Fighters, fighters, and some bombers? Air combat: past, present, future.

[miletus12]

Ever wonder why the XF-35 beat out the XF-32?

[miletus12]

The P-39 gets its rap sheet spelled out.

[miletus12]

Why is Germany paying 240,000,000 per F-35s? That is what it will cost the USAF to rebuild the Luftwaffe. That is how far back the Luftwaffe has fallen behind the rest of NATO's air forces. Ground maintenance and aircraft support is almost non-existent.

The presenter does not make this case quite clear.

[miletus12]

This is a cover program that should be of interest.

I cannot believe that this program has slipped this far under the radar. The engine is a combined cycle slam ram.

The USAF is funding this, so it is not just a commercial start-up. I think they are after the engine. If they can make it work, it will have interesting applications.

[miletus12]

F-16 or Gripen?

Politically and logistically, it should be F-16, but the Chickenhawk will probably tilt it toward the Gripen.

[stevep]

Nov 18, 2022 8:13:05 GMT miletus12 said:

F-16 or Gripen?

Politically and logistically, it should be F-16, but the Chickenhawk will probably tilt it toward the Gripen.

  As mentioned elsewhere on this site experts argue for the Gripen as the best answer for Ukraine.  The F-16 could be a post-war alternative if Ukraine can afford the higher costs, especially of maintenance and the need for constructing markedly longer fixed runways.  Of course the latter makes the a/c easier to target in a future war by an opponent that has access to satellite technology.

[miletus12]

Nov 18, 2022 14:08:28 GMT stevep said:

Nov 18, 2022 8:13:05 GMT miletus12 said:

F-16 or Gripen?

Politically and logistically, it should be F-16, but the Chickenhawk will probably tilt it toward the Gripen.

  As mentioned elsewhere on this site experts argue for the Gripen as the best answer for Ukraine.  The F-16 could be a post-war alternative if Ukraine can afford the higher costs, especially of maintenance and the need for constructing markedly longer fixed runways.  Of course the latter makes the a/c easier to target in a future war by an opponent that has access to satellite technology.

The F-16 is a cheap, easy to maintain fighter, and a throwaway attrition unit. When Gripen and it have gone head to head, it usually wins.  The sole "advantage" Gripen has is runway length operating distance.    

[stevep]

Nov 18, 2022 17:34:50 GMT miletus12 said:

Nov 18, 2022 14:08:28 GMT stevep said:

  As mentioned elsewhere on this site experts argue for the Gripen as the best answer for Ukraine.  The F-16 could be a post-war alternative if Ukraine can afford the higher costs, especially of maintenance and the need for constructing markedly longer fixed runways.  Of course the latter makes the a/c easier to target in a future war by an opponent that has access to satellite technology.

The F-16 is a cheap, easy to maintain fighter, and a throwaway attrition unit. When Gripen and it have gone head to head, it usually wins.  The sole "advantage" Gripen has is runway length operating distance.    

  That disagrees with a video that you yourself posted and which I pointed out mentioned the superiority of the Gripen while the current war is ongoing.  The other advantages of the Gripen mentioned was that the Gripen is a lot tougher in working on rough strips, which the Ukrainians are using a lot and possibly most of all far easier to maintain that the F16.

[miletus12]

Nov 19, 2022 10:46:15 GMT stevep said:

Nov 18, 2022 17:34:50 GMT miletus12 said:

The F-16 is a cheap, easy to maintain fighter, and a throwaway attrition unit. When Gripen and it have gone head to head, it usually wins.  The sole "advantage" Gripen has is runway length operating distance.    

  That disagrees with a video that you yourself posted and which I pointed out mentioned the superiority of the Gripen while the current war is ongoing.  The other advantages of the Gripen mentioned was that the Gripen is a lot tougher in working on rough strips, which the Ukrainians are using a lot and possibly most of all far easier to maintain that the F16.

The statemetnts do not historically measure up and actually do not agree with what I wrote when I disagreed with that video. You will recall I mentioned the Rafale and the Panavia Tornado?  I also pointed out that the F-16 was not that different in intent from the Gripen, but that it did have a long takeoff run which made the Gripen somewhat more suitable as a rough strip operator.


  

[stevep]

Nov 19, 2022 16:32:06 GMT miletus12 said:

Nov 19, 2022 10:46:15 GMT stevep said:

  That disagrees with a video that you yourself posted and which I pointed out mentioned the superiority of the Gripen while the current war is ongoing.  The other advantages of the Gripen mentioned was that the Gripen is a lot tougher in working on rough strips, which the Ukrainians are using a lot and possibly most of all far easier to maintain that the F16.

The statemetnts do not historically measure up and actually do not agree with what I wrote when I disagreed with that video. You will recall I mentioned the Rafale and the Panavia Tornado?  I also pointed out that the F-16 was not that different in intent from the Gripen, but that it did have a long takeoff run which made the Gripen somewhat more suitable as a rough strip operator.

  That's the point.  The video mentioned suggested that the Gripen was best for the immediate crisis but that the F-16 might be better in the longer term.  Basic differences being the ability to operate off shorter and less heavy runways and the much lower maintenance burden.  You then mentioned that it suggested the F-16 as the answer to Ukraine's problems with only brief mentions by you of the existence of other a/c such as the Gripen, Rafale & Tornado, the latter two not being mentioned in the video at all IIRC. 

  I then pointed out this was inaccurate and what the video actually said and you then repeated the same basic suggestion - i.e. the F-16 for immediate use again.  Thus repeating the incorrect information from before.  If you have made clear that the F-16 was your choice and that you disagreed with the statements of the people in the video on the Gripen being a better option it would be a different matter.

[miletus12]

You have MISREAD me completely.

1. The F-16 is numerous and its support is global. Its maintenance is a bit more complex than Gripen but not as much as SAAB claims.
2. Outside of Hungary and Brazil, the Gripen is a bolo on the international and global scene. Nations with a choice, INCLUDING SINGAPORE which has a short takeoff runway requirement, bought the Falcon. I supplied evidence of how Singapore uses its Falcons.

That is what I wrote. Then I wrote where Gripen has the one operational advantage over the Falcon. It has a shorter takeoff run. That is it.

Then I noted other short take off candidates which might be available since the Chickenhawk has made the political decision to delay Falcon to Ukraine. Chief are Rafale, which is a bit of a sticker because there are not that many to cough up and France might want to keep all that she has for obvious reasons, and Qatar is well... Qatar. I mentioned the Panavia Tornado, which is another problem, because the Germans and Italians are the chief operators. You do understand the problems?

And suppose Sweden does offer Gripen? There are 270 or half the number of Rafales. Good luck prying them away from Hungary, Czechia and the bandit regime of South Africa. Sweden would have to BUILD THEM. She wants to hang onto hers for the same reason France wants to hang onto the Rafale.

================================================================================

Falcons can come from more flexible EU members like Holland, Poland and so forth. No Chickenhawk to get in the way. That would be about 100 birds in the hand right now. But we still have the US as the main Falcon supplier.



Work by Gusfriend. (^^^)

Want to guess how soon Poland unloads? As soon as the Lightnings arrive?

[stevep]

Nov 20, 2022 17:47:41 GMT miletus12 said:

You have MISREAD me completely.

1. The F-16 is numerous and its support is global. Its maintenance is a bit more complex than Gripen but not as much as SAAB claims.
2. Outside of Hungary and Brazil, the Gripen is a bolo on the international and global scene. Nations with a choice, INCLUDING SINGAPORE which has a short takeoff runway requirement, bought the Falcon. I supplied evidence of how Singapore uses its Falcons.

That is what I wrote. Then I wrote where Gripen has the one operational advantage over the Falcon. It has a shorter takeoff run. That is it.

Then I noted other short take off candidates which might be available since the Chickenhawk has made the political decision to delay Falcon to Ukraine. Chief are Rafale, which is a bit of a sticker because there are not that many to cough up and France might want to keep all that she has for obvious reasons, and Qatar is well... Qatar. I mentioned the Panavia Tornado, which is another problem, because the Germans and Italians are the chief operators. You do understand the problems?

And suppose Sweden does offer Gripen? There are 270 or half the number of Rafales. Good luck prying them away from Hungary, Czechia and the bandit regime of South Africa. Sweden would have to BUILD THEM. She wants to hang onto hers for the same reason France wants to hang onto the Rafale.

================================================================================

Falcons can come from more flexible EU members like Holland, Poland and so forth. No Chickenhawk to get in the way. That would be about 100 birds in the hand right now. But we still have the US as the main Falcon supplier.



Work by Gusfriend. (^^^)

Want to guess how soon Poland unloads? As soon as the Lightnings arrive?

  Actually I haven't.  I know what you have said.  I have just pointed out the two experts in the video said otherwise.  Your initial comments were made in such a way that it was unclear whether they were your personal view or that stated in the video but viewing it the former is the case.

[miletus12]

Nov 21, 2022 15:41:49 GMT stevep said:

Nov 20, 2022 17:47:41 GMT miletus12 said:

You have MISREAD me completely.

1. The F-16 is numerous and its support is global. Its maintenance is a bit more complex than Gripen but not as much as SAAB claims.
2. Outside of Hungary and Brazil, the Gripen is a bolo on the international and global scene. Nations with a choice, INCLUDING SINGAPORE which has a short takeoff runway requirement, bought the Falcon. I supplied evidence of how Singapore uses its Falcons.

That is what I wrote. Then I wrote where Gripen has the one operational advantage over the Falcon. It has a shorter takeoff run. That is it.

Then I noted other short take off candidates which might be available since the Chickenhawk has made the political decision to delay Falcon to Ukraine. Chief are Rafale, which is a bit of a sticker because there are not that many to cough up and France might want to keep all that she has for obvious reasons, and Qatar is well... Qatar. I mentioned the Panavia Tornado, which is another problem, because the Germans and Italians are the chief operators. You do understand the problems?

And suppose Sweden does offer Gripen? There are 270 or half the number of Rafales. Good luck prying them away from Hungary, Czechia and the bandit regime of South Africa. Sweden would have to BUILD THEM. She wants to hang onto hers for the same reason France wants to hang onto the Rafale.

================================================================================

Falcons can come from more flexible EU members like Holland, Poland and so forth. No Chickenhawk to get in the way. That would be about 100 birds in the hand right now. But we still have the US as the main Falcon supplier.



Work by Gusfriend. (^^^)

Want to guess how soon Poland unloads? As soon as the Lightnings arrive?

  Actually I haven't.  I know what you have said.  I have just pointed out the two experts in the video said otherwise.  Your initial comments were made in such a way that it was unclear whether they were your personal view or that stated in the video but viewing it the former is the case.

The two experts actually agree with me but omit the Panavia Tornado option. Go back and watch it again.  You will understand where you missed the congruences and divergences. About halfway through.

[stevep]

Nov 21, 2022 19:09:18 GMT miletus12 said:

Nov 21, 2022 15:41:49 GMT stevep said:

  Actually I haven't.  I know what you have said.  I have just pointed out the two experts in the video said otherwise.  Your initial comments were made in such a way that it was unclear whether they were your personal view or that stated in the video but viewing it the former is the case.

The two experts actually agree with me but omit the Panavia Tornado option. Go back and watch it again.  You will understand where you missed the congruences and divergences. About halfway through.

  They said openly that while the F-16 would be the best post war answer for Ukraine the Gripen would be the best current option during the war IF the political issues of Sweden being willing to export them could be overcome.  This was because its markedly lower maintenance load and that it could operate from the short and rugged runways the Ukrainians are currently having to use.  The F-16 has a more fragile under-carriage as well as needing a much longer runway.  You go back, read it again and that's what you will hear from them.

[miletus12]

Nov 22, 2022 10:48:11 GMT stevep said:

  They said openly that while the F-16 would be the best post war answer for Ukraine the Gripen would be the best current option during the war IF the political issues of Sweden being willing to export them could be overcome.  This was because its markedly lower maintenance load and that it could operate from the short and rugged runways the Ukrainians are currently having to use.  The F-16 has a more fragile under-carriage as well as needing a much longer runway.  You go back, read it again and that's what you will hear from them.

And I told you "why" that would not happen.

The F-16 incidentally does not have a "fragile" undercarriage.



You do understand what you just saw?