|
Disinterested posted:I'm actually kind of astonished more people haven't bought it, considering what a good deal it is and how relatively politically neutral its country of manufacture is compared to the US or Russia. The Dutch know what's up though. The same Dutch who are buying F-35s and not Gripens?
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:19 |
|
mlmp08 posted:The same Dutch who are buying F-35s and not Gripens? Oh whoops, I thought they'd (smartly) found a way out, but never mind.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
It doesn't really matter what kind of plane will the Dutch buy, since it will never be used other than to spend taxpayers' Euros and comply with the NATO mandatory spending. As much as the F35 is a terrible plane, however, it makes sense to have an airframe used by the Netherlands' allies and not by a third party, which also has a border with the only possible enemy and would therefore be the first to fall in the case an (impossible) war would break out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 12:24
|
|
Cippalippus posted:It doesn't really matter what kind of plane will the Dutch buy, since it will never be used other than to spend taxpayers' Euros and comply with the NATO mandatory spending. As much as the F35 is a terrible plane, however, it makes sense to have an airframe used by the Netherlands' allies and not by a third party, which also has a border with the only possible enemy and would therefore be the first to fall in the case an (impossible) war would break out. I mean, the Dutch armed forces (including the airforce) do occasionally Do A Thing, though of course they usually Do A Thing in very permissive airspace. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
The Dutch were never going to buy a Gripen anyway. The only thing they might otherwise do with F-35 money is spend it on the Navy instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
I really wonder if we'd sell more of them if they'd actually have some actual combat data to compare them to other aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Koorisch posted:I really wonder if we'd sell more of them if they'd actually have some actual combat data to compare them to other aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:I don't know who "we" is, but none of these new planes have what would amount to "actual combat data". All they have done (the Rafale having done the most) is conducted fairly easy strike runs in permissible airspace facing practically no ground threat and no aerial threat. It's hardly a step up from just random exercises. "Actually been in combat" is always a significant step up, whatever you might think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Koorisch posted:I really wonder if we'd sell more of them if they'd actually have some actual combat data to compare them to other aircraft. Marketing was most likely the main reason we sent that six-plane recon detachment to Libya, except political concerns prevented actual combat. Still, I doubt we'd sell more aircraft even if they'd done really well in real combat. Buying fighter aircraft is much more about politics than it is about combat performance or even price.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:I watched From The Earth To The Moon recently, and the problems involved with the Apollo lander piqued my interest in project management. What characterizes a successful aerospace project? Is there any particular project you would consider an ideal model for aircraft development? iyaayas01 answered that much better than I could have. My very simple rule of thumb for a successful project would be one that's on time, on budget, meets planned performance characteristics, and either sell enough to amortize its R&D costs, or allow a significant breakthrough in aerospace technology that will be useful for other projects. Ghost of Mussolini posted:I don't know who "we" is, but none of these new planes have what would amount to "actual combat data". All they have done (the Rafale having done the most) is conducted fairly easy strike runs in permissible airspace facing practically no ground threat and no aerial threat. It's hardly a step up from just random exercises. So sustained deployment of an aircraft in real combat situations, even if they don't involve dogfights, are extremely revealing of the plane's qualities. Maybe you don't get to test the ECM and ECCM systems, but you get to see whether it's a workhorse or a hangar queen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
In essence most of the big multinational / multiservice platforms that have become successful and survived their mission creep have largely done so by railroading the poo poo out of the people who make the project contort the most, or through spending way more money than they should. Basically, the F-35 people should have railroaded the poo poo out of the marines.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:I don't think most of the people who complain about the Gripen in this country understand what they're talking about at all. It's actually a really good aircraft that fits our needs perfectly and after they worked out the problems in the prototype series its development has been managed amazingly well, unlike most of FMV's other procurement programs. The Gripen C/D series was actually under budget and the E/F looks like it's gonna be on time and on budget too. With hindsight the decision to develop it back in the 80's was kinda iffy, but now that we have it, it'd be madness to let it go. Gripen is pretty well regarded by the Russians, especially since it has a decent cost-effect value.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Concerning buying F-35s, isnt this basically regarded as how the current way of paying tribute to your American Big brother anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
OK, I'm really curious. Why do marines need their own aircraft carriers and planes? Why can't they request support from a navy carrier or an airforce base? Please don't say bureaucracy, because there certainly must be better solutions than giving them their own carriers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:OK, I'm really curious. Why do marines need their own aircraft carriers and planes? Why can't they request support from a navy carrier or an airforce base? Please don't say bureaucracy, because there certainly must be better solutions than giving them their own carriers. Because we need air power in many more places than we have carriers or bases. That said, I disagree that these small carriers need F-35s enough to warrant the b model existing. But if you want to run rescue ops with helicopters or aid operations or the like, they are pretty handy to have around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:OK, I'm really curious. Why do marines need their own aircraft carriers and planes? Why can't they request support from a navy carrier or an airforce base? Please don't say bureaucracy, because there certainly must be better solutions than giving them their own carriers. REMEMBER GUADALCANAL! mlmp08 posted:Because we need air power in many more places than we have carriers or bases. That said, I disagree that these small carriers need F-35s enough to warrant the b model existing. But if you want to run rescue ops with helicopters or aid operations or the like, they are pretty handy to have around. The utility of small carriers is a separate issue from the uniforms the aviators wear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:"Actually been in combat" is always a significant step up, whatever you might think. Cat Mattress posted:Don't underestimate all the logistic issues associated with these aircraft. The cost per flight hour for one of them can easily be more than the yearly income of an average person... And this increases considerably for wartime deployment, what with being overseas rather than at home, far from where spare parts are produced, usually in harsher climates (extreme heat, dust everywhere...), and having the weapon systems actually loaded and fired. What they are doing is a demonstration of the ability to do the bare minimum of what they should be doing. It doesn't really matter anyways because all these export deals are all backroom arrangements and unmarked envelopes. I just don't think that "we bombed Libya" should be held up as an example of anything particularly special. e: vvvv that's what I mean, the French have operated from that airbase for decades and although its combat its not some world-shattering operational tempo against an even remotely threatening foe. Well done, they've demonstrated that Dassault can make a plane that can fly to West Africa and doesn't dissolve on contact with Chadian or Afghan dust. Ghost of Mussolini fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:The most overseas that it gets is something like Al Dhafra for the current strikes against ISIS, which is a big base that has hosted lots of different coalition forces over the years and is situated in a country that is extremely cooperative when it comes to these arrangements. There's also the "Fort Lamy" air base at N'Djamena in Chad for Operation Barkhane. Rafales were also deployed at Kandahar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:I realize what you guys are saying, and I fully recognize the logistical issues and that planes take money to fly. They have demonstrated operational capability, but in the most basic way. I'm not trying to take away from what they have demonstrated (in the sense that these are operationally capable aircraft, versus the current state of the F-35, say). However, they conducted operations against as lightly-armed a target you can while still being able to gather enough political capital to say that it needs bombing. They are also not really operating overseas, Libya was done all from NATO airbases in Europe and the CdG. The most overseas that it gets is something like Al Dhafra for the current strikes against ISIS, which is a big base that has hosted lots of different coalition forces over the years and is situated in a country that is extremely cooperative when it comes to these arrangements. These are also not conditions in which they are cycling through the fleet and putting in massive amounts of sorties (mainly because there really isn't a need to because there is no direct threat from enemy forces). Sure, but the F35 can't even fly from one allied country to another reliably when given several months notice
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The Dutch were never going to buy a Gripen anyway. The only thing they might otherwise do with F-35 money is spend it on the Navy instead. Maybe we'll do something crazy and buy our second dozen cruise missiles. Yes we have cruise missiles. But only 12. But hey guess how few countries in the world have cruise missiles so technically we're members of the big dick club now. We can't afford to actually fire these things are you nuts do you know what they cost?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
By the way, about Libya, when they didn't have fuel for the Gripen planes, what was the reason, was it that the fuel they had wasn't compatible with the Gripen's engines because it runs on commercial jet-liner fuel?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The utility of small carriers is a separate issue from the uniforms the aviators wear. The primary mission of the Gator Navy always will be littoral/amphibious type ops...stuff like the helo rescues/aid missions/etc that mlmp08 mentioned. That's basically the textbook mission of the USMC. The USMC having their own helo aviators makes complete sense; I'm even okay with the idea of them having fixed wing aviators because the concept of the MAGTF does make a fair bit of sense (even if it often gets butchered in execution.) They just don't need STOVL fighters, because STOVL is loving stupid, and they certainly don't need stealthy supersonic STOVL fighters. Koorisch posted:By the way, about Libya, when they didn't have fuel for the Gripen planes, what was the reason, was it that the fuel they had wasn't compatible with the Gripen's engines because it runs on commercial jet-liner fuel? Yeah they deployed to a base in Italy that was US Navy owned (Sigonella NAS). Since it was Navy owned that meant the base had JP-5 (the designation for the Navy's version of jet fuel). The Gripen was only certified at the time to run on Jet A-1 (a common commercial jet fuel). The fuels are pretty similar but there are some differences, so in order to convert JP-5 to Jet A-1 spec you have to add some additives (antistatic agent and a few other things I think). It's doable but it's a little more complex then just dumping a couple 55 gallon drums of the additive into your fuel tanks, so there was a delay getting the necessary additives and mixing equipment in place...in the interim I think they ended up trucking Jet A-1 in from a nearby civilian airport. This is pretty funny because: a) Apparently the Swedish AF is incapable of doing the most rudimentary site survey. Seriously, "is the runway long enough" and "do they have enough fuel/is it the right kind" are the two questions even the dumbest logistics officer (or pilot even) would think to ask on a site survey. So either they are incapable of that, or they just didn't do one and rolled into Sig thinking everything would be great. I'm not sure which choice is funnier. Both speak to a distinct lack of expeditionary/out of country deployment experience. b) I'm honestly surprised Saab didn't certify the Gripen for use with JP-5...typically NATO/Western military aircraft are spec'd for use with JP-5, JP-8, Jet A, and Jet A-1. Usually you don't have to ask for permission from the manufacturer unless you're getting into weird poo poo (by Western standards) like TS-1 (Russian version of JP-8/Jet A-1). I know Sweden isn't part of NATO but you would think they still would've spec'd it to be able to utilize JP-5. c) It's also surprising that they bothered to put forth the effort to convert the JP-5 to Jet A-1 instead of just certifying the aircraft for JP-5 after it deployed. So either the Swedes asked and the Gripen really is a special little snowflake that can't use anything other than Jet A-1 or Saab doesn't have a very responsive technical assistance section. For all the bitching I do about US military contractors, an engineering technical assistance request of that nature would've been answered in a matter of days if not hours by LockMart, Boeing, NG, or even my favorite punching bag, General Atomics. e: So yeah, it's a valid point that you aren't exactly stretching a plane to its limits when you're deploying somewhere like Sig or even Kandahar...but it's also a valid point that you never know what you're going to find out the first time a plane actually deploys somewhere in response to a real-world event (not a pre-planned/coordinated exercise.) iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Yeah they deployed to a base in Italy that was US Navy owned (Sigonella NAS). Since it was Navy owned that meant the base had JP-5 (the designation for the Navy's version of jet fuel). The Gripen was only certified at the time to run on Jet A-1 (a common commercial jet fuel). The fuels are pretty similar but there are some differences, so in order to convert JP-5 to Jet A-1 spec you have to add some additives (antistatic agent and a few other things I think). It's doable but it's a little more complex then just dumping a couple 55 gallon drums of the additive into your fuel tanks, so there was a delay getting the necessary additives and mixing equipment in place...in the interim I think they ended up trucking Jet A-1 in from a nearby civilian airport. That is weird considering that the Volvo RM12 on the Gripen is a upgraded and license built General Electric F404-400 (F/A-18 Hornet engine, which I assume would take JP-5 if nothing else) 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:That is weird considering that the Volvo RM12 on the Gripen is a upgraded and license built General Electric F404-400 I'm assuming the issue was something to do with the fuel system rather than the engine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Yeah someone goofed up there, dunno who. It's not like the air force never flies Gripens to weird places either, there's a bunch of foreign air shows every summer and these days they go to Red Flag sometimes too (although I think they only started doing that post-Libya). I suspect the reason they didn't just certify it for JP-5 was that Saab was probably like "sure, that'll be  " which trigged a fierce internal debate about who would foot that bill and how often would that capability be used and yadda yadda, despite the costs probably being rather negligible.Then again, Libya was the first combat deployment of Swedish fighter jets since the Congo Crisis in the 1950's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:OK, I'm really curious. Why do marines need their own aircraft carriers and planes? Why can't they request support from a navy carrier or an airforce base? Please don't say bureaucracy, because there certainly must be better solutions than giving them their own carriers. Doctrinally, the Marines organize and present forces as integrated air-ground task forces capable of independent action for 30-60 days. Whether this is a good idea, or even remotely realistic, is an exercise for the reader.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:OK, I'm really curious. Why do marines need their own aircraft carriers and planes? Why can't they request support from a navy carrier or an airforce base? Please don't say bureaucracy, because there certainly must be better solutions than giving them their own carriers. It should be noted that the US Marines don't actually have their own aircraft carriers. They still ride in Navy carriers, and are escorted by naval surface warfare ships. The Navy might be willing to allow Marine aviators to land on their carriers, but they aren't foolish enough to let a jarhead drive one. Kaal fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:Yeah someone goofed up there, dunno who. It's not like the air force never flies Gripens to weird places either, there's a bunch of foreign air shows every summer and these days they go to Red Flag sometimes too (although I think they only started doing that post-Libya). I suspect the reason they didn't just certify it for JP-5 was that Saab was probably like "sure, that'll be That's kind of what I was getting at with my comment about it being the first "real-world event (not a pre-planned/coordinated exercise.)" With those types of trips you're (usually) going to have a seeing-eye dog-esque handler/escort/planner from the host base that at a bare minimum will preload you with info via email ahead of time...if you actually make a planning trip to the base this person will basically shepherd you around base, making sure you get all your questions answered and in most cases telling you the answer to questions you didn't even think to ask. Site surveys in response to a real-world short notice combat deployment are generally much more ad hoc in nature and as such it's a lot easier to miss stuff if you don't know what you're doing. e: Dead Reckoning posted:Doctrinally, the Marines organize and present forces as integrated air-ground task forces capable of independent action for 30-60 days. Whether this is a good idea, or even remotely realistic, is an exercise for the reader. "independent" 
iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Maybe we'll do something crazy and buy our second dozen cruise missiles. We do? I remember the original plan to buy tomahawks for the air defence frigates got canceled after budget cuts to the navy throwing the "marinestudie" in the trash can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The utility of small carriers is a separate issue from the uniforms the aviators wear. Isn't the problem with small carriers that have relatively small air wings that they can be incapable of protecting themselves while also being incapable of actually carrying out other tasks since they need to spend most of their air wing on CAP? I remember this being brought up in Shattered Sword, which talked a bit about the Japanese light carriers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 10:15
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Isn't the problem with small carriers that have relatively small air wings that they can be incapable of protecting themselves while also being incapable of actually carrying out other tasks since they need to spend most of their air wing on CAP? I remember this being brought up in Shattered Sword, which talked a bit about the Japanese light carriers. Not if you're fighting a People's Democratic Republic with half a dozen hand-me-down MiGs that can barely fly 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 11:33
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
iyaayas01 posted:This is pretty funny because: Believe it or not, "How is the fuel getting here, who is going to pay for it?" is one of the hardest logistics questions to answer in a coalition environment, and is more a consequence of site selection than a prerequisite. It's nothing to do with out of country deployment experience (the Swedish have planes and helicopters in Mazar e Sharif), it's everything to do with diplomatic negotiation and sorting out the price tag, and yes, somehow "It will be trucked in from nearby civilian site" is a common solution in NATO operations, even for U.S. forces with lots of deployment experience. Especially for non-budgeted contingency operations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Doctrinally, the Marines organize and present forces as integrated air-ground task forces capable of independent action for 30-60 days. Whether this is a good idea, or even remotely realistic, is an exercise for the reader. And when a marine is hurt who do they yell for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And when a marine is hurt who do they yell for? About another $500bn in procurement?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Doctrinally, the Marines organize and present forces as integrated air-ground task forces capable of independent action for 30-60 days. Whether this is a good idea, or even remotely realistic, is an exercise for the reader. 30-60 days of playing desert adventure in failed states, or 30-60 days in an actual war  e: to be fair, 30-60 days of desert adventures in failed states is the most probable scenario of "send in the marines", followed by "send in more marines" to extend the desert adventures suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
blowfish posted:30-60 days of playing desert adventure in failed states, or 30-60 days in an actual war hobbesmaster posted:And when a marine is hurt who do they yell for? Who knows, Navy corpsman, yadda yadda yadda. I was just explaining how the USMC justifies having its own separate fixed wing fast jet capability.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Isn't the problem with small carriers that have relatively small air wings that they can be incapable of protecting themselves while also being incapable of actually carrying out other tasks since they need to spend most of their air wing on CAP? I remember this being brought up in Shattered Sword, which talked a bit about the Japanese light carriers. Not if the thing you really want to do is something like extract everyone from an American embassy or deliver aid supplies in emergencies or quickly dump off Marines to augment security somewhere, or help out in basic peacekeeping operations, because you're using rotary wing and tilt-rotor aircraft for that. If you actually want it to be some badass fighting force with futuristic fixed-wing aircraft like the Marines say they do, then yeah, it becomes really problematic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I'm assuming the issue was something to do with the fuel system rather than the engine. I believe I read something about because the fuel was missing an antistatic chemical or something like that, I don't know anything about jet-fuel compositions so I have no idea what exactly that does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Isn't the problem with small carriers that have relatively small air wings that they can be incapable of protecting themselves while also being incapable of actually carrying out other tasks since they need to spend most of their air wing on CAP? I remember this being brought up in Shattered Sword, which talked a bit about the Japanese light carriers. Do you mean the abominations like the carrier retrofit on the Ise or legit flat tops like the Shouhou? I'm pretty sure the later worked as well as expected and worked in their role (putting extra planes in the air) while the former were just a Bad Idea and would've been better to stay as BB's to fight it up in the Solomons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Do you mean the abominations like the carrier retrofit on the Ise or legit flat tops like the Shouhou? I'm pretty sure the later worked as well as expected and worked in their role (putting extra planes in the air) while the former were just a Bad Idea and would've been better to stay as BB's to fight it up in the Solomons. The latter. Shattered Sword posted:The reality was that the smaller Japanese carriers could only play bit parts in the Pacific war. This is not to say that they weren’t useful–they were certainly welcome additions for supporting amphibious landing operations, and they could provide a limited local air presence. But they came with many drawbacks, the most fundamental being the small size of their air groups. Carrier air groups are subject to economies of scale. They need to be large enough to scout and to supply defensive fighters to protect the mother ship and still be able to deliver a large offensive punch. Delivering a single attack with, say, thirty-two attack aircraft is almost always superior to sending in two separate sixteen-plane attacks, because larger strike forces have a better chance of saturating the enemy’s defenses. Having a single carrier large enough to launch a decisive strike on its own was an important advantage in this respect. With an air group of twenty to thirty aircraft, light carriers simply did not have enough planes to go around. They could barely screen themselves, let alone deliver an attack of credible size. Granted, things have changed tech-wise after WW2, but I think that many of the arguments stand today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 16:18
|
|