Sweden says it built a Russian fighter jet killer — and stealth is totally irrelevant

[khanmubashir]

Gripen E did not exist when India shortlisted Rafale and Eurofighter in 2011,
and Gripen C did not have the mandatory AESA radar.
Fighter Aircraft deals are never purely technical, the decision of Norway was influenced in a major way by the desire to sell the Joint Strike Missile to the US. Without buying the F-35, that would not happen. The Norwegians invented Gripen costs to prove that F-35 would be cheaper.
The US has significant leverage and uses it, as Wikileaks has shown.
Belgium demanded that their vendor supply tanker aircraft for all their operations. A clear sign that they do not want a competition with fair comparisions.
Denmarks behaviour was so unusual that Boeing threatened to sue.
The F-104 Starfighter deal of the century turned out to be fueled by massive bribes to European companies from Lockheed Martin, the F-35 vendor.

So grapes r sour ???
Anyway best of luck perhaps in future Pak and Sweden can cooperate on new weapon systems we already use yr eryeeye AWACS and it performed excellently

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Then statement is exageration ... with such a huge air power russians can take down the ground radars within few days to take away the expenses ... rather than calling a sukhoi killer we can call it a deadly fighter ...

Sweden has more Gripen C, than Russia has Su-35s.
The mainstay is still older Su-27s.

So grapes r sour ???
Anyway best of luck perhaps in future Pak and Sweden can cooperate on new weapon systems we already use yr eryeeye AWACS and it performed excellently

Not really, Gripen is still one of the more successful fighter for us as measured in exports.

 

[ptldM3]

Gripen E Electronic Warfare is better than both the EA-18G Growler and the current Rafale Spectra according to SAAB. Dassault plans to upgrade Spectra to something similar in the F4 version to be released by 2025 or so. The US is working on next generation as well.

According to me I'm a billionaire that parties with Hollywood celebrities. You're going to have to take my word on that. Sweden is decades behind in the semiconductor industry and in general much of the Grippen uses foreign parts.

Sweden is three times the size of Afghanistan and perfect guerilla territory.
Russia can certainly try to invade, but would have to leave with their tail between their legs

Everyone knows Sweden has such a large well trained military, certainly Sweden has more combat experience then Russia too despite Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, and Syria.
As for Afghanistan, the Soviet were fighting a coalition of a dozen countries and still controlled all majority cities. Currently most of NATO as well as none NATO countries have been in Afghanistan for 17 years with no one providing stingers, financing, training, personnel, or intelligence to insurgents in Afghanistan. Yet decades later with vaste improvements in both military technology and medical advances which certainly saved hundreds of lived of NATO and coalition troops the situation is no better off then what the Soviets faced. In other words do you think Sweden would do any better in Afghanistan especially if dozens of countries would support insurgents in Afghanistan? Don't mix up the Afghanistan with Sweden; the terrain and determination is vastly different. On one hand you have rugged mountains, valleys and cave networks with determined hardline islamists backed by dozens of countries, on the other hand you have mostly flat Swedish countryside populated by liberal soy boys that are unsure of their gender. It sounds like I'm trolling and insulting but that is the sad truth nowadays.



I'm sure mighty Sweden would steam roll Russia and probably NATO and dominate F-18s growlers, and SU-57s. Because Saab said so. Sweden is outmatched in everything from training to numbers and combat experience.

Sweden has more Gripen C, than Russia has Su-35s.
The mainstay is still older Su-27s.


Not really, Gripen is still one of the more successful fighter for us as measured in exports.

No it doesn't. Russia operates over 300 modern Sukhoi variants including around 80 SU-35s.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Not really, Gripen is still one of the more successful fighter for us as measured in exports.

Gripen under performs in exports. Only Thailand and South Africa actually and Brazil actually bought it. Severely out competed by F-16 in eastern Europe.

No it doesn't. Russia operates over 300 modern Sukhoi variants including around 80 SU-35s.

And 90+ Su-30SM.

 

[MastanKhan]

With comments like that, I doubt him being a professional ... "my F-16" hardly proves his profession. It was more ego talk than professional. And I have lived long enough, learnt and experienced long enough to be able to engage and identify a professional when I see one. Majority of times when someone talks in the manner he had, it's mostly ego and hubris, than actual intellect. Also, respond to my posts once you've learnt to not speak in a condescending tone.
I don't whether there is a selective lense on what people read but in the interest of clarity, I said that the F-117s "WERE" the most advance aircraft the USAF had during the air campaign over the Balkans, "AT THE (GOD DAMN) TIME!" Which is at the time of the break up of Yugoslavia back in 1991. Ihope that makes things clear for everyone reading but not actually paying attention.

Hi,

I think that likes of you are not needed on this forum---. Neither you have the education about the subject matter---nor the ability to understand it---so---don't bother to write any more---.

Members of no value have come and gone---.

Hi,

Tracking the F117 became 'very easy'---. It flew from a certain base consistently---. Observers were posted outside of the base---.

Within a flew flights---the flight duration was determined---and as @gambit stated---ingress/egress routes became predictable---it was then a matter of time and decision making in how to take it out---.

This incidence is a great lesson about older missiles---they don't get old---. They will do the job if the opponent enters in their kill zone---.

 

[Nasr]

Hi, I think that likes of you are not needed on this forum. Neither you have the education about the subject matter nor the ability to understand it so don't bother to write any more. Members of no value have come and gone.

I don't need anyone to tell me what to do. This is a forum, I respond with my views and engage in discussion with those who actually have an acumen that doesn't get debased by primative cellular functions.

In 1991, one of the most advance aircraft of the USAF was F-117. It was their first generation Stealth Aircraft, superior to the F-16s in attacking ground targets without being susceptible to SAMs.

The so-called "professional" claimed "his" F-16 is more superior to the F-117s, is not correct. What he did display was a reaction to my post which denounces zionist-western imperialism.

Lastly, unless I am actually responding to your posts, I don't really see the need to engage in nonsensical ramble with the likes of you. Have nice day!

 

[Oldman1]

I don't whether there is a selective lense on what people read but in the interest of clarity, I said that the F-117s "WERE" the most advance aircraft the USAF had during the air campaign over the Balkans, "AT THE (GOD DAMN) TIME!" Which is at the time of the break up of Yugoslavia back in 1991. Ihope that makes things clear for everyone reading but not actually paying attention.

No the F-117 was not the most advanced aircraft of the USAF during the air campaign over the Balkans. You need to look up on the B-2 before you start claiming such things. Need to follow your own words as well when paying attention too.

 

[gambit]

Overall, this means the entire engagement was a textbook success for the S-125. Now the only question is how the F-117 was caught in such a situation.

It was 'textbook' in the sense that the situations were ideal for the air defense side, no matter what kind of missile used. Ideal situations are extremely rare in a real war, not a theoretical one. Commanders do not plan wars based upon 'textbook' situations.

As to how the F-117 was caught in that 'textbook' situations for the Serbian air defense? NATO flight rules. Nothing more to it.

 

[gambit]

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/swed...ler-and-stealth-is-totally-irrelevant.601018/

If Russia somehow cracks the code of detecting stealth-shaped fighters, the US's F-35, the most expensive weapons system in history, is cooked.

There is no such 'code' if Mr. Lockie is trying to imply, even figuratively, there is a single math equation or software if-else block that can solve the problem is getting a radar lock on a 'stealth' fighter.

This...

...Is how an aircraft look like to the radar computer: A cluster of voltage spikes.

Each spike is a collection of smaller spikes.

For example...

If there are surface irregularities, like a scratch or a rivet, each irregularity create a small voltage spike from the radar signal. The more irregularities, the greater the sum which ended up as a major spike for the radar computer. There is NOTHING mysterious about this.

This is why maintenance for the F-117, F-22, F-35, and B-2 are intensive. They are intensive not because it is difficult to remove internal components, even a component as large as an engine, but intensive because we want to preserve surface consistency. The amount of panel fasteners are calculated in. The gap of the panels are calculated in. Each panel's dimensions are calculated in. Even material science regarding reflectivity are calculated in.

So just for surface alone, the factors involved are enormous to try to minimize radar reflections. Now calculate in other items like wings, fins, antenna, etc...etc...

The problem is data processing. One computer may see a single voltage spike. A better computer may see 10 discrete signals inside that single spike. A better computer may see 100 or 1000 or even more. So the real problem is how to detect these discrete signals and process them all.

An airliner is easy to detect because the designer do not care about these things. He does not care because the airliner is not a war machine.

At the high level, there is nothing mysterious about this. But at the practical level, to design in low radar reflectivity requires repeated shaping and measurement, over and over. A computer may help, but actual physical measurement is always required. So at the practical level, it is financially prohibitive for most countries, even one as wealthy as Sweden.

The Swedes can make all the claims they want. We chose our path and proved it lethal. Other countries can take their chances with the Swedes.

 

[Nasr]

No the F-117 was not the most advanced aircraft of the USAF during the air campaign over the Balkans. You need to look up on the B-2 before you start claiming such things. Need to follow your own words as well when paying attention too.

Selective reading lense again ... so for the last friggin time ... if you are USAF, and you have to send a strike package for a target in the Balkans and the only two aircraft you have to send in the first wave, are either F-16s or F-117s. Which one would rate as more superior?? The advance stealth strike fighter F-117s or the legacy 1970s design F-16s?

It is the F-117s!!! For the love God ... learn to read the post accurately ... I said it was one of the most advance aircraft in USAF inventory in the 1990s.

 

[gambit]

Selective reading lense again ... so for the last friggin time ... if you are USAF, and you have to send a strike package for a target in the Balkans and the only two aircraft you have to send in the first wave, are either F-16s or F-117s. Which one would rate as more superior?? The advance stealth strike fighter F-117s or the legacy 1970s design F-16s?

It is the F-117s!!! For the love God ... learn to read the post accurately ... I said it was one of the most advance aircraft in USAF inventory in the 1990s.

I am (former) USAF, F-111 (Cold War) and F-16 (Desert Storm). And I say you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to technical issues. We sent the F-16 and F-117 in Yugoslavia depending on specific situations, not the grossly simplistic one you gave.

 

[CriticalThought]

I am (former) USAF, F-111 (Cold War) and F-16 (Desert Storm). And I say you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to technical issues. We sent the F-16 and F-117 in Yugoslavia depending on specific situations, not the grossly simplistic one you gave.

Agreed. He's a big mouth. Too much noise, little substance.

 

[Nasr]

I am (former) USAF, F-111 (Cold War) and F-16 (Desert Storm). And I say you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to technical issues. We sent the F-16 and F-117 in Yugoslavia depending on specific situations, not the grossly simplistic one you gave.

Who the heck was getting into "technical" issues? The hell are you talking about? My post was in response to the article (subject of this thread btw) which Swedes claim Gripen-E can take on Russian Flankers and Fulcrum. I pointed out that tall claims amount to nothing when a small country like Yugoslavia can shoot down an American F-117 Knighthawk, one of the most advance aircraft in USAF inventory, at the time. Your claim, that "your F-16" are superior to F-117s in every other regime other than stealth, doesn't really have any pertinence to my post. Since Yugoslavia shot down an F-16CJ Wild Weasel, other than F-117, as well as an AV-8 Harrier.

Yugoslavia was nowhere near as powerful as NATO, equipped with MiG-21s and a handful of MiG-29s along with their Soko attack variant aircraft. It had mostly Cold War era SAMs and it had tracked F-117 using Vera radar, among other aids. It managed to gain a victory (even though a small one) despite being outmatched in advance tech fighters operated by NATO.

So far, NATO officials acknowledged losing three combat planes (the USAF F-117A on March 27, the USMC AV-8B Harrier on May 1, and the F-16CG-40-CF on May 2), two attack helicopters (AH-64 Apache on April 26 and another Apache on May 5), between 30 and 32 unmanned reconnaissance vehicles, including at least 16 American, 7 German, and 5 French UAVs. Interestingly enough, NATO acknowledged all of the UAV losses mentioned by Yugoslav military officials - 30 - and, perhaps, even more.

https://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins2000/tim2000-5-1.html

I knew what your post was really about, where some pilots in the USAF were of the view that these F-117s were overrated and they rated their own fighter jets, over this stealth aircraft. But your point has no bearing on what my post was about. There isn't anything technical, so don't make it sound technical. F-117s were designed to evade radar to avoid being shot down by SAMs, but they did get shot in Yugoslavia, albeit just one. Proved my point, where as yours sounded more incoherent than anything else.

So again, I say that Swedish claims can get as extravagant as they want. Russians have extensively modernized both the RuAF and their ADN (Air Defense Network). Russia isn't someone NATO can bully around or walk over.

Next time, don't assume things about other people. I may not be a military pilot, but I am a pilot none the less. And I have extensive research on military history, as I consider myself to be a student of the subject. Also, learn to have some humility. Goodbye!

 

[gambit]

Who the heck was getting into "technical" issues?

You brought it up.

I pointed out that tall claims amount to nothing when a small country like Yugoslavia can shoot down an American F-117 Knighthawk, one of the most advance aircraft in USAF inventory, at the time.

The F-117 was NOT the 'most advance' aircraft at that time. The F-117 had no radar and not even ECM. Its flight control system (FCS) came from the F-16. The F-117 was 'advance' only in your feeble attempt to make a mountain out of molehill for what was essentially a lucky shot by Zoltan Dani.

 

[randomradio]

It was 'textbook' in the sense that the situations were ideal for the air defense side, no matter what kind of missile used. Ideal situations are extremely rare in a real war, not a theoretical one. Commanders do not plan wars based upon 'textbook' situations.

As to how the F-117 was caught in that 'textbook' situations for the Serbian air defense? NATO flight rules. Nothing more to it.

The lesson we can take from this is, if you screw up, even the oldest Russian SAMs designed in the 60s can still kill you. Two instances of that in Serbia and the most recent one in Israel.