5 ms·

The Gripen is a good choice for geographically small countries. It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads, with modest mobile ground equip

The Gripen is a good choice for geographically small countries. It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads, with modest mobile ground equipment for support. Saab commercial for the Gripen: [1] The USAF's force model involves basing at big, well-equipped, well-protected air bases. Those are now hard to protect from drone attacks, as Russia recently found out. From now on, air forces have to be able to operate from improvised bases, or build very strong bunkers at major bases. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyD0liioY8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyD0liioY8E

echelon 1y ago
> It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads I can understand this argument. > The USAF's force model involves basing at big, well-equipped, well-protected air bases. But I don't understand this one. Isn't a drone attack a drone attack? The same drones that could take out F-16s could take out Gripens. You'd have to defend your expensive weapon systems in either case. Don't we need a new strategy that isn't entirely reliant upon extremely powerful, but extremely expensive hardware? I'd imagine you still want your expensive pieces, but that you want a compliment of inexpensive combat items and fortified bunkers as a line of defense to protect them when not deployed.
- freeopinion 1y ago
  I admit I didn't read the article. Is the Gripen 40% cheaper so that countries can own more of them? Also smaller airbases can mean more airbases. So a single drone attack might take out one or two bases worth of Gripen. But it takes a lot more drones and a lot more sophisticated attack to take out all the Gripen spread across so many small bases.
  - dralley 1y ago
    Gripen is more expensive to purchase than the F-35 and F-16. The operating costs are a bit cheaper than the F-16 and substantially cheaper than the F-35 however.
- dgrin91 1y ago
  Yes but it's a question of finding targets. Why was Ukraine able to decimate the Russian Air Force? Partly because they are all based out of big, well known bases. Even in wartime they have to be in a big base. A jet like the Gripen can move basically instantly to basically anywhere and then it's hard to find, especially because it can just move again
  - riffraff 1y ago
    I don't want to sound negative, I wish all the best to Ukraine, but did they actually "decimate" the Russian air force? I was under the impression a few attacks on air bases happened, but a lot more drones were aimed at refineries and other infrastructure.
    - hgomersall 1y ago
      Given the original definition of decimate, to remove one in ten, perhaps so.
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      Yes. They hit a substantial fraction of the Russian long range bombers and assorted other aircraft. Quite a bit of that is at least for the moment impossible for Russia to replace.
  - petre 1y ago
    True, but the Gripen is not a big strategic bomber and Sweden doesn't have nukes to threaten other countries with. They do air policing and would employ guerilla tactics in case of war, like put a gripen in a cattle shed somewhere and operate it from a road¹. It's a good strategy for a smaller country with lower population density to defend itself. Possibly not such a great option for Benelux, but for most of the EU, save for the big boys it's great. Even Germany could employ it, with the amount of sheds and the highway network that they have. Russia and the US needs aibases to operate strategic bombers from. 1. https://youtu.be/HbkScZFCgro https://youtu.be/HbkScZFCgro
- simne 1y ago
  > The same drones that could take out F-16s could take out Gripens Gripens could base on ordinary highway, so could distribute planes through big territory. Drones usually have limited range, so they really could target most air bases capable for F-16 (using for example semi-truck container as movable nest), but it is literally impossible now, to target all highways.
- Animats 1y ago
  The USAF argues over this internally. See [1], and a reply, [2]. Some USAF officers have been making noise about the need for more dispersal for years.[3] There's a "build tougher bases" faction in the military. Read "Concrete Sky"[4] If you want to read up on this, those are some good starting points. [1] https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AEtherJournal/Journals/Volume-3_Number-3/Grieco_and_Bremer.pdf https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AEtherJournal/Jo... [2] https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/drone-hype-and-airpower-amnesia/ https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/drone-hype-and-air... [3] https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDN_1-21/AFDN%201-21%20ACE.pdf https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDN_1-21/A... [4] https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/Concrete+Sky+-+Air+Base+Hardening+in+the+Western+Pacific+-+Shugart+-+Walton.pdf https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/Concrete...
  - echelon 1y ago
    This is so much better than I even asked for! Thank you so much for putting this together and sharing. Any opinion as to which faction(s) will win these arguments?
- maxglute 1y ago
  The on paper assumption / sales pitch that remains valid in most scenarios is increased survivability of shooters = more sorties. If hardware can operate from austere conditions you can squeeze in a few more missions, which may be tactically/operationally significant, but there's limitations on modern airframes, still need to go back to a well resourced large base (5th gen also requires conditioned shelters) for maintenance, i.e. it's still fundamentally a bandaid solution. The logistics tail is also larger <- this gets slept on (or underplayed in public facing messaging). It remains valid in most scenarios, as in most force on force that is not US/PRC, because very few countries has c4isr abilities to kill chain entire operational theatre, i.e. it's partially hopium strategy in US vs PRC in IndoPac. Which circles back to your second point, the related debate around hardening and distributing is almost distraction - airforce capitalization of highend platforms is in the shitters - so there's parallel discussion around distributed / agile deployment but with cheaper CCAs. Of course what's typically being hand waved away is the logistics tail part, i.e. there's already massive maintenance personnel shortages, unlikely to disperse thousands of maintenance crews on the ground to support the concept. The even more handwaved part for US in IndoPac is host nation access / political constraints. There's a reason US wants JP to support ACE/agile combat employment (as in on main islands), increase harden shelters... but JP reluctant to open main islands. Because no one wants more American forces doing shenanigans with their civilians and the optics of having support fleets reminding populace they're on the frontline is bad. Hence JP still largely constraining US to Okinawa/Ryukyus, PH in Luzon/Palawan. The further downstream handwaving of all this is even if properly implemented, is now you've spread out shit load of more exposed logistics staff across vulnerable islands, i.e. dramatically increased exfiltration complexity / suicide deployments. Survivability of drones increases, survivability of the logistics force decreases. Which is... even worse optics, hence it's rarely even part of discussion with respect to ACE. There some self awareness with marine NMESIS MLRS / EABO (expeditionary advanced base operations)... i.e. wait we're sending marines on likely one way missions to tiny islands that PRC can lock down? Maybe that's worth if they take out a type055.
- victorbjorklund 1y ago
  Easier to spot a plane in one of X airports vs spot a plane on any road anywhere in the country hiden in the woods
ivape 1y ago
Is there an equivalent to drone dog fighting? In that case, we may as well shift warfare to that.
- trenchpilgrim 1y ago
  Sorta - in Ukraine there have been instances of drones killing other drones, mostly by ramming them. But it's all very new.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    There have been thousands of such instances by now. Ramming is indeed the most frequently used option. Depending on the target drone there are different defender drones in use. Some favor altitude and duration of flight, others favor speed. It all depends on what you are trying to hit, what sensor package and what kind of flight conditions you will face (day/night for instance).
- simne 1y ago
  What you mean? Aerobatic? - Anti-air weapons all based on maneuverability much exceed planes with human pilots. - Anti-missile maneuver based on limited energy in missile, because it is usually ~100 times smaller then plane, and square-cube rule mean, missile could make active flight just few seconds - if plane survive these seconds it win. Stealth planes are new tier in warfare, because enemy see them when already lost time need to launch anti-air weapons.
- walrus01 1y ago
  Yes, there's already Ukrainian fpv flown quadcopters which are optimized to intercept, as a munition, common flying wing camera surveillance platforms. I've seen probably 20 or 30 different videos now taken from the view of the quadcopter, with detonator contact wires sticking out the front, diving into the rear of a large Russian flying wing UAV.
trenchpilgrim 1y ago
How do improvised bases offer protection, especially in a world where radar on satellites sees through clouds and certain vegetation? USAF's switch to improvised bases seems to be motivated by needing to operate from small islands in the Pacific where they isn't enough solid ground to build a full airbase.
- cutemonster 1y ago
  If a plane can land anywhere to refuel and takes off again in 10 minutes, the other side needs a fast kill chain to catch the plane. But if they land on big well known bases, it's much simpler. Another comment here about slow drone speeds and nest drones: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44918955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44918955 And sometimes the other side can destroy all big airbases in a small country.
  - trenchpilgrim 1y ago
    Thanks, that was clarifying for me!
  - yencabulator 1y ago
    > And sometimes the other side can destroy all big airbases in a small country. Specifically, Swedish doctrine assumes all airfields are destroyed 24-48h after start of major conflict.
- bell-cot 1y ago
  In terms of military resources required, there's a vast difference between keeping a close eye on the other side's few known airfields, and keeping a close eye on every park, parking lot, farm field, forest clearing, etc., etc. in their country.
  - trenchpilgrim 1y ago
    This kind of monitoring is something you can buy commercially now, for less than the cost of the weapons carried by a fighter jet on a single mission. However, revisit times are still long enough that sibling comment's remarks on mobility make sense.
gerdesj 1y ago
"It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads, with modest mobile ground equipment for support." Nothing is really new. I used to live in West Germany in the '70s and '80s. The UK had an aircraft called Harrier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_jump_jet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_jump_jet. At that time I think Sweden was deploying the Drakken (Dragon) and later the Vigen (Lightning). I made models of both as a child and I think both of them were superb in their own way. Harrier was designed to work out of fields, let alone roads. Rather similar to an Apache. Minimal maint (ish) and so on. I now live in Yeovil, Somerset and we have recently had several Italian rotary wing aircraft, such as The Seaking doing test flights around here. Presumably airframe testing and proving for VJ Day.
- gliptic 1y ago
  > I think Sweden was deploying the Drakken (Dragon) and later the Vigen (Lightning). The names are much less flashy, Draken (The kite, due to the shape) and Viggen (The tufted duck) :P.
  - geon 1y ago
    Yes, Draken and Viggen are officially named after the kite and the tufted duck, respectively. The names do however carry the other meanings as well. Draken means (the) kite, dragon and male duck. Viggen means (the) lightning and tufted duck.
    - yesbabyyes 1y ago
      And Gripen is the Griffin. Before Draken was Tunnan, the Barrel.
- qingcharles 1y ago
  Which RAF bases are around there? I used to live at the end of the Filton airstrip and I came home one day to a Harrier hovering directly over my house. It moved off towards Filton, but I didn't see where it went. I didn't think about what RAF bases are in the West Country.
hubraumhugo 1y ago
> It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads The Swiss Air Force is regularly practicing starting and landing on highways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYkleF72du8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYkleF72du8
- geon 1y ago
  While sweden has a lot of straight road stretches specifically designed to serve as emergency airfields, it is a lot easier to find 500 m of suitable road than 1600.
geon 1y ago
If large air bases are hard to protect, wouldn’t the Gripen be good also for large countries?
- Havoc 1y ago
  A better metric is likely how far out you want/need to project power rather than country size. The answer for that is very different depending on whether you're sweden or the usa
dilyevsky 1y ago
> Those are now hard to protect from drone attacks, as Russia recently found out. Not hard at all - just build the damn concrete shelters. Not going to protect you from bunker busters but more than plenty against drones
breppp 1y ago
The F-35 has a STOVL model if that's somehow relevant, which is superior to the Gripen in both stealth and ability to operate from improvised bases While Ukraine was able to use drones to attack Russian airbases, this was not the way Israel overpowered Iran, whose main driving factor was F-35s rather than drones (although these were present) Edited: STOVL not VTOL
- bigyabai 1y ago
  Only the F-35B, and it has to sacrifice performance in speed and maneuverability to get there. The Gripen still boasts a number of advantages (and higher G-loading) if you aren't penetrating hostile airspace.
  - wbl 1y ago
    If you aren't penetrating hostile airspace to bring the war to the enemy are you even an air force?
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      Yes? The most common justification for having any air force at all is the interceptor role. Dozens of nations have legitimate, blooded air forces that exclusively serve the interception/CAP mission profile. Many are near-peer threat actors if things go wrong.
      - wbl 1y ago
        That air force is going to face attrition the enemy does not and be unable to support operations that break into the enemy rear. I'd rather fight on their land than mine.
  - philwelch 1y ago
    Any VTOL/STOVL jet has to trade off other performance qualities for VTOL/STOVL capability. Likewise, the Gripen still needs a longer runway, which limits the use of “improvised” airfields. In practice the main benefit of STOVL has been in naval aviation. CATOBAR carriers are expensive and challenging to build, especially if you don’t have the economy of scale of building a dozen of the same class instead of just the 1-2 most countries can actually afford. A STOVL jet can also operate from an amphibious assault ship. The feasibility of the “improvised airfield” concept with modern jets is unproven and controversial, while STOVL naval aviation has been successfully done for decades.
Onavo 1y ago
> It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads, with modest mobile ground equipment for support. This is an oft quoted gimmick. Most planes can take off just fine from a normal paved road. As a rule of thumb, if the road can supported a heavy container truck, it can support an aircraft of equivalent weight. (Transportation class and airliners are a different story entirely as they are extremely heavy). A good runway is one that's without debris. The only other factor that makes a plane good for taking off on different surfaces is the location and design of the engine intake. You want to avoid rocks being sucked into the engine. But generally speaking, if you have a nice clean paved road that can support heavy usage by semis trucks, most random fighter jets can take off from it just fine.
- dreamcompiler 1y ago
  The road also needs to be wide enough, flat enough, and without overhead wires.
philwelch 1y ago
There’s another approach, which the US is very experienced with: have your airbase far away from the enemy, perhaps in Missouri, and do a lot of in-air refueling. Ukraine has been successful attacking Russian airbases with drones because they can sneak entire truckloads of drones and drone pilots into Russian-controlled territory. And even that was a massive operation that took over a year to plan. Israel carried out similar drone operations against Iran, so we know it’s not a fluke and this approach can be effective, but it’s harder to pull off the longer the distances become.

echelon 1y ago

> It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads I can understand this argument. > The USAF's force model involves basing at big, well-equipped, well-protected air bases. But I don't understand this one. Isn't a drone attack a drone attack? The same drones that could take out F-16s could take out Gripens. You'd have to defend your expensive weapon systems in either case. Don't we need a new strategy that isn't entirely reliant upon extremely powerful, but extremely expensive hardware? I'd imagine you still want your expensive pieces, but that you want a compliment of inexpensive combat items and fortified bunkers as a line of defense to protect them when not deployed.

freeopinion 1y ago
I admit I didn't read the article. Is the Gripen 40% cheaper so that countries can own more of them? Also smaller airbases can mean more airbases. So a single drone attack might take out one or two bases worth of Gripen. But it takes a lot more drones and a lot more sophisticated attack to take out all the Gripen spread across so many small bases.
- dralley 1y ago
  Gripen is more expensive to purchase than the F-35 and F-16. The operating costs are a bit cheaper than the F-16 and substantially cheaper than the F-35 however.
dgrin91 1y ago
Yes but it's a question of finding targets. Why was Ukraine able to decimate the Russian Air Force? Partly because they are all based out of big, well known bases. Even in wartime they have to be in a big base. A jet like the Gripen can move basically instantly to basically anywhere and then it's hard to find, especially because it can just move again
- riffraff 1y ago
  I don't want to sound negative, I wish all the best to Ukraine, but did they actually "decimate" the Russian air force? I was under the impression a few attacks on air bases happened, but a lot more drones were aimed at refineries and other infrastructure.
  - hgomersall 1y ago
    Given the original definition of decimate, to remove one in ten, perhaps so.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    Yes. They hit a substantial fraction of the Russian long range bombers and assorted other aircraft. Quite a bit of that is at least for the moment impossible for Russia to replace.
- petre 1y ago
  True, but the Gripen is not a big strategic bomber and Sweden doesn't have nukes to threaten other countries with. They do air policing and would employ guerilla tactics in case of war, like put a gripen in a cattle shed somewhere and operate it from a road¹. It's a good strategy for a smaller country with lower population density to defend itself. Possibly not such a great option for Benelux, but for most of the EU, save for the big boys it's great. Even Germany could employ it, with the amount of sheds and the highway network that they have. Russia and the US needs aibases to operate strategic bombers from. 1. https://youtu.be/HbkScZFCgro https://youtu.be/HbkScZFCgro
simne 1y ago
> The same drones that could take out F-16s could take out Gripens Gripens could base on ordinary highway, so could distribute planes through big territory. Drones usually have limited range, so they really could target most air bases capable for F-16 (using for example semi-truck container as movable nest), but it is literally impossible now, to target all highways.
Animats 1y ago
The USAF argues over this internally. See [1], and a reply, [2]. Some USAF officers have been making noise about the need for more dispersal for years.[3] There's a "build tougher bases" faction in the military. Read "Concrete Sky"[4] If you want to read up on this, those are some good starting points. [1] https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AEtherJournal/Journals/Volume-3_Number-3/Grieco_and_Bremer.pdf https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AEtherJournal/Jo... [2] https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/drone-hype-and-airpower-amnesia/ https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/drone-hype-and-air... [3] https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDN_1-21/AFDN%201-21%20ACE.pdf https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDN_1-21/A... [4] https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/Concrete+Sky+-+Air+Base+Hardening+in+the+Western+Pacific+-+Shugart+-+Walton.pdf https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/Concrete...
- echelon 1y ago
  This is so much better than I even asked for! Thank you so much for putting this together and sharing. Any opinion as to which faction(s) will win these arguments?
maxglute 1y ago
The on paper assumption / sales pitch that remains valid in most scenarios is increased survivability of shooters = more sorties. If hardware can operate from austere conditions you can squeeze in a few more missions, which may be tactically/operationally significant, but there's limitations on modern airframes, still need to go back to a well resourced large base (5th gen also requires conditioned shelters) for maintenance, i.e. it's still fundamentally a bandaid solution. The logistics tail is also larger <- this gets slept on (or underplayed in public facing messaging). It remains valid in most scenarios, as in most force on force that is not US/PRC, because very few countries has c4isr abilities to kill chain entire operational theatre, i.e. it's partially hopium strategy in US vs PRC in IndoPac. Which circles back to your second point, the related debate around hardening and distributing is almost distraction - airforce capitalization of highend platforms is in the shitters - so there's parallel discussion around distributed / agile deployment but with cheaper CCAs. Of course what's typically being hand waved away is the logistics tail part, i.e. there's already massive maintenance personnel shortages, unlikely to disperse thousands of maintenance crews on the ground to support the concept. The even more handwaved part for US in IndoPac is host nation access / political constraints. There's a reason US wants JP to support ACE/agile combat employment (as in on main islands), increase harden shelters... but JP reluctant to open main islands. Because no one wants more American forces doing shenanigans with their civilians and the optics of having support fleets reminding populace they're on the frontline is bad. Hence JP still largely constraining US to Okinawa/Ryukyus, PH in Luzon/Palawan. The further downstream handwaving of all this is even if properly implemented, is now you've spread out shit load of more exposed logistics staff across vulnerable islands, i.e. dramatically increased exfiltration complexity / suicide deployments. Survivability of drones increases, survivability of the logistics force decreases. Which is... even worse optics, hence it's rarely even part of discussion with respect to ACE. There some self awareness with marine NMESIS MLRS / EABO (expeditionary advanced base operations)... i.e. wait we're sending marines on likely one way missions to tiny islands that PRC can lock down? Maybe that's worth if they take out a type055.
victorbjorklund 1y ago
Easier to spot a plane in one of X airports vs spot a plane on any road anywhere in the country hiden in the woods

ivape 1y ago

Is there an equivalent to drone dog fighting? In that case, we may as well shift warfare to that.

trenchpilgrim 1y ago
Sorta - in Ukraine there have been instances of drones killing other drones, mostly by ramming them. But it's all very new.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  There have been thousands of such instances by now. Ramming is indeed the most frequently used option. Depending on the target drone there are different defender drones in use. Some favor altitude and duration of flight, others favor speed. It all depends on what you are trying to hit, what sensor package and what kind of flight conditions you will face (day/night for instance).
simne 1y ago
What you mean? Aerobatic? - Anti-air weapons all based on maneuverability much exceed planes with human pilots. - Anti-missile maneuver based on limited energy in missile, because it is usually ~100 times smaller then plane, and square-cube rule mean, missile could make active flight just few seconds - if plane survive these seconds it win. Stealth planes are new tier in warfare, because enemy see them when already lost time need to launch anti-air weapons.
walrus01 1y ago
Yes, there's already Ukrainian fpv flown quadcopters which are optimized to intercept, as a munition, common flying wing camera surveillance platforms. I've seen probably 20 or 30 different videos now taken from the view of the quadcopter, with detonator contact wires sticking out the front, diving into the rear of a large Russian flying wing UAV.

trenchpilgrim 1y ago

How do improvised bases offer protection, especially in a world where radar on satellites sees through clouds and certain vegetation? USAF's switch to improvised bases seems to be motivated by needing to operate from small islands in the Pacific where they isn't enough solid ground to build a full airbase.

cutemonster 1y ago
If a plane can land anywhere to refuel and takes off again in 10 minutes, the other side needs a fast kill chain to catch the plane. But if they land on big well known bases, it's much simpler. Another comment here about slow drone speeds and nest drones: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44918955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44918955 And sometimes the other side can destroy all big airbases in a small country.
- trenchpilgrim 1y ago
  Thanks, that was clarifying for me!
- yencabulator 1y ago
  > And sometimes the other side can destroy all big airbases in a small country. Specifically, Swedish doctrine assumes all airfields are destroyed 24-48h after start of major conflict.
bell-cot 1y ago
In terms of military resources required, there's a vast difference between keeping a close eye on the other side's few known airfields, and keeping a close eye on every park, parking lot, farm field, forest clearing, etc., etc. in their country.
- trenchpilgrim 1y ago
  This kind of monitoring is something you can buy commercially now, for less than the cost of the weapons carried by a fighter jet on a single mission. However, revisit times are still long enough that sibling comment's remarks on mobility make sense.

gerdesj 1y ago

"It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads, with modest mobile ground equipment for support." Nothing is really new. I used to live in West Germany in the '70s and '80s. The UK had an aircraft called Harrier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_jump_jet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_jump_jet. At that time I think Sweden was deploying the Drakken (Dragon) and later the Vigen (Lightning). I made models of both as a child and I think both of them were superb in their own way. Harrier was designed to work out of fields, let alone roads. Rather similar to an Apache. Minimal maint (ish) and so on. I now live in Yeovil, Somerset and we have recently had several Italian rotary wing aircraft, such as The Seaking doing test flights around here. Presumably airframe testing and proving for VJ Day.

gliptic 1y ago
> I think Sweden was deploying the Drakken (Dragon) and later the Vigen (Lightning). The names are much less flashy, Draken (The kite, due to the shape) and Viggen (The tufted duck) :P.
- geon 1y ago
  Yes, Draken and Viggen are officially named after the kite and the tufted duck, respectively. The names do however carry the other meanings as well. Draken means (the) kite, dragon and male duck. Viggen means (the) lightning and tufted duck.
  - yesbabyyes 1y ago
    And Gripen is the Griffin. Before Draken was Tunnan, the Barrel.
qingcharles 1y ago
Which RAF bases are around there? I used to live at the end of the Filton airstrip and I came home one day to a Harrier hovering directly over my house. It moved off towards Filton, but I didn't see where it went. I didn't think about what RAF bases are in the West Country.

hubraumhugo 1y ago

> It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads The Swiss Air Force is regularly practicing starting and landing on highways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYkleF72du8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYkleF72du8

geon 1y ago
While sweden has a lot of straight road stretches specifically designed to serve as emergency airfields, it is a lot easier to find 500 m of suitable road than 1600.

geon 1y ago

If large air bases are hard to protect, wouldn’t the Gripen be good also for large countries?

Havoc 1y ago
A better metric is likely how far out you want/need to project power rather than country size. The answer for that is very different depending on whether you're sweden or the usa

dilyevsky 1y ago

> Those are now hard to protect from drone attacks, as Russia recently found out. Not hard at all - just build the damn concrete shelters. Not going to protect you from bunker busters but more than plenty against drones

breppp 1y ago

The F-35 has a STOVL model if that's somehow relevant, which is superior to the Gripen in both stealth and ability to operate from improvised bases While Ukraine was able to use drones to attack Russian airbases, this was not the way Israel overpowered Iran, whose main driving factor was F-35s rather than drones (although these were present) Edited: STOVL not VTOL

bigyabai 1y ago
Only the F-35B, and it has to sacrifice performance in speed and maneuverability to get there. The Gripen still boasts a number of advantages (and higher G-loading) if you aren't penetrating hostile airspace.
- wbl 1y ago
  If you aren't penetrating hostile airspace to bring the war to the enemy are you even an air force?
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    Yes? The most common justification for having any air force at all is the interceptor role. Dozens of nations have legitimate, blooded air forces that exclusively serve the interception/CAP mission profile. Many are near-peer threat actors if things go wrong.
    - wbl 1y ago
      That air force is going to face attrition the enemy does not and be unable to support operations that break into the enemy rear. I'd rather fight on their land than mine.
- philwelch 1y ago
  Any VTOL/STOVL jet has to trade off other performance qualities for VTOL/STOVL capability. Likewise, the Gripen still needs a longer runway, which limits the use of “improvised” airfields. In practice the main benefit of STOVL has been in naval aviation. CATOBAR carriers are expensive and challenging to build, especially if you don’t have the economy of scale of building a dozen of the same class instead of just the 1-2 most countries can actually afford. A STOVL jet can also operate from an amphibious assault ship. The feasibility of the “improvised airfield” concept with modern jets is unproven and controversial, while STOVL naval aviation has been successfully done for decades.

Onavo 1y ago

> It's able to operate from airstrips that are no more than roads, with modest mobile ground equipment for support. This is an oft quoted gimmick. Most planes can take off just fine from a normal paved road. As a rule of thumb, if the road can supported a heavy container truck, it can support an aircraft of equivalent weight. (Transportation class and airliners are a different story entirely as they are extremely heavy). A good runway is one that's without debris. The only other factor that makes a plane good for taking off on different surfaces is the location and design of the engine intake. You want to avoid rocks being sucked into the engine. But generally speaking, if you have a nice clean paved road that can support heavy usage by semis trucks, most random fighter jets can take off from it just fine.

dreamcompiler 1y ago
The road also needs to be wide enough, flat enough, and without overhead wires.

philwelch 1y ago

There’s another approach, which the US is very experienced with: have your airbase far away from the enemy, perhaps in Missouri, and do a lot of in-air refueling. Ukraine has been successful attacking Russian airbases with drones because they can sneak entire truckloads of drones and drone pilots into Russian-controlled territory. And even that was a massive operation that took over a year to plan. Israel carried out similar drone operations against Iran, so we know it’s not a fluke and this approach can be effective, but it’s harder to pull off the longer the distances become.