It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Belgium/Holland to replace F-16`s?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Both countries use F-16`s (and both are part of the big 4 european countries that brought the type to europe)


wel 2 of the countries are going with Gripen to replace the same vintage aircraft - Denmark have allready signed up for `76` (figure i`ve heard) JAS39`s.


whilst Norway are seriously tempted to the type - they have seen teh JAS39 A/B , and now are looking at the JAS39 C/D as doing everything they want.

That leavs both Belgium and Holland as teh only euro operators


both have old aircraft of the type - most are more than 20 years old now and some are nearly 25!!

yes they both fly F-16 A/B block 10/15.


Now will they go the same route as the danes and probably norway and get the JAS39? or will the carry on with old aircraft - heck these planes are older than my project car!!

[edit on 5/1/06 by Harlequin]




posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Harlequin,

I /seriously/ doubt that the Danes will take 76 JAS or anything like that number. Last I heard, the Swedes themselves were looking at as few as 130 jets and have sales-pitched the airframe around the world as a means to do all missions (including such 'peacetime' activities as border recce and ELINT) from just a few bases and/or CAP orbits per nation.

In point of truth, given the failure of the EU Constitution effort, I think that you are looking at a scenario somewhere between an independent contract security organization (possibly regionally/ethnically as a Nordic type op which effectively militarizes a Panavia/Eurofighter production arm). Or a movement towards passivism in trade for lead-country Continental dominance by a Franco-German or similar association of states.

NATO is the one thing standing in the way of this as there are several clauses to the treaty which prevent independent operational communities within the overall Alliance.

However the expansion of treaty authority to external actions outside of Europe. Along with the various idiocies we've gotten ourselves mired in as 'moral leaders of the free world oppression league' have opened the door to some /major/ changes in the way the Charter is set up to operate.

Changes which will become defacto inevitable when we pull out of Germany in the next few years.

In terms of quality of replacement value, frankly, the JAS is no better and in some ways worse than the F-16 in every major area including readily available sensor suites, EW, thrust and radius for tankage and multiple weapons options (all of which more or less match or exceed the Swedish jet, to this day).

There are differences of course. Last I heard, the JAS was down around 2,000 dollars per flight hour while the F-16C.50 was averaging about 3,600 and older models went as high as 5 grande (MLU may have changes this somewhat if there was a Falcon Up/CUPID type structural mod). Similarly multinationalization of items like Meteor, ASRAAM, IRIS-T and LITENING will /eventually/ give the Gripen better SSPK options on the A2A end than a purely-American driven 'budget buys in bulk' ordnance menu.

If the U.S. really wanted to compete with Europe on the light end of the market we would have bought off (buyed-in to) the UAE Blk.60 R&D ammortization and be selling the resulting F-16E as a 132/232 powered jet with AVEN/PBBN and AESA for about 20 million as a part of our own downsize/reequipment emphasis on a _NON LO_ homeland defense capability.

This would match the JAS, easily, for baseline flyaway price (when I was reading AvLeak in the early nineties, this was already 42 million for the A/B model) and provide the airshow sex appeal of a jet that could do everything the Su-35 could at about 1/20th of the price.

Of course 'our model' would likely include terminal defense interceptors for radar weapons and DIRCM for heatshots and everyone would politely turn their heads and cough when it came time to justify the aircraft's real capabilities (as a penetrating strike airframe) with some nonsense argument about multi-on-multi JDAM vs. Fighter-Cruise 'D1/R1' standoffs.

But the fact remains that while they are not as sexy as the 'new' (20 years old) Gripens, the Viper is fully as capable of day to day intercept and sovereignity mission tasking and in many of it's gee-whiz (useless physical performance modifier) subsystems and LO modification could actually be made rather superior.

IF we were interested in selling it as an old lamp in the Genie age of stealth.

CONCLUSION:
I must admit that I am biased. I think that the Swedes took a good, basic, design for a followon attack jet (to replace the SK.60 as much as Viggen) and then oversold it based on some rather poor design trades and configurational choices which were clearly no longer appropriate or necessary (LDSD makes STOL moot for instance) and ended up with an under fractioned, underpowered, overly draggy final moldline which is STILL utterly dependent on the weapons suite to determinatively make the grade as a short range fighter.

That said, I am and always have been an interested admirer in their ability to configure network based multiaperture, multi-command level systems on a budget and I believe that they could really do something with a JAS-39 (or S-100 mod) airframe designed to function as a combat controller for 'real' warfighter UCAVs.

The problem is that Sweden is still a tiny nation and as the cost of integrating the various features of a modern combat system have gone up, so too have their force restructuring vs. five-year swing plan (Army Leopards, Navy Frigate/Subs, AF Fighter/STRIL upgrades) economics fallen short of the truly massive cuts needed to finance the next-best-thing for export.

I think they have missed the opening now and at best can only lumpsum add their efforts to the giant EADS efforts which will almost certainly be C4ISR and prime-integrator dominanted by French and German design teams with the most political muscle in the EU.

Neutrality hurt the Swedes, badly, in establishing themselves as a Euro power in their own right and now that they have decided to export like everyone else, they have too much old-school leverage to defeat.

Even as SAAB's marketing ties through BAe will come to be seen as a handicap when the Brits come prodigalling back to the Continent after JSF blows up in everyone's faces.


KPl.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
The thing is , that Denmark Holland and belgium have all signed up to the F-35 , but if the rumours are true , then denmark will pull out - the airframes are very old now and need replacing sooner rather than later.


The JAS39 has capabilites that the F-16 doesn`t have - for one the radar in the JAS39 IS better than the old unit in the lawn dart ; stealth spy did a good break down on exactly what it can do , and the things it can do now - rather than wait for any R&D needed for a new block of the F-16 to keep t
he production lines open.

I can see them getting a good number of JAS39`s - they need to replace what they have - which at last count was 62 F-16 (not including attrition loses)

I don`t know where you got the number of 130 from - 208 have been bought and paid for with 18 months left on the swedish air force own production run.

They have 117 in service with another 84 to be delivered

www.aeroflight.co.uk...


If the usa wanted to compete in the light fighter market then maybe they should - as the want to , but can`t get the orders!

[edit on 5/1/06 by Harlequin]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
We could argue over the relative meritsd of the F-16 and Gripen all day, however an absolute fact is the the Gripen IS much more modern and capable, not to mention flexible and cost effective, than the F-16A that it is replacing. The F-16C-50 is an altogether diffrent matter.

The Gripen though is smaller lighter and cheaper. Its fuel costs will be significantly lower and these are major factors to small air forces on limited budgets.

The point I made on another thread about US political baggage that is borne of being 'allowed' to use US built warplanes is also something worth considering when the reasons for buying the Gripen are being evaluated.




top topics
 
0

log in

join