• Sweden to buy 60 next-generation Gripen despite Swiss pullout, cites the situation in Ukraine as one
    120 replies, posted
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/y7QMvWA.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]Sweden said Friday it would go ahead with the purchase of a new generation of Saab Gripen fighter jets, despite Switzerland pulling out of a major co-financing deal."Global developments and Russian action in Ukraine, with troops in the country, underline the importance of us pursuing the acquisition of the next generation fighter aircraft," defence minister Karin Enstroem told public broadcaster SVT. "This is also about our security and defence capability in the future," she said. The Swedish government previously said it would only purchase the JAS 39 Gripen E -- currently being developed by the Swedish aerospace firm Saab -- if it had another buyer to share the development costs. Switzerland had planned to buy 22 of the 60 fighter jets ordered by Sweden and share development costs, until voters rejected the deal in a May referendum. SVT estimated the additional price tag for Sweden to be in the region of "several billion" kronor (several hundred million euros) and said the decision was supported by the main opposition party, currently leading in polls for next month's general election. The 60 jets are due for delivery in 2018.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140829/sweden-buy-next-generation-jets-despite-swiss-pullout[/url]
Better than us Danes, still stuck with our dick in the meatgrinder that is F-35.
Better than buying the F-35 hah-ah- ah fuck.
Fuck yes the gripen is awesome! I got to see it in action, and it's kickass
Should have bought the Euro-Fighter
[QUOTE=DrDevil;45836332]Fuck yes the gripen is awesome! I got to see it in action, and it's kickass[/QUOTE] Yeah it's a badass plane. I got to sit inside one when I was a little kid. That was when Sweden still was stronk and showed off their military gear in town.
I've no idea about performance or whatever, but that's one nifty looking plane.
[QUOTE=MegaJohnny;45836485]I've no idea about performance or whatever, but that's one nifty looking plane.[/QUOTE] It is outperformed by the f35a, amusingly.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45837036]It is outperformed by the f35a, amusingly.[/QUOTE] Jesus, is it at least less expensive?
[QUOTE=bravehat;45837058]Jesus, is it at least less expensive?[/QUOTE] Oh god yeah. The thing is like half the price. Edit: the gripen is half the price
Funny they acquire this, but then slash the military budget down to a point where several platoons, coastal artillery, etc etc has been wiped out; Even the commander of the armed forces has said that Sweden can't hold out longer than a week during a war.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45837109]Oh god yeah. The thing is like half the price. Edit: the gripen is half the price[/QUOTE] It's fine then, they'll just get twice as many and the cumulative effect will be the same.
Fuck the F-35 Let's go back to the F-86 Sabre
I typically don't post, but everyone here seems to be on the F35 sucks bandwagon. How exactly do you know? I'm genuinely curious. The fact is, we know incredibly little about the aircraft, as the majority of its technical specifications are classified. At this point, it could go either way. We simply don't know.
[QUOTE=Anders118;45837407]I typically don't post, but everyone here seems to be on the F35 sucks bandwagon. How exactly do you know? I'm genuinely curious. The fact is, we know incredibly little about the aircraft, as the majority of its technical specifications are classified. At this point, it could go either way. We simply don't know.[/QUOTE] Because it has a shitload of problems. It was originally supposed to be a low-cost, multi-purpose alternative to the F-22 to replace the aging fleets of most of NATO but it has been a colossal money sink and it is way behind schedule. The gripen and eurofighter are here now but the future of the F-35 isn't looking so good. Somebody else can explain it better than I can
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;45837278]Fuck the F-35 Let's go back to the F-86 Sabre[/QUOTE] Better the F-4J Phantom, a triumph of engineering, and saying you can make a brick of solid steel fly as long as you put enough engine on it.
[QUOTE=bravehat;45837236]It's fine then, they'll just get twice as many and the cumulative effect will be the same.[/QUOTE] Mind you that price is going down and will continue to drop until they cost about 10-15 percent more. The F-35 does win contracts for a reason.
[QUOTE=Anders118;45837407]I typically don't post, but everyone here seems to be on the F35 sucks bandwagon. How exactly do you know? I'm genuinely curious. The fact is, we know incredibly little about the aircraft, as the majority of its technical specifications are classified. At this point, it could go either way. We simply don't know.[/QUOTE] I'm sure the aircraft itself is fine now, but it's the incredible amount of time and money it's taken to not field it properly until next year that pisses people off. [editline]29th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;45837861]Mind you that price is going down and will continue to drop until they cost about 10-15 percent more. The F-35 does win contracts for a reason.[/QUOTE] It's gonna have that stigma for a long time, even if the cost problems do go away.
[QUOTE=TheLolrus;45837956]I'm sure the aircraft itself is fine now, but it's the incredible amount of time and money it's taken to not field it properly until next year that pisses people off. [editline]29th August 2014[/editline] It's gonna have that stigma for a long time, even if the cost problems do go away.[/QUOTE] Oh I'm sure. The A variant is likely gonna be fine. That B variant is gonna fucking crater so often though. The C will probably be okay.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45837036]It is outperformed by the f35a, amusingly.[/QUOTE] How does the F-35 compare to the Russian counter-parts? Does it make sense to compare them?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45838032]How does the F-35 compare to the Russian counter-parts? Does it make sense to compare them?[/QUOTE] The closest one I know of is the PAK FA [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA[/url] It will likely have significantly better agility and speed. It can supercruise at the max sprint speed for the F-35. It is damn fast. It is also their first attempt at stealth and Russian avionics are a joke compared to western ones. The F-35 itself will visually track targets (and missiles. Ballistic missiles can be located and tracked at something like 800 miles away.) in a full sphere around the aircraft, making stealth inside visual range effectively useless against the F-35. So while it will likely fail agility-wise in a dogfight, it is much more likely to detect and destroy the PAK FA before it has a chance to react. Also with the exception of its cannon, the orientation of the aircraft has little effect on targeting or missile deployment. The F-35 will gladly shoot you down while you are directly on his tail, meanwhile the aircraft is automatically using its target tracking to perfectly time a variety of countermeasures to defeat whatever you throw at it. The Chinese have a couple of things in the works, but they don't look like they are going to be much of a match.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;45837812]Because it has a shitload of problems. It was originally supposed to be a low-cost, multi-purpose alternative to the F-22 to replace the aging fleets of most of NATO but it has been a colossal money sink and it is way behind schedule. The gripen and eurofighter are here now but the future of the F-35 isn't looking so good. Somebody else can explain it better than I can[/QUOTE] But almost every jet fighter aircraft manufactured by the U.S. has underwent similar problems? The F16 was a disaster in early development. I mean they even called the thing the "Lawn Dart" due to the fact that its fly-by-wire controls would fail mid flight, resulting in the loss of the aircraft. To my knowledge, not a single critical in-flight failure has occurred during F35 development.
F-35 has its problems, but it gets way too much flak (heh) from people who know nothing about military aircraft
Neat.
why do we need fighter jets when just about everyone has 2 fists
[QUOTE=GunFox;45838159]The closest one I know of is the PAK FA [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA[/url] It will likely have significantly better agility and speed. It can supercruise at the max sprint speed for the F-35. It is damn fast. It is also their first attempt at stealth and Russian avionics are a joke compared to western ones. The F-35 itself will visually track targets (and missiles. Ballistic missiles can be located and tracked at something like 800 miles away.) in a full sphere around the aircraft, making stealth inside visual range effectively useless against the F-35. So while it will likely fail agility-wise in a dogfight, it is much more likely to detect and destroy the PAK FA before it has a chance to react. Also with the exception of its cannon, the orientation of the aircraft has little effect on targeting or missile deployment. The F-35 will gladly shoot you down while you are directly on his tail, meanwhile the aircraft is automatically using its target tracking to perfectly time a variety of countermeasures to defeat whatever you throw at it. The Chinese have a couple of things in the works, but they don't look like they are going to be much of a match.[/QUOTE] It just seemed kinda "unfair" that the Russians would have a comparable or superior aircraft at half the price - that's just how it looks from the Wikipedia stats. I realize they don't mean everything, but thanks for the explanation.
Or you could join NATO and be an F-35 360 noscope legend pro
[QUOTE=Anders118;45838206]But almost every jet fighter aircraft manufactured by the U.S. has underwent similar problems? The F16 was a disaster in early development. I mean they even called the thing the "Lawn Dart" due to the fact that its fly-by-wire controls would fail mid flight, resulting in the loss of the aircraft. To my knowledge, not a single critical in-flight failure has occurred during F35 development.[/QUOTE] Most people on here really like to overhype the F35's problems as a scapegoat for their opinions that spending money on the military is objective evil or something completely reasonable like that. It has some pretty big issues, but it's a fighter on the bleeding edge of Aviation tech. It's bound to have problems before it's 110% solid. There's a reason so many nations are choosing to pick them up, because their military leaders understand that concept, even if the people who google "does anyone else hate the freakin' military-industrial fueled dystopia we live in" everyday don't quite get it.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45838795]It just seemed kinda "unfair" that the Russians would have a comparable or superior aircraft at half the price - that's just how it looks from the Wikipedia stats. I realize they don't mean everything, but thanks for the explanation.[/QUOTE] For comparison, you can look at the F-14D stats, which is an old retired US aircraft of comparable weight. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat[/url] They are surprisingly similar to the PAK FA. With better engines and some modifications, it might even match the PAK FA in performance in many respects.
[QUOTE=Gripen2;45838514]Neat.[/QUOTE] I'd be surprised if you didn't approve this!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.