History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:27 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 4886
Location: Sweden
I don't know what they've changed to make it an aggressor but I love the paint job! :D

Stuart, time to make a push for it again. ;)
Image
Quote:
SAAB PRESENTS GRIPEN AGGRESSOR

PRESS RELEASE
12 September 2017
Defence and security company Saab presents a new variant of Gripen, Gripen Aggressor. Gripen Aggressor is based on the proven Gripen C-series and is the ultimate platform for the adversary air combat training market. Gripen Aggressor brings a unique mix of high performance, mission flexibility and availability combined with a low life cycle cost.
There is a growing segment within the adversary air combat training market for highly advanced aggressor capabilities to be able to perform realistic combat training. Gripen Aggressor provides an exceptional, dissimilar opponent aircraft system against which pilots will sharpen and refine their combat skills so as to fight and win against an advanced enemy threat.
“There is a major difference in the capabilities provided by the aggressors on the market today and what the need is for the coming years. In order to train as you fight, you need to fly advanced combat tactics against peer and near peer opponents like the Gripen Aggressor. Essentially world class pilots need to train against world class opponents and that is the Gripen Aggressor”, says Richard Smith, head of Gripen marketing & sales at Saab.
Gripen Aggressor is based on the proven Gripen C-series fighter weapon system, but has been customised for the aggressor role. It has all the renowned handling and flight characteristics associated with the Gripen C and its advanced sensor and datalink capabilities, but will not carry live armament. The Gripen C-series is in-service across the world including NATO members and has a firm development plan with on-going enhancements in hand.
An aggressor, or adversary, aircraft, is used to act as an opposing force in advanced military combat training. Aggressor squadrons use enemy tactics, techniques, and procedures to provide a realistic environment for the fighter pilots to train against. Saab sees potential for the platform as a high-level aggressor option within both the United States Air Force’s Adversary Air (ADAIR) and UK MOD’s Air Support to Defence Operational Training (ASDOT) requirements, and wherever users look to prepare pilots for the challenges of sophisticated modern air combat.
The Gripen Aggressor concept is being shown for the first time at DSEI 2017, London, UK.

A few seconds of video footage is available here: https://twitter.com/saab/status/907538805523087360

[edit] A bit longer video here: https://twitter.com/saab/status/907544662826786816

_________________
"Messieurs, je suis Vermlandais, Vermlandais véritable!".


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 4886
Location: Sweden
A few details.
Image

_________________
"Messieurs, je suis Vermlandais, Vermlandais véritable!".


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 am
Posts: 6674
Location: Where the grass is green and the girls are pretty
I'm not following the point of a dedicated Aggressor aircraft that can't be used for real-life killing people and breaking things when necessary.

_________________
"The double tap is a myth. Shoot the threat until it goes away. Only then will his soul find peace." -- Dalai Lama


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 4886
Location: Sweden
Poohbah wrote:
I'm not following the point of a dedicated Aggressor aircraft that can't be used for real-life killing people and breaking things when necessary.

Well, as I gather they're intended to realistically simulate potential opponents in a manner the line birds can't.
As for why build it without weapons capability I suppose it could be a cost thing but I suspect that Stuart has a better explanation.

Another photo, I really like this paint!
Image

_________________
"Messieurs, je suis Vermlandais, Vermlandais véritable!".


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 am
Posts: 6674
Location: Where the grass is green and the girls are pretty
Micael wrote:
Poohbah wrote:
I'm not following the point of a dedicated Aggressor aircraft that can't be used for real-life killing people and breaking things when necessary.

Well, as I gather they're intended to realistically simulate potential opponents in a manner the line birds can't.
As for why build it without weapons capability I suppose it could be a cost thing but I suspect that Stuart has a better explanation.

Another photo, I really like this paint!
Image


OK, yeah, that is an epic paint job.

Can I get it with spinner rims? :lol:

_________________
"The double tap is a myth. Shoot the threat until it goes away. Only then will his soul find peace." -- Dalai Lama


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:39 am
Posts: 318
Location: UK
Micael wrote:
Poohbah wrote:
I'm not following the point of a dedicated Aggressor aircraft that can't be used for real-life killing people and breaking things when necessary.

Well, as I gather they're intended to realistically simulate potential opponents in a manner the line birds can't.
As for why build it without weapons capability I suppose it could be a cost thing but I suspect that Stuart has a better explanation.

Another photo, I really like this paint!
Image

I would have expected that with limited or no real-life combat capability it would be somewhat lighter thus have a greater thrust-weight ratio, obviously for a higher performance across the board. I could be wrong of course, but IIRC the Agressor (or was it TopGun) F16N's were stripped-down early model Vipers, from before the design had matured into an overweight bomb truck. I do know with the the later C models they had to enlarge the wing area and issue more powerful engines to restore the sparkling performance of the originals. I would be most surprise if SAAB haven't learned from this in coming up with this dedicated dissimilar ACT. After all the USAF's Aggressors found the original F5E a very good simulator for the MiG19/21, and they weren't combat capable, in practice.

(Just my tuppence-worth) Andy

_________________
Andy L

"Never trust anything you have to sign for. Look what happened to Neville Chamberlain...."
(Albert Arkright, as reported by Gerald Whiley)

"Leave Us . . . We Are DECORATING!" (Miss Quill, as recounted by Katherine Kelly)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:35 am
Posts: 4886
Location: Sweden
Poohbah wrote:
Micael wrote:
Poohbah wrote:
I'm not following the point of a dedicated Aggressor aircraft that can't be used for real-life killing people and breaking things when necessary.

Well, as I gather they're intended to realistically simulate potential opponents in a manner the line birds can't.
As for why build it without weapons capability I suppose it could be a cost thing but I suspect that Stuart has a better explanation.

Another photo, I really like this paint!
Image


OK, yeah, that is an epic paint job.

Can I get it with spinner rims? :lol:

Yeah I bet Ghost squadron is wishing they can paint their planes right now, they're leading the pack on the graphics side around here right now.
:D
Image
Image
Image

_________________
"Messieurs, je suis Vermlandais, Vermlandais véritable!".


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7100
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
Poohbah wrote:
I'm not following the point of a dedicated Aggressor aircraft that can't be used for real-life killing people and breaking things when necessary.

I'm going to say it's a mix of politics and cost. Cost is fairly obvious. We either need to buy the support system or put our own systems in, neither of which are cheap. As for politics, if we buy full Gripens, the various domestic manufacturers start screaming about how we're trying to undercut them. If we buy ones with no real combat capability, then they're obviously just for training and the problem goes away.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:39 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10153
Micael wrote:
Well, as I gather they're intended to realistically simulate potential opponents in a manner the line birds can't. As for why build it without weapons capability I suppose it could be a cost thing but I suspect that Stuart has a better explanation.

Deleting weapons capability also significantly reduces maintenance time and running cost. That's important in what is basically a training aircraft. Also (a feature nobody talks about but it's there) deleting live weapons capability also means deleting the chance that somebody will squeeze off a live round by accident. It can't happen of course, there are so many procedures in place to stop that happening only it does. . . . .

There's another reason as well. essentially, weapons installations on fighter aircraft are divided into two classes, draggy and non-draggy. Draggy weapons significantly reduce an aircraft's speed and agility. Carrying them (actually dummies) on an aggressor aircraft is counter-productive. Anyway, why? For the reason above nobody should be carrying live weapons anyway and having provision for dummies means as sure as the Gods made little apples, somebody will load a live one thinking its a dummy. Can't happen - only it does. The non-draggy weapons stations have other uses - there are tracking and telemetry pods that are essential for the aggressor role - they are the things that determine if a "missile launch" is going to hit its target or not. They also provide the situational awareness for the people down on the ground to construct the tapes that are then used for debriefing.

There's another important advantage to the Gripen Aggressor and that's it is a different aircraft. Nobody else in the US armed services flies it. That means when pilots go up against it, they're uncertain what it can and cannot do. US pilots in particular are intimately familiar with their aircraft so if (for example) an F-18 is flying against another F-18, each pilot knows exactly what his opponent can and can't do. an F-18 vs an F-16 is still a matter of two very familiar aircraft against each other although its not as bad as two identical aircraft. The Gripen is like nothing else around (for good and for bad) so pilots up against it are really in a very similar position to fighting an unfamiliar enemy aircraft.

By the way, you'll often find comments that "the USAF and USN didn't do air combat training before Vietnam" usually followed by a diatribe against missiles and in favor of guns. Actually, both services did only it was usually an in-squadron thing with two identical types against each other. EG F-4 vs F-4 or F-106 vs F-106. Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) was relatively unusual not least because it is inherently risky. When the pilots flew against MiG-21s and MiG-19s for the first time, they got a nasty shock because they don't fly the same way. That's when DACT became the norm rather than the exception.

Sorry, can't comment on any pushes being made right now.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:56 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:00 am
Posts: 13226
Location: At the computer, or tablet.
Quote:
there are so many procedures in place to stop that happening only it does. . .


Just ask the RAF...

_________________
Adrian Carton de Wiart, VC wrote:
Frankly I had enjoyed the war...and why do people want peace if the war is so much fun?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:17 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10153
Bernard Woolley wrote:
Quote:
there are so many procedures in place to stop that happening only it does. . .


Just ask the RAF...

The first F-16 ever lost in combat was shot down by his wingman . . . And there's the famous case of a B-52 shot down by an F-104

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5429
Just ask Minot AFB about loading live ones instead of dummies. And those should be quite a bit more controlled than mere explosive ordnance.

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:41 am 
Offline
Mockingbird

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:29 am
Posts: 3819
Location: BB-16, BB-62
According to this, http://www.angelfire.com/dc/jinxx1/images/Shootdown.html, it was an F-100 that shot down a B-52. If there is more than one incident where a B-52 was shot down by a "friendly" fighter, I'd like to read about all of them.

Thanks
Belushi TD


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:44 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 5815
Location: Cambs, UK
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Bernard Woolley wrote:
Quote:
there are so many procedures in place to stop that happening only it does. . .


Just ask the RAF...

The first F-16 ever lost in combat was shot down by his wingman . . . And there's the famous case of a B-52 shot down by an F-104


Now that's a story that needs telling.......

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:54 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10153
Belushi TD wrote:
According to this, http://www.angelfire.com/dc/jinxx1/images/Shootdown.html, it was an F-100 that shot down a B-52. If there is more than one incident where a B-52 was shot down by a "friendly" fighter, I'd like to read about all of them.


I looked it up; it was an F-100. It's often reported as being an F-104 though since that was what the rumor mill said at the time.

The F-16 was in Pakistan. Two F-16s took off to intercept an inbound. The wingman flipped thes witch to arm his AIM-9s and one fired straight up his leader's tailpipe. IIRC there was moisture in the firing circuits causing a short.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:39 am
Posts: 318
Location: UK
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Belushi TD wrote:
According to this, http://www.angelfire.com/dc/jinxx1/images/Shootdown.html, it was an F-100 that shot down a B-52. If there is more than one incident where a B-52 was shot down by a "friendly" fighter, I'd like to read about all of them.


I looked it up; it was an F-100. It's often reported as being an F-104 though since that was what the rumor mill said at the time.

The F-16 was in Pakistan. Two F-16s took off to intercept an inbound. The wingman flipped thes witch to arm his AIM-9s and one fired straight up his leader's tailpipe. IIRC there was moisture in the firing circuits causing a short.


Should've kept his powder dry then!

_________________
Andy L

"Never trust anything you have to sign for. Look what happened to Neville Chamberlain...."
(Albert Arkright, as reported by Gerald Whiley)

"Leave Us . . . We Are DECORATING!" (Miss Quill, as recounted by Katherine Kelly)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:20 pm 
Offline
Legendary Overlord
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:17 am
Posts: 4946
Bernard Woolley wrote:
Quote:
there are so many procedures in place to stop that happening only it does. . .


Just ask the RAF...


And the USN.....

:oops:

_________________
Maybe the problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 4950
Location: EGUD
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Sorry, can't comment on any pushes being made right now.

As a general observation rather than expecting an answer, I've got a strong suspicion that they're using the commonality between Gripen and the Boeing T-X as a major selling point...

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7215
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Francis Urquhart wrote:
There's another important advantage to the Gripen Aggressor and that's it is a different aircraft. Nobody else in the US armed services flies it. That means when pilots go up against it, they're uncertain what it can and cannot do. US pilots in particular are intimately familiar with their aircraft so if (for example) an F-18 is flying against another F-18, each pilot knows exactly what his opponent can and can't do. an F-18 vs an F-16 is still a matter of two very familiar aircraft against each other although its not as bad as two identical aircraft. The Gripen is like nothing else around (for good and for bad) so pilots up against it are really in a very similar position to fighting an unfamiliar enemy aircraft.

The same reason the Marines bought Kfirs, as I recall. When were the F-21s retired anyway?

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Gripen Aggressor
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:33 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:32 pm
Posts: 6031
Not exactly retired.

From Wiki

Quote:
Six Kfirs are also used by the US firm Airborne Tactical Advantage Company (ATAC), a civilian defense contractor that provides tactical adversary aircraft services to the US military.[10] ATAC provides airborne tactical training, threat simulation, and research & development. ATAC's corporate headquarters and primary operating location is located at Patrick Henry International Airport in Newport News, VA, with additional permanent operating locations at US Naval Air Stations and Marine Corps Air Stations in California, Nevada, Hawaii and Japan. ATAC also operates Hawker Hunter F.58s.[11] On March 6, 2012, an ATAC Kfir, FAA registration N404AX, crashed while landing at NAS Fallon, Nevada after a flight supporting the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center. The pilot, retired USN Captain Carroll "Lex" LeFon, was fatally injured.[12]

_________________
Faugh a Ballagh


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jemhouston, Someone Else and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group