"JAS-39 Gripen - " Topic

Interesting opinion piece on JAS-39 Gripen:

aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_03_24_2014_p15-673319.xml&p=1

I actually agree with the article – a small, cheap to acquire and cheap to operate fighter with inbuilt adaptability is far more capable than a medium/heavy fighter that is too expensive to acquire too expensive to operate.

After all a light fighter is better than no fighter.

The Gripen is a sweet plane no doubt about it. And anyone currently flying and happy with a single engined fleet has got to ask themselves why they need something bigger.

And some of those article comments – well really ! Not a fighter ? You've got Sidewinder, IRIS-T, and Meteor in your toolbox and you're a fighter.

I've been hoping it would get a serious look by Canada when we re-opened our fighter competition, it's in the running and we seem to have gotten over our two engine mantra. However, I think the F-35 will come out on top again here.

I love the Saab fighters. They are beautiful planes and very capable.

The Gripen is a lovely little jet.

I'm rather fond of the Typhoon too, since it's a superb design as well.

I think the Gripen has locked down the niche of the F5: relatively cheap, potentially capable (depending on what missiles and bombs it carries), and is cheap to operate to get/keep skilled pilots.

I know that if I ever hit the big Powerball lotto, I'd be talking to Saab about buying a 2-seat Gripen trainer! Forget worn-out T38s!

The downside of the Gripen's small size is that it loses range very fast as you load it with bombs. Adding 2000 lbs. + weight of pylons to a 12,600 lb (empty) airframe is a substantial increase in weight, which means more induced drag and higher power loading. The NG would, thankfully, allow the Gripen to carry bombs larger that 500 lbs, which are essential for some tougher targets (accuracy has wonderful effects, but it can't solve every problem).

To some extent reflects the Swedish idea that defence is for defending yourself….so range is somewhat less of an issue with that mindset.

My preference (which won't happen) for Canada is a high-low mix of Gripens (or other dedicated fighter) for air defence and something like the Super Tucano for ground support. If the Gripens sometimes get used for ground support against heavier defenses too, so be it, but I don't think Canada needs a one-stop wonderweapon.

My preference (which won't happen) for Canada is a high-low mix of Gripens (or other dedicated fighter) for air defence and something like the Super Tucano for ground support.

Not a bad idea for most nations, really, though I'd be pushing for Su25s or something similar, though, since I don't think the Tucanos are tough enough for well-equipped opponents.

Might even mess with compound helicopters or similar for CAS work, instead of a pure fixed-wing. Faster and more heavily armed than a standard helo, but still VTOL-capable.

I've seen a compounded AH1 (ducted fan replacing the tail rotor and vertical stabilizer), and it carried 50% more ordnance under the wings. Up to 12 hellfires:

SU-25 us a bit unrealistic. As if Canada would ever operate Russian gear (other than those leased Mi-17s in Afghanistan)?

Even if Canada switched to Ruski, the Su-25 is out of production unless you want revamped ex-Soviet ones built in the 1980s.

If you want CAS, then AH-64E Apache is the only way to go in the West.

I know looking backwards isn't the best way to figure out what gear you need for the future, but based on the last 25 years, Canada hasn't gone up against 1st or 2nd World opponents (other than maybe fragmented Yugoslavia), and it's hard to picture that happening where we aren't part of some bigger coalition. Hence the Super Tucano (Apaches would work too!).

If Sukhoi still has the production tooling for the Su25, it wouldn't be hard to get some new-production models. Sadly, the US destroyed the production tooling for the A10s.