European Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

banjex

Junior Member
Registered Member
Well, I for example can infer that the tone and or meaning of your response was and is sarcastic and not complimentary. It's called reading between the lines which am sure you're more than intimately familiar with.
Lol people on this forum get too triggered when someone dares criticize Chinese hardware. And then have a knee jerk reaction calling a genuine mistake as "trolling." As the bitching on the last few pages has clearly demonstrated.
 

banjex

Junior Member
Registered Member
Not sure what‘s the true intention but if you would have checked, you would have noticed as explained by @siegecrossbow that this was the firs such engagement in 2015 and the following years, the PLAAF participated with J-10C fighters which revered the outcome dramatically.

As such … calm down!
Deino, love you man, but he's not the one lacking calmness in this situation.
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Su-27s was operational well before AIM-120
Interesting factiods:
First low rate production serial standard su27 airframes handed over to Soviet air force: 1985.

First low rate production serial standard amraams handed over to USAF: 1988

Soviet Union declares su-27 ready for service: 1990

USAF declares amraam ready for service: 1991
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
@Bltizo

I'm from Poland. Gripen and broader defense cooperation with Sweden were a major point of interest for the government in the 90s and 00s. Gripen is also in active service in Czechia and Hungary which are both part of NATO so we have the necessary information on how it compares to other aircraft - including those that I mentioned. Specifically F-16, Mirage 2000 and Gripen were part of a bid for the Polish Air Force and there were limited (not public) practical tests done. Sweden is a neighbour to the north and an ally on security in the Baltic region. Poland was also a member of the Warsaw Pact. Since I don't see any Swedes working with the Gripen contributing to the conversation I'm your best option.

I didn't say anything about reviewing technology being an error. I said that it is not a necessity because Gripen's technology is a consequence of requirement to fight and win against Flankers. Gripens in air defense missions would be effective (to a different degree) against every Flanker including Su-35S although N035E might have enough power to burn through unupgraded ECM while PS-05A will not work at that distance - but the latest R-77 is necessary to exploit the range. Which is also why Su-30s are being upgraded and Sweden is rebuilding them to NGs with AESA.

Any and all tactical scenarios against Su-27 are Gripen's "original role" because Gripen was intended to replace all other aircraft in Swedish service. In the 90s Su-27 would become the primary long-range fighter of Frontal Aviation. The distance between Sweden and USSR is ~300-400km so any attack against targets beyond the eastern coast of Sweden would involve Su-27s as escort since MiG-29s and 23s could carry only two BVR missiles and had shorter range and fewer pylons with lower payload limiting extra fuel.

JAS 39C is not "substantially more capable" than JAS 39A. JAS 39C is not a "mature" Gripen. It is the NATO-capable Gripen while JAS 39A is Sweden-capable Gripen. The main difference between C and A is in-flight refueling which was not specified for A because of the the dispersed airfield infrastructure in Bas90 system. C is also fully compatible with NATO standards which required changes to some electronic systems. All other upgrades are minor and would be implemented. "C" variant is in service because NATO standards in aviation became Swedish standards for practical reasons due to expansion of NATO and EU. "A" and "C" are more "block" than variant if you exclude the probe.

Gripen is superior air defense fighter compared to the F-16, F-18 and Mirage and we know it from experience. It has better maneuverability and better all-around kinematics. It has sensor fusion and very efficient cockpit design. It has all the sensors and defensive systems that 4.5 gens have. Technologically it is the equivalent of Rafale/Typhoon. That however is balanced by Gripen being the worst attack aircraft of all currently offered multirole fighters. It has low payload and suffers more aerodynamically when loaded. It has short range and weak engine when at max capacity. Since most countries need also penetrating and offensive counter-air as well as regular strike missions and not just defensive counter-air Gripen usually comes last in capabilities category among multirole aircraft. It should be understood however that Gripen is very capable but not very efficient. That low efficiency is traded off for lower life-cycle cost but not everyone likes that trade-off. Gripen was designed to be part of the system that only Sweden implemented and optimized for requirements that few countries other than Sweden have. It was meant to shoot Soviet aircraft over Sweden and it is very good for that purpose.

The reason why Gripen struggled with implementation of many technologies was because it was a 4,5gen funded by a small country without export markets and at the time when defense budgets were consistently falling. In reality it is delayed to the same extent as Typhoon and for similar reasons.


I'll end it here. This is a China Flanker Thread and I am interested in trading information - not arguments. Anyone has questions - there's that envelope icon at the top of the screen.


Yeah, you don't get to "end it here" in this thread and claim to be interested in trading information rather than arguments, after writing all of that.

I will move these posts to a different thread, later in the day, but your arguments very much need addressing.


I've read through your previous post again and also this one, and my counter argument is pretty simple:

1. You claimed in your previous post that "the 2015 exercise was recreating the scenario for which Gripen was designed in the 80s - Swedish JAS39 vs Soviet Su-27 in defensive air operations over own territory" -- there is no evidence that the parameters of the exercise was intended to simulate those parameters.

2. Gripen being in service with Hungary and the Czech Republic means literally nothing about how Gripen compares with F-16 or other fighters. Furthermore, the outcome of fighter procurement competitions also does not mean much --fighter aircraft are not procured exclusively based on performance (kinematic, range, payload, sensors, weapons suite etc), but also in terms of procurement cost, operating cost, logistics reliability, geopolitical reliability, upgrade potential etc. Different nations will all have differing requirements and weighting in terms of all of those factors. Sometimes fighter competitions can bring out interesting information, but unless raw data is produced that can be equally compared, the assessments and outcomes of fighter competitions is limited at best if you are trying to "compare how good" one fighter is from another.

3. You are picking and choosing when you want technology to be important.
First you wrote "Bltizo focuses on the technical comparison of both planes as if they were two randomly matched fighters and so he misses the most fundamental observation".
You described the capabilities and subsystems of Gripen:
"When it entered service in 1996 Gripen was by far the world's most sophisticated fighter jet and implemented every possible technological solution in service except AESA radars (J/APG-1 on F-2 a year before). Sweden creatively resolved Gripen's lower ceiling of 15km versus Su-27s maximum of 19km with maneuverability, better situational awareness and smaller RCS. Open architecture and Ada meant that it could integrate every weapon NATO had at its disposal and PS-05/A was a generation ahead of anything the Soviets had at the time - especially the N001 used by Su-27."
Then you wrote:
"Gripen performed well against J-11A because it was designed to do so. It would perform well against J-11B and J-10A for the same reason. It could not perform as well in BVR against J-10C because J-10C is the equivalent of Gripen NG - an aircraft with the next generation of systems and weapons. It can be thought of as a counter to Gripen and Gripen's contemporaries."
Then in this post you wrote:
"Technologically it is the equivalent of Rafale/Typhoon"

...... So, don't you think you are contradicting yourself, because in both of your posts:
A: You have acknowledged that the technology involved and the subsystems of the respective aircraft are important, and you are able to distinguish between the technology and subsystems between Gripen A/C generations and Gripen E/F (aka Gripen NG). You are able to acknowledge that the subsystems of Gripen A/C is far superior to the subsystems of the Su-27SK. You are also able to distinguish the differences in capability between a J-10A and a J-10C.
B: Yet simultaneously, you are unable to distinguish the different capabilities between a J-11A and a J-11B and how differently they would fare against Gripen A/C -- is this because you don't understand the differences in the subsystems and technologies between a J-11A and a J-11B, or is it because you literally think the differences in their subsystems and technologies is not significant?
C: You then say Gripen is the "equivalent of Rafale/Typhoon" -- I assume you are talking about Rafale when it first entered service and Typhoon when it first entered service, because I seriously hope you know that there have been many variants and upgrades to both Rafale and Typhoon since they were first respectively commissioned.

Based on the above, how can you possibly argue that the outcome of the exercise -- specifically in the domains of BVR and in multiship engagements where situational awareness and datalinking would be of emphasis -- is that "Gripen performed well against J-11A because it was designed to do so" rather than a reflection of the technological advancement of key subsystems of the respective aircraft in the exercise?
If you are able to correctly recognize that aircraft like Gripen NG and J-10C are more technologically advanced than Gripen A/C and J-10A, and use a newer and much more capable generation of subsystems -- then how come you cannot also recognize the same is true for Gripen A/C and Su-27SK/J-11A? It is literally applying the same principles to aircraft of different subsystem generations.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Interesting factiods:
First low rate production serial standard su27 airframes handed over to Soviet air force: 1985.

First low rate production serial standard amraams handed over to USAF: 1988

Soviet Union declares su-27 ready for service: 1990

USAF declares amraam ready for service: 1991
Su-27 was flying regularly in units by 1986 (1987 is a well-known P-3 incident, lol). Late acceptance didn't matter here - It's easy to find a few fully operational Soviet fighters, which weren't ever 'accepted' at all, and got through their whole career unaccepted. To give a good analogy - look at Typhoon service history.

Soviet(Russian) acceptance means fulfilling 'all' requirements - including ground attack modes, and such. For example, by the time Su-35s was 'accepted into service' in autumn 2017 - it was (1)operational in multiple regiments for several years, (2)had been in combat in Syria for quite a while, (3)was operational with first its foreign customer i.e. PLAAF. Just a few months later PLAAF was already flying them around Taiwan for lulz.

The first deployment AMRAAM to combat units is early 1992(6-7 years later!) - it was rushed to F-16 units in the Gulf area (to finally provide them with long reach), but nevertheless got late for the Iraq war; a few months later it was fired there in anger for the first time.
RVV-AE became available to anyone with cash the foreign customers very same year if I remember correctly.
For example, PLAAF had them in wide service by the mid-late 1990s - literally 1.5 decades before the RuAF itself.
 
Last edited:

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Lol people on this forum get too triggered when someone dares criticize Chinese hardware. And then have a knee jerk reaction calling a genuine mistake as "trolling." As the bitching on the last few pages has clearly demonstrated.
Apologies to everyone here in advance. This will be my last and only response to @banjex There will be no additional response as I don't want to hijack and further derail the subject matter that's most pertinent to the discussion. My sincere apologies.

You're reaction wasn't a criticism at all let's be honest. It was mostly composed of a few worded quips, a sardonic response to what you deemed as needless over the top defensiveness from some of the people on this forum when it comes to anything and everything Chinese related military or not. I mean, for you to be this indignant and shocked that a Chinese defense forum which in all likelihood is populated by largely pro-China posters is a bit confusing. You're not being called names or being laughed at with respect to expressing an informed opinion even if that opinion goes against the grain here. What most objective and reasonable people here object to (IMHO) is the idiotic and nonsensical posts, insincere queries that's clear to anyone that's not purposely being obtuse or oblivious to what anyone can read between the lines. One doesn't have to be a psychologist to see, read, or recognize a troll post or when someone is trolling which some of the clowns try to hijack any given topic just so they can put in their anti-China rant and then act and react indignant due to the inevitable pushbacks, mockery from the people on this forum. I mean, just look at your response to what I directly wrote to you and tell me you're not the one being butthurt or as you like to put it, "bitching." Calmdown buddy, get off your high horse.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Lol people on this forum get too triggered when someone dares criticize Chinese hardware. And then have a knee jerk reaction calling a genuine mistake as "trolling." As the bitching on the last few pages has clearly demonstrated.

Reasonable arguments are fine.

Poor arguments are going to be challenged.

I agree that people should be more open minded and that Hanlon's razor should be applied more often -- after all someone might just be stupid rather than exhibiting malice, so patience is typically preferable rather than calling people trolls.

On the other hand, short posts with attitude that include links from outlets with established poor reputations that describes bad takes of old news that has already been discussed in the past and where the user in question doesn't critically assess and consider the validity of the content of the article and claim they are linking to -- yes, people are going to rightly call them out for it, and that is not unjustified. If anything that should be considered common sense


I would also add that members should not call each other trolls on whims, there are rules against it from memory... Criticize their arguments rather than call them names please.
 

pmc

Major
Registered Member
This about slow down in various projects like Tank between France and Germany.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
While other programs carried out in cooperation with Germany are also experiencing difficulties, such as the Future Air Combat System [SCAF], when their future is not simply compromised, such as the Maritime Airborne Warfare System [ MAWS - maritime patrol] and the Tiger Mk3 standard, should we prepare for a “plan B”?

As a reminder, such a possibility was mentioned last March by Dassault Aviation, then engaged in complicated negotiations with Airbus about the New Generation Fighter [NGF], the combat aircraft on which the SCAF will be based.
 

sndef888

Senior Member
Registered Member
It's pretty incredible that France managed to sell so many of their ships overseas such as the 20 Gowind frigates, ~8 FREMMs and 4 FDIs by simply playing the "neutral guy". Essentially getting overseas buyers to subsidise their navy costs
 
Top