of the rest of NATO), makes a lot of sense.

brohee 4y ago

It's crazy that Finland is OK with only being able to fly their planes 20 minutes a day. I get they are so fast that intercept from takeoff isn't much longer than intercept from up in the air but still...

miroljub 4y ago

> I really wish they'd send a couple of squadrons of Gripens to Ukraine, because I think they'd be the perfect aircraft for that theatre. With or without pilots?

actionfromafar 4y ago
I think with pilots would amount to, in practice, a declaration of war from Sweden to Russia. So that's not going to happen. And since Sweden applied for NATO membership, it's not even a theoretical possibility at this point I'd say. But even without pilots, and crewed by Ukrainian pilots lacking training on the system, I think the ability to lob 100 km range missiles over the horizen, has to be worth something.

mlindner 4y ago

Are those numbers still accurate? F-35 was a lot more expensive early on and a lot of number comparisons are stuck on those early production numbers rather than later ones.

phillc73 4y ago
I took the estimate from the Wikipedia page where the 2021 cost comparison numbers show a x4.5 difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Operational_costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Operational...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

CydeWeys 4y ago

> While it doesn't have stealth capabilities That makes the Gripen a non-starter for picking a new aircraft to base your air force around in 2023. Stealth is now the single-most important factor, bar none. Non-stealthy aircraft are sitting ducks to a wide variety of threats. > it does have over the horizon radar, can carry the Meteor air-to-air missile which has a 100km range Yes see this is the kind of capability that allows stealthy aircraft like the F-35 to completely obliterate a Gripen at long range, with the Gripen never having a chance of even detecting the F-35. And of course the F-35 has long range air-to-air missiles for it too.

dosshell 4y ago
You make it sound as stealth is a boolean value. Stealth is not that easy. It depends on many factors. Stealth from whom, when, systems, where, and how much. There is a probability (only indirect rumors) that F-35 can already be detected in some situations on some systems (global eye?) and there is definitely no guarantee that F-35 will keep it's stealth ability in the future.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  Yes, but whatever improvements in radar will happen in the future, if they can see a stealthy jet twice as far, they can see a non-stealthy jet twice as far too. If the window of vulnerability of a stealthy jet goes from 2 minutes to 4 minutes, the one for non-stealthy could go from 20 minutes to 40 minutes. You still want the stealthy jet.
- moremetadata 4y ago
  Its trickle down economics effect is certainly not stealth! Its not stealth from satellites either.
- CydeWeys 4y ago
  Ironically, you're the one treating stealthiness as a boolean value here: > there is definitely no guarantee that F-35 will keep it's stealth ability in the future. Of course as radar and computer systems improve it's likely that stealthy airplanes will become detectable from farther away, but they're not just gonna lose their stealthy characteristics entirely, in a boolean manner!