"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Admiral Beez said:
With Sweden now in NATO I wonder if there's more opportunities to sell Gripens? Everyone wants F-35s now, but they may be hard to come by.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not sure how much Lockheed can spool up the production line much faster, perhaps FLYBOYJ has some insight? Is the Gripen compatible with current NATO missiles? If so, and being the more-affordable of the two, I'd imagine it would seem a fair alternative though obviously less capable.
 
Some NATO countries already use Gripen

Why Gripen is an Ideal Choice for NATO Missions | Stories | Saab

The most important requirement for a NATO mission fighter is the ability to perform Quick Reaction Alert missions.
www.saab.com
Gripen uses the same 27mm canon than Eurofighter.
It has been integrated with AIM-120, AIM-9, IRIS-T or Meteor
For air to ground Brimstone AGM-65 or Taurus are some examples
 
The JAS 39C is fully NATO interopretative.

But we need to keep in mind, that the Gripen is a multi-role fighter, where the F-35 is a multi-role combat platform.

The F-35 is often referred to as a "fighter" or a "multi-role" fighter, but it's capabilities (and designed function) go well beyond those labels.

The Gripen would be able to perform the air superiority role (like the F-22) in operations, allowing the F-35 to conduct it's strike missions, so that is definately a plus, but I don't expect the Gripen to be able to "replace" the F-35's mission profile.
 
Ohh there is more then enough natural gas in the east. Libia i.g. Oil fields very very rich in Suriname. Takes some time but it is there. Europe took suprisinly the easy way. Not anymore i think.
 

The big thing the F-35 brings to the table, to my thinking, is its ability to act as an AWACS as well as its active combat roles. But for some countries in NATO perhaps they can rely upon allies and don't need the extra capability.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
Yeah, I'm not sure how much Lockheed can spool up the production line much faster, perhaps FLYBOYJ has some insight?
Click to expand...
LM is putting out about 150 F-35s a year right now, compared to the 270+ total Gripen production.
Thumpalumpacus said:
Is the Gripen compatible with current NATO missiles?
Click to expand...
Yes
Thumpalumpacus said:
If so, and being the more-affordable of the two, I'd imagine it would seem a fair alternative though obviously less capable.
Click to expand...
What makes you think Gripen is more affordable?

F-35 cheaper than the Gripen?

The Royal Thai Air Force is considering the acquisition of new fighter aircraft, and favors the Lockheed Martin F-35. Among the arguments, in addition to its ad
www.aviacionline.com
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
The big thing the F-35 brings to the table, to my thinking, is its ability to act as an AWACS as well as its active combat roles.
Click to expand...
There's a lot more than that - I don't think people realise just how far ahead the F-35 is especially when it comes to the sensors, sensor fusion, data sharing etc. I sometimes use the analogy of comparing a 1980s walkman vs a iPhone. Sure both can play music but for the iPhone there's a hell of a lot more that wasn't even considered when the walkman was in use.
 

I had assumed that the materials and unit cost of a stealth aircraft would be more expensive. I'm surprised the Gripen is that costly.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
The victim-blaming definitely smacks of Russian apologetics, but that's why I'd like to see @syscom3's sources for this claim of his.
Click to expand...
I think you guys are a bit harsh in regards to syscom3 post. I don't see him being a Russian apologetic for stating his concern or personal opinion on this matter.

1.As I had mentioned already many times - anyone who has studied Putin, is fully aware about his Czarist agenda/policy. (meaning that Putin will not refrain from war options in
order to persue his agenda).
2. For Putin this "special operation" is not just about the Czar's empire but also the result of a confrontation between a supporter/believer of an autocratic system contra democracy
and a war about ideologies bear's the significant risk of a wider spreading war right down to nuclear weapons.

3. Ukraine and NATO have been "in touch" since 1991 and have steadily increased their cooperation since then - not just since 2014/15
4. Putin attacked/occupied Crimea, since according to his point of view it was "given" as an "honor-award" from the Soviet-union to the former Soviet-republic of Ukraine, and therefore does not constitute a natural/historic part of the former Soviet-republic Ukraine - but is a territorial gain of czarist Russia during it's expansion in the 18th century.
Since his annexation of Crimea, there was ample time to institute hard and crippling sanctions against Russia and to convey this issue to the UN (That is what the UN is for, not just to
decide upon who resides in what UN council)
5. Putin "operated" in the e.g. Donbass and Luhansk regions just as the USA did in Honduras, Nicaragua, Columbia, etc. etc. right up to the failed Bay of pigs, to Allende in Chile to Iran
and so on.... (so I believe no one needs to point fingers at each other in the messy regions of covert and supporting revolutions etc. business)
6. NATO was clearly aware about Putin's stance towards the already progressing NATO eastward expansion.

Having said that, there were two options for NATO and the Ukraine latest since 2019, a clever diplomatic one, or a rather stupid/arrogant one - unfortunately NATO and Ukraine opted for the latter one.
And now since February 2022 we have to deal with the result of their preferred option. - the only question that remains to me is: up to what extend?
 
Jagdflieger said:
I think you guys are a bit harsh in regards to syscom3 post. I don't see him being a Russian apologetic for stating his concern or personal opinion on this matter.
Click to expand...

I'm not being harsh on him. I'm asking him for his historical perspective, with backing, and pointing out that his "arguments", paltry as they are, echo Kremlin apologetics. Russia invaded Ukraine before Ukraine abandoned neutrality. This is a fact.

That is not harsh. That's plain-spoken. He has every opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding I might be experiencing, and I'll look forward to him doing so.
 
Erdogan stated:

"First of all, we would not say 'yes' to those who impose sanctions on Turkey joining NATO, which is a security organization. Because then NATO would not remain a security organization anymore, it becomes a place where representatives of the terror concentrate," Erdogan said.

I am right now laughing my head off - what on earth could wish Putin more for, then such a statement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Sisu
S
M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
1K
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
2K
MIflyer
M
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
834
Snautzer01
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
491
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register