₦airaland Forum

Henry240:
The Swedes had the choice to go for the F/A-18 Super-hornet, just like the Australians. The fact they decided to go European is all down to politics.

Is the Gripen an Eastern fighter?

I only made reference to the JF-17 and LCA because they are in the same class as the Gripen.



Anyway, there hasn't been any evidence by you or any other South-African to prove the Gripen C/D model to be on the same scale as the F-16 Block 52. The available stats show the Block 52 is a better aircraft.

And what of Thailand? They chose the Gripen over the Su30... a military decision not a political one. Why not get the F16 Blk 52? "A better aircraft for less money"

Henry, the obligation lies on the accuser. You accuse that it is inferior to the Block 52. Prove it.

Henry240:
So, Nigeria is buying the JF-17, not for the following reasons;

- that it incorporates modern FBW with advanced state-of-the art avionics

- that it has a Radar range of over 100km

- that it is capable of firing BVRAAM at 80km

- that it is excellent in all the roles, Air-to-ground, Air-to-Air, Recon, Air-to-Sea. [Your opinion]

- that is has a short turn around time

- that it is capable of air-refueling

- that is features an advanced Data-Link

- that it has a more powerful engine than the Gripen C/D

- that it meets our overall strike and air defence requirements [Your opinion]

- that it is a combat proven platform

- that it is capable of firing PGM and laser guided bombs



According to Patchesagain, Nigeria is buying the JF-17 because it is cheap. So Patchesagain should Nigeria buy the Gripen C/D because it is expensive?

- Uses RD-33 derivative engine (enough said)
- 50.0 kN of thrust (Gripen 54 kN)
- Under-powered (had to use afterburners for even the most basic maneuvers)
- Gripen max speed, Mach 2, JF-17 Max Speed Max 1.6

- Airframe rated to only 8G, Gripen to 9G

- Gripen has better wing loading (more maneuverable)

- Gripen has an extra 20km radar range

- Gripen can engage 4 targets simultaneously

- BVRAAM at 100km+

- Gripen turns at 30 degrees/second, turn time for JF-17 is not listed anywhere

- JF-17 has not seen combat

- Gripen can be turned around in under 10 min by a ground crew of one technician and 3 conscripts (on a highway)

- Gripen is also capable of air-to-air refueling

-JF-17 payload 3,629 kg, Gripen payload 5,300 kg

- JF-17 7 hardpoints, Gripen 8 hard points.

Gripen has a more powerfull engine, is faster, is more maneuverable, has a bigger payload, more hard-points, has more advanced electronics (HMD, fly-by-wire, complete sensor fusion, EWS 39 amongst the most capable EW suite in existance) is combat tested and has over 20 years of operational history. Most importantly many customers have chosen it over the SU30 and chosen it to fight the Su30. Not to mention a full generation ahead of the JF-17 (according to its chinese designer)

You get what you pay for.

Henry240:
I did not compare the Gripen to the F-16 Block 40, i said, the Gripen is not as good as the F-16 Block 52. I never mention UAE Block 60s because of all in-service F-16s, the Block 60 is in a totally different generation. You compare the Block 60 to aircrafts such as the Rafale and Eurofighter.


You keep going on an on about Net-Centric. All modern aircrafts are Net-Centric. All of them can share data. That's not an advantage in 2016.

I am telling you that the Gripen C/D, is just like every other modern aircraft in the market. However when capabilities are brought to bear, the Gripen can in no shape or form hope to match aircrafts such as the F-16 Block 52 and above or the MIG-29M, certainly not the SU-30SM and above.


For it's class it is a decent fighter, however it's capablities are within what is obtainable for other aircrafts in it's class. It is not a wonder to worth 65 million per aircraft, it's huge price is only a tactic by SAAB to leverage upon the lack of aircrafts in the West in it's class. The Gripen shouldn't cost above 30- 35 million a pop.


F-16 Viper.


It is not a bias.

ok.

So its not as good as a F16 Block 52.

Why then did Switzerland compare the Gripen to the Eurofighter and Rafael? Why did they not consider the F16 at all? They could get them, they have F18's.

Why then did Thailand, who according to you only buys western equipment, not buy the F16 Block 52... why did they spend MORE money on an inferior fighter when they were buying aircraft to combat the Su30MKI?

This is just you defending the JF-17 and Nigerias decision to buy it.

Henry240:
To be honest, i am getting bored of your rants.

Not rants , facts

Henry240:
I did not say it is the same as an F-16 Block 40. I'm saying although modern it is not as good as the F-16 Block 52 and can in way be compared to UAE Block 60s.

So, its not as good as a Blk 52 (a version that predates the Gripen)
But its similar to the Blk60
Which is an upgrade to the Blk52

Henry240:
The PAF fly both the F-16 Block 52 and JF-17. The PAF confirms the JF-17 is close in capabilities to the F-16 Block 52 they have in service.

Thats not what analysts say.

Henry240:
I think the Gripen is a fantastic aircraft for it's class, yes average in capabilities but still a decent aircraft. However the Gripen is in no way, shape or form worth $65 million a unit. It cannot be better than an F-16 Block 52 which comes with a better engine, better radar, Data-Link, better load carrying capability, which also includes the use of CFT. It's not possible.

Yeah, you are going to have to go ahead and back that up with some stats.

Henry240:
You ranting, doest change the fact the JF-17, LCA and Gripen are the same class of fighters, with similar capabilities. The stats of all three aircrafts are available for all to see. Although the FA-50 is still an unknown quantity, it is rated as a light multi-role fighter, same as all 3 listed above.

You saying it over and over again does not change the fact that it is your opinion and your opinion only

Henry240:
It doesn't disapprove my comments. The Thai air force is primarily and strictly Western. This is a fact.

It disproves what you say because:

Politician: BUY THE RUSSIAN PLATFORM

Air-Marshall: No, the Gripen is better, we buy that.

They bought it to combat the Su30MKI.

Your "brand loyalty" argument is insanity. This proves it.

Henry240:
Based on what threat analysis did you come by this conclusion?

Thai Air force chief Chalit Phukphasuk Chavalit reportedly met with Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont on Sept 29/07 and convinced him to support the purchase, citing the need for new combat aircraft to match neighboring Malaysia’s new SU-30MKMs. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra reportedly ordered then air force chief ACM Kongsak Wantana to switch to the SU-30s for Thailand’s own purchase, but ACM Chalit rejected the Russian plane as unsuited to Thailand’s needs when he became the new air force chief.

Henry240:
No they won't. The East is offering significantly better or comparable fighters, J-10, MIG-29M, MIG-35, JF-17, FA-50, LCA.

They aren't going for them because they have a history of buying Western equipment.

Namibia is buying the J-10 because the have a history of buying Eastern equipment. Nigeria is going for the JF-17 because it suits our operational requirement.


According to you, the J-10 is a clone of an F-16, i find this comment to be extremely hilarious.

So thats your argument?

"Its totally better, but they only buy the other option because they are loyal customers"

J-10 is literally a clone.

You are buying the JF-17 because it is cheap.

Henry240:
What Argentina? The same Argentina which is checking out FA-50s from South-Korea or a different one?

Thailand - Western equipment

Botswana - Western equipment

Brazil - Gripen NG, a totally different generation.

Argentina wanted the Gripen, Brits vetoed it.

So Thailand, Bots and Brazil are all so silly that they bought the more expensive and less effective platform because of "brand loyalty"

Come on

Henry240:
The difficulties which have come with maintaining SAAF Gripens did not come out of thin air, including difficulties your Air Force had with aviation fuel.


According to the SAAF experience, the Gripens aren't easy to maintain.

The difficulty of maintenance and the difficulties with aviation fuel are linked to FUNDS.

If the SAAF had the budget it had when we bought the Gripen, there would be no problem.

The cost per flight hour of the Gripen is well documented, from many sources.

Fact of the matter is that it is the cheapest to operate. Fact, no discussion, just fact.

Henry240:
No, the Gripen C/D model is only above the F-16 Block 40 model. F-16 Block 52 is a better aircraft than the Gripen C/D. UAE Block 60s are in a totally different class.
.

How.

How do you rationalize this?

Because analysts compared the JF-17 Blk1 to the F-16 Blk40?

Dude, this is madness now.

Henry240:
What is available is what is available. Until you can prove what is unavailable to be available, then what you think is available does not exist. Your analogy can be applied to other aircrafts, not just the Gripen.


I don't claim to be an expert. I'm saying the Gripen is an average fighter, and based on available public documents, the Gripen is only an Average fighter leveraging on the lack of western alternatives in it's class. You don't have to be an expert to know this.


I find your last comment most unfortunate and won't be dragged into an internet brawl. However for the record, acquisition taken by countries are primarily based on threat assessments, politics and price.


Nigeria has been flying Strike missions since 1993 all across the West-African sub-region. Based on threat assessment, we have a requirement for a state-of-the-art, modern light weight 4th GEN aircraft which is geared towards a primary Strike mission role and a secondary Air Defence role. This is what we are getting with the JF-17.


It is not bitching, it's just common sense.


The F-16 Block 52 is a better aircraft, and is a much better proposition for $65m.

Your ignorance of this topic, sincerely no offence, is showing.

F16 Blk52 is an early 90's variant its major addition being a new engine and digitized navigation as well as a new generation of missiles.

Blk 40, which you keep comparing the Gripen to, is an F16 that can fight at night... thats it, FYI, our Cheetah were rated to be better than the Blk40 (performance aside)

The fact that you compare a fully digitized Gripen, designed for netcentric-warfare with allmost complete systems fusion to a Jet that was still largely analogue is beyond me. A jet that was flying 30 years ago.

You are telling us that the Gripen is comparable to a platform that took to the skies a full decade before the Gripen was operationalised, and further, that the SAAF decided to take a step backwards in capability.

I, literally, cannot even right now.

FYI- F16's are up to blk61 now.

Henry240:
Why would the cost of paying a pilot be included in the cost flying an aircraft?

When i read the per-hour flight cost, i usually only factor in cost of fuel, maintenance cyscle before each flight and cost of bombs.

Dry v Wet costs.

Wet costs included Gripen is still the cheapest, hands down, multiple reports confirm.

Henry240:
If the SAAF is starved off funds, how do you suppose Botswana is going to maintain her incoming Gripen.


Not true. The Gripen is a decent Aircrafts, but Fighters such as the F-16 Block 52 are significantly better than the Gripen. Capabilities of the Gripen put is just ahead of F-16 Block 40 aircrafts.


LCA, JF-17 and FA-50 are all new, however on paper, there capabilities and that of the Gripen are the same. LCA MK 2 comes with an AESA radar is ahead of the Gripen C/D, i only won't rate it because it isn't in production yet.

Really?

You say its the same as an F16 Block 40.... from the 1980's? Weird that you would say that since I remember pointing out to you that analysts compare the JF-17 Blk2 to the F16 Block 40.

Its allmost as though you have some sort of bias against the Gripen... I wonder where it is coming from.

And no, on paper the JF-17 and LCA and most certainly not the fvcking Golden Eagle are not comparable to the Gripen.

And, the Gripen C/D has access to AESA radar.

Jesus dude, get it together.

Henry240:
However to pull such a feat, other participating countries would have to pull their weight, which sadly is impossible. Asides RSA and Angola no other country in SADAC has that financially muscle to put much of a dent on general production cost.

Angola is pro-Russia, so the financial burden would always fall on RSA, nothing would dramatically change if smaller SADAC states join in.

Op Biro is for 6 ships, getting SADAC nations to buy just 3 more means that we would have a 50% increase in production which will work out at "sunk costs" dropping by up to 1/3 (or more) bringing down the average cost of the ships significantly.

Henry240:
The Kornet clearly won, this really shuts guys who keep trash talking the T-72 up.

No it doesnt.

16 years of continuous combat and you have one video of an Abrams suffering a catastrophic failure?

T-72's pop their turrets every time they see combat.

Big difference

Rhodesian tank crew and their stolen tank (google it)

Henry240:
Quota system is very important. It allows all members of the country feel a sense of inclusiveness. If everyone understands they have a stake in a project, there would be more purpose and dedication to taking care of tasks.


For sensitive positions you pick the best, however those positions have to also represent the demographics of the country.

Problem is that when you base things off of diversity, it means that merit is no longer the most saught after quality - and the effectiveness of the organization reflects that.

There is a guy called Charles C. Johnson, who bets against companies on the stock market... specifically, he bets against companies that implement quota systems. He has made millions.


Hoefyster turrets

MikeCZA:
Problems with funding which might mean certain milestones might be pushed into the near future.

Grounding of the jets is highly unlikely. Funding for the SANDF's core capabilities(Armour, special forces, fighter/ LIFT jets squadrons etc) has remained constant throughout the years. If there was a serious need for the force to shrink transport squadrons(fixed wing and rotary) will be the first to take blows.

Followed by the attack helicopter capability. Those are hard to regain but not as hard as introducing capabilities such as special forces or fighter jets. That's why you still see many contractors in Africa flying our jets or SF consultants with our elite forces during major offensives.

This.

When the story broke about the alleged "possible grounding of the Hawks fleet"

Everyone freaked out

No one looked at the SAAF budget which showed that the allocation for the jets was constant and took a slight increase this year since training costs dropped

It was transport that took a hit in the SAAF budget reduction - because we dont fly to Sudan anymore

When Biro got delayed everyone freaked out

No one took the time to read that the upgrade of Sailsbury Island to a Naval base falls under Biro and that SAN is negotiating with TRANSNET to cut costs - which obviously effects Biro as a whole - thus until TRANSNET and SAN come to an agreement Biro doesnt move forward

People like freaking out in RSA - it sells newspapers

MikeCZA:
Gripen E?

The one and only

giles14:
o d overhyped craft

You mean the only Western Aircraft in 40 years to come out on budget and on time?

Henry240:
It wasn't exactly a happy outing for the SA navy, when that navy commander blundered on live T.V.


Proper P.R should be left in the hands of the private sector, the military might have a different view of what good military photography is from what the private sector sees as proper photography.


Take for example, the Private sector knows there are 20 different angles to take a cool photograph, while the military would take same object once and live.


If we had those guys here in Nigeria, I'll always say fvck the military. SANDF photos taken by the SANDF are usually poorly taken.

Its only a blunder if you are looking to find a blunder.

And the video i posted is the best I have ever seen.

SANDF pics are normally good (see attached)

Henry240:
Not required, Dean Wingrin, Doug, Darren Oliver, Mistral, Airfire photography all got the SANDF covered. Even Frumentius of Nairaland........ Speaking of Frumentius, I wonder where that "skinny" white boy went?





#NO Racist

So the military should not bother doing its own promotional stuff and just hope the private sector will?

Come now

Henry240:
No point depending on the SANDF when there are already tons of dedicated military photographers and film-makers with front row access to your military.

SANDF needs to do its own advertising

Great video of the highlights of "Navy Week"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQT8FBzASao

SANDF seems to finally be turning the corner of their PR campaign... really high production value in this video

Who let the dogs out!?!?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIM9j9Pv1GY

SA Navy burning through some ammo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6Nmcb-bh-k

Those 3 second bursts

SANDF shows of jungle training prep

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V-bC2gESGg

yoh... trained for 360 days before deployment

Henry240:
OFF TOPIC



Russian BTR "Bummerang" is spotting a new look.


- Bummerang 2015


- Bummerang 2016


- Kaurganets IFV

I dont think the first one is Bumerang... it looks like the Russio-Franco joint project "Atom" with the turret they designed for Bumerang. You can tell by the front two wheels (hull forms a perfect T shape)

Obviously, Bumerang borrows allot of its design from "Atom"

Henry240:
What is a real MPV, what parameter defines what's real from what Navy B defines as real?


Ignorant generalisations like this makes me lose appetite for discussions.

We all know that Navies call many ships many things, sometimes for prestige, sometimes for legal reasons (japans new "destroyers" and sometimes for political reasons (new Korean "destroyers".

When I say "real", what I mean is a ship that in my opinion is a true MPV and not a "plastic patrol boat"

Size, range, speed and the ability to engage in all manner of littoral warfare and security tasks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamsuri-class_patrol_boat

Thats what makes a "real" MPV

Henry240:
Ambe and Offion are both landing ships, you don't convert a landing ship to a Replenishment ship because you have a requirement for logistics.

Yes you do.

Fleet replenishment vessels exist because you need to have a vessel that can move with your fleet into foreign waters and refuel there.

If you only operate in your own waters there is no need and more economical and viable solutions should be sought.

Henry240:
I shared the post because i think an additional logistics ship is a needed requirement for the Nigerian navy. Nigerian navy capital Ships are always deployed at sea, instead of having these capital boats coming to home port every now and again, logistics ships should instead provide ship and crew with their necessary replenishment.


The South-Korean example would not work. As unlike South-Korea Nigeria has a requirement to patrol all areas of her EEZ, that of Benin republic and Sao Tome. Keeping a vessel in the middle of nowhere doesn't solve the problem of policing vast seas. Vessels which are 40 meters and above are required for patrol of both Midshore and Inshore areas, while another set of 10-15 meters boats patrol the Creeks (Size, Belgium and Netherlands combined).


To maintain a constant presence at sea, the navy needs to be seen, this means more Vessels in numbers and long deployments.

Korea also needs to patrol its entire coastline - hence why they have allmost 100 MPVs of a weight of 100t+ (real MPV's). The vessel wont be in the middle of no-where, it will be in the patrol area and will allow you to extend the endurance of your FB57's, Shaldags, Defender Class, Suncraft etc.

It also means that you can deploy to hot-spots that you would normally not be able to deploy to without shore-facilities.

Your capital ships have more than enough endurance to operate in your own waters.

TheDarknight:
[s]You're sounding desperately pathetic, Patrick
We aren't having a discussion; I'm pointing you to the light of the truth you so desperately wish to deny.


Dementia alert!!! I quoted South African newspapers and media outlet who reported how the ANC forced several officials to drop over 700 fraud suits against Zuma who already had been sacked as DP. Go talk to your reporters in Durban, denying the truth here is a poor attempt at damage control.

Shows over, dummy, Bashir was under House or whatever arrest by the orders of a South African judge, when your rookie military was besieged in Sudan peace keeping mission, your president broke the rules and judicial independence by using executive incursion to Cree Bashir, Olodo southie like you.

You only succeeded in miring yourself deeper into the quagmire of your self-deceit and and incomprehensibility!!!!

My relationship with you will always be teacher-student one, albeit, a very stubborn one.

You've earned yourself the front row seat in my class reserved for boneheads[/s]

Fly Mimzy for me , vote her for Miss Nairaland 2016

lol, I see you are in maximum damage conrtol mode!!

You have told us that the ANC has no control over the Judiciary, you admitted as such in your own posts!

Stop flauting conspiracy stories about SANDF peacekeepers being beseiged... the story has subsequently been destroyed by the UN itself.