9 ms·

What about blockchain though? Does it have that?

avhception 1y ago
I really hope the Gripen stays the way it is - just solid engineering with a solid scope for a solid price point, and doesn't turn into the feature-creep, over engineered , money-gobbling monstrosity that is the F-35. I really wish that Germany would have gone with something like the Gripen instead of buying the very few white elephants that won't actually make a difference should it come to a real war with Russia. Bonus points with the friendly Scandinavians, too, and no dependence on the madman in the white house.
- tossandthrow 1y ago
  These purchases was made in another time. However, given the current political climate mixed with nato spending that will likely go up to 5% will likely not be bad for European military suppliers (and their supply chains).
  - geon 1y ago
    Yes. Threatening to block export of parts to pressure other countries into buying f35 guarantees no one will ever pick american made engines again.
- fakedang 1y ago
  Unfortunately the Gripen also uses a lot of US parts.
  - dopidopHN 1y ago
    Unlike the Rafale ! That’s a true European jet
- eduction 1y ago
  > buying the very few white elephants that won't actually make a difference There’s a lot to criticize in the f 35 program but there seems to be enough there there for it to succeed markedly in the export market - beyond Germany there is Poland, Czech Republic, Italy, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Greece, Romania and UK — and that’s just in Europe. This includes several countries that did not historically equip with US kit (and excludes Turkey, which ordered it before it got sanctioned). You’re saying all those countries have made a huge mistake?
  - littlestymaar 1y ago
    They made a political purchase at a time when they didn't expect to have any real use for those planes, so the actual capability price ratio didn't really matter.
    - eduction 1y ago
      In that case, would Gripen have been a wise order either? Germany already has Typhoon. There is a history of Typhoon equipped countries ordering f35 because it’s a generation ahead. But Gripen is same generation as Typhoon.
      - littlestymaar 1y ago
        Probably not, you're right, the logical choice, from a capability perspective, would have been a modernization of the Eurofighter and/or and the pursuite of a Next Generation European Fighter program. (Which could have been much less expensive than the f-35 program if given less exotic requirements).
        nradov 1y ago
        The Eurofighter was not a logical choice because Germany couldn't afford to get it certified for participation in the NATO nuclear sharing program. That would have driven the cost way higher than the F-35A.
- nocoiner 1y ago
  Gripen uses an engine subject to US export controls, so unfortunately not totally free from dependence.
  - lawn 1y ago
    Which is why Gripen hasn't been sent to Ukraine. (US blocked it.)
- ACCount36 1y ago
  Gripen is more expensive and less capable than F-35.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    Define "less capable".
    - ACCount36 1y ago
      No stealth, and a questionable sensor suite - which cripples its SEAD and BVR capabilities. Notably, those are the capabilities that modern near-peer warfare stresses most heavily.
      - bigyabai 1y ago
        "Cripples" might be stressing things a bit hard. Modern near-peer warfare is network-centric - you don't need your radar to be perfect if your AWACs can share a 300km lock over Link 16. Similarly, active radar SEAD is just one option, and passive homing/home-on-jam should also be fine for anti-radiation strikes (though I still wouldn't want to send a Gripen on a Wild Weasel mission). It isn't a Marine or Navy plane, so it really doesn't have to fill the Joint Strike Fighter role in it's entirety. I'm a huge F-35 fan myself, so I'm pretty hard-pressed to undersell the plane compared to other single-engine fighters. The Gripen isn't equipped to handle contested airspace whatsoever, the F-35 is absolutely king in that department. That said, a Gripen armed with Meteors is a mean payload even compared to an F-15 lugging around AMRAAMs. Unless you have expeditionary/naval operation roles to fill, the Gripen isn't lacking much that a normal customer would want.
  - minimaster 1y ago
    Is there a source on the price that is not speculative? There seems to be several opinions about the pricing of the F-35 actually going down or not. As for the long run I've read that the Gripen is cheaper to run.
    - b112 1y ago
- nradov 1y ago
  Germany wanted to continue participating in the NATO nuclear sharing agreement so that made the F-35A the only practical option. They considered purchasing the Eurofighter Typhoon instead but found that modifying it for the nuclear strike mission and then going through the certification process would be too expensive. When you have to rely on another country for your nuclear deterrent that cuts off your options. The Gripen is fine for what it is. But it's very small with limited thrust so performance goes to crap when you load it up with a bunch of external stores for a long range strike mission.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- ajross 1y ago
  The F-35A is only like 40% more expensive per-unit than the Gripen and is arguably at least 40% more capable (the payload alone beats that). It's true that the development program was a boondoggle (though Saab isn't completely clean here either), but that cost isn't for the most part borne by the export customers. Economy of scale continues to rule all, basically, and there are already 3x as many Money-Gobbling Monstrosities in the air as there are Gripens.
  - sofixa 1y ago
    Per unit purchase cost is the wrong metric for something which will be used for decades. Compare operating costs and availability, and the Gripen gives you drastically more bang for your buck.
koakuma-chan 1y ago
It sounds like it has some kind of ML based prediction system. It’s not like they put ChatGPT in there.
- dopidopHN 1y ago
  Bummer, I was really looking forward to that. “Oh you are correct, it is a school, I see it now »
bgwalter 1y ago
Helsing has an ex McKinsey (which ruined the German army) CEO. McKinsey is pushing AI: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/our-insights/a-rising-wave-of-tech-disruptors-the-future-of-defense-innovation https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/ou... Until we hear from captains who actually fly the aircraft, we will not know if this technology even works. Of course they will not be allowed to speak freely. In Germany, the clueless Blackrock chancellor will of course back up all of this.
- rajnathani 1y ago
  I'm not judging the guy, but usually [recent] Series C level companies [0] (i.e. fast-growing companies) have good leadership in place, I would think their leadership is still good. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/11/defence-ai-startup-helsing-raises-487m-series-c-plans-baltic-expansion-to-combat-russian-threat/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/11/defence-ai-startup-helsing...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

I really hope the Gripen stays the way it is - just solid engineering with a solid scope for a solid price point, and doesn't turn into the feature-creep, over engineered , money-gobbling monstrosity that is the F-35. I really wish that Germany would have gone with something like the Gripen instead of buying the very few white elephants that won't actually make a difference should it come to a real war with Russia. Bonus points with the friendly Scandinavians, too, and no dependence on the madman in the white house.

tossandthrow 1y ago
These purchases was made in another time. However, given the current political climate mixed with nato spending that will likely go up to 5% will likely not be bad for European military suppliers (and their supply chains).
- geon 1y ago
  Yes. Threatening to block export of parts to pressure other countries into buying f35 guarantees no one will ever pick american made engines again.
fakedang 1y ago
Unfortunately the Gripen also uses a lot of US parts.
- dopidopHN 1y ago
  Unlike the Rafale ! That’s a true European jet
eduction 1y ago
> buying the very few white elephants that won't actually make a difference There’s a lot to criticize in the f 35 program but there seems to be enough there there for it to succeed markedly in the export market - beyond Germany there is Poland, Czech Republic, Italy, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Greece, Romania and UK — and that’s just in Europe. This includes several countries that did not historically equip with US kit (and excludes Turkey, which ordered it before it got sanctioned). You’re saying all those countries have made a huge mistake?
- littlestymaar 1y ago
  They made a political purchase at a time when they didn't expect to have any real use for those planes, so the actual capability price ratio didn't really matter.
  - eduction 1y ago
    In that case, would Gripen have been a wise order either? Germany already has Typhoon. There is a history of Typhoon equipped countries ordering f35 because it’s a generation ahead. But Gripen is same generation as Typhoon.
    - littlestymaar 1y ago
      Probably not, you're right, the logical choice, from a capability perspective, would have been a modernization of the Eurofighter and/or and the pursuite of a Next Generation European Fighter program. (Which could have been much less expensive than the f-35 program if given less exotic requirements).
      - nradov 1y ago
        The Eurofighter was not a logical choice because Germany couldn't afford to get it certified for participation in the NATO nuclear sharing program. That would have driven the cost way higher than the F-35A.
nocoiner 1y ago
Gripen uses an engine subject to US export controls, so unfortunately not totally free from dependence.
- lawn 1y ago
  Which is why Gripen hasn't been sent to Ukraine. (US blocked it.)
ACCount36 1y ago
Gripen is more expensive and less capable than F-35.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  Define "less capable".
  - ACCount36 1y ago
    No stealth, and a questionable sensor suite - which cripples its SEAD and BVR capabilities. Notably, those are the capabilities that modern near-peer warfare stresses most heavily.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      "Cripples" might be stressing things a bit hard. Modern near-peer warfare is network-centric - you don't need your radar to be perfect if your AWACs can share a 300km lock over Link 16. Similarly, active radar SEAD is just one option, and passive homing/home-on-jam should also be fine for anti-radiation strikes (though I still wouldn't want to send a Gripen on a Wild Weasel mission). It isn't a Marine or Navy plane, so it really doesn't have to fill the Joint Strike Fighter role in it's entirety. I'm a huge F-35 fan myself, so I'm pretty hard-pressed to undersell the plane compared to other single-engine fighters. The Gripen isn't equipped to handle contested airspace whatsoever, the F-35 is absolutely king in that department. That said, a Gripen armed with Meteors is a mean payload even compared to an F-15 lugging around AMRAAMs. Unless you have expeditionary/naval operation roles to fill, the Gripen isn't lacking much that a normal customer would want.
- minimaster 1y ago
  Is there a source on the price that is not speculative? There seems to be several opinions about the pricing of the F-35 actually going down or not. As for the long run I've read that the Gripen is cheaper to run.
  - b112 1y ago
nradov 1y ago
Germany wanted to continue participating in the NATO nuclear sharing agreement so that made the F-35A the only practical option. They considered purchasing the Eurofighter Typhoon instead but found that modifying it for the nuclear strike mission and then going through the certification process would be too expensive. When you have to rely on another country for your nuclear deterrent that cuts off your options. The Gripen is fine for what it is. But it's very small with limited thrust so performance goes to crap when you load it up with a bunch of external stores for a long range strike mission.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
ajross 1y ago
The F-35A is only like 40% more expensive per-unit than the Gripen and is arguably at least 40% more capable (the payload alone beats that). It's true that the development program was a boondoggle (though Saab isn't completely clean here either), but that cost isn't for the most part borne by the export customers. Economy of scale continues to rule all, basically, and there are already 3x as many Money-Gobbling Monstrosities in the air as there are Gripens.
- sofixa 1y ago
  Per unit purchase cost is the wrong metric for something which will be used for decades. Compare operating costs and availability, and the Gripen gives you drastically more bang for your buck.

koakuma-chan 1y ago

It sounds like it has some kind of ML based prediction system. It’s not like they put ChatGPT in there.

dopidopHN 1y ago
Bummer, I was really looking forward to that. “Oh you are correct, it is a school, I see it now »

bgwalter 1y ago

Helsing has an ex McKinsey (which ruined the German army) CEO. McKinsey is pushing AI: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/our-insights/a-rising-wave-of-tech-disruptors-the-future-of-defense-innovation https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/ou... Until we hear from captains who actually fly the aircraft, we will not know if this technology even works. Of course they will not be allowed to speak freely. In Germany, the clueless Blackrock chancellor will of course back up all of this.

rajnathani 1y ago
I'm not judging the guy, but usually [recent] Series C level companies [0] (i.e. fast-growing companies) have good leadership in place, I would think their leadership is still good. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/11/defence-ai-startup-helsing-raises-487m-series-c-plans-baltic-expansion-to-combat-russian-threat/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/11/defence-ai-startup-helsing...

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]