Battle For Gripen Fighters

[BOS2BKK]

Why don't you ask the pilots of the US Orion's and Vikings, the British Nimrods, or Russian Bears. They will be readily acknowledged as far more of a threat to a sub than even another sub, because quite simply the sub is absolutely no threat to them. They can drop sonar Buoys without even attempting to hide their position, actively seek a subs location, and direct Naval assets, or yes...I hate to break it to you... some aircraft are still equipped to drop torpedoes.

First, thank you for comments on the Gripen... which I didn't comment on, but still your comments on it were worthwhile.

As for the above submarine comments, IMHO, you got a couple things wrong. The biggest detection threat to a sub is another sub. By a wide margin.

Regarding aircraft detection of subs, even though they are the best in the world at sub detection, the P-3 Orion is still not very good at it. Yes, thee can actively seek all they want, but rarely will thee find. They other aspect is that the only country in SE Asia that has the P-3's.... is Thailand.

As for air-launched anti-submarine torpedoes, see the preceding post.

I am glad we agree on the Gripen purchase, thank you. I don't want to get too far off topic, but I do I do have to defend myself on the "Wrong by a wide margin point" Aircraft are the bane of a subs existence. Not necessarily because they can make mincemeat of it, as one poster questioned, but simply because they are so dissimilar. A subs value lies in it's stealthiness. Sub on Sub fights are a battle of who gets detected first. Like the bear hunting dogs used in Russia, the dog is no threat to the bear, but the dog forces the bear into a reactive posture, allowing the hunter to gain the upper hand. Aircraft work on the same principal, since they don't need to maintain secrecy of location they are able to actively seek a subs location. The security guard doesn't have to ever be aware of a burglar, but the sight of the approaching flashlight forces the burglar into a restricted range of options. Just the act of dropping SonoBuouys has the same effect on a sub. Aircraft don't do detections as well as another sub, but they succeed because they force the sub into a reactive/defensive operational posture to avoid detection, reactivity is an inherently weak position. A sub who's location is known is very soon a dead sub, by narrowing a subs maneuvering options it is more likely to be detected and attacked by air dropped torpedoes, even if they are not that effective. (Depth charges killed alot more sea life than submarines, but ask a WWII Submariner what the thing they feared most was?) but the most important capability of any aircraft is the vectoring of more effective naval assets such as other subs, and ASW surface ships.

I would point out that if the Saab system possesses this capability it would more probably be in the Airborne Radar support aircraft rather than in the Gripen itself.

That said... Back to the point of the post... I am happy to see the Thai military making a purchase with brains rather than their egos or balls. A good quality, versatile air superiority fighter that allows Thais more independence is a smart move.

[BOS2BKK]

This intro about the Gripen is made to sound good, and I suppose if Thailand does need the said aircraft (and can afford them, AND IT SAID THEY CAN) then by all means use them to train up your pilots. But this package has much more thought than the AIRCRAFT carrier-and the SUBMARINE buying, those two decisions, were in the least ridiculous, you could have bought 12 Gripen-OR better health care, Even Updating DON MUANG BKK second airport HUB, so not even spending the monies allocated on updating Swampy.

Concur - air supremacy wins most battes, not subs or tanks - we only have to see what is happening in Libya for results oriented as well as the Iraq forced submission. A few well armed aircraft make mincemeat of any ground or sea threat, far less man power and far less expensive to maintain.

Any country with as much coastline relative to it's landmass as Thailand is wise to invest in it's Navy. I will agree the aircraft carrier was a bit of a shortsighted purchase.

That said, if you have ever spent a minute in Thailand, you will know that long term thinking and sound judgement on purchases is not a Thai cultural strength.

Some old man was drunk at a bar and felt snubbed when his neighbor talked about his new DVD player....I mean some MP was probably at a conference and felt like he lost face when some other country talked about Aircraft carriers...so he convinced his wife to ship all his daughters off to the gogo bars...I mean he convinced Parliament of the value of raising revenue.... until the family could afford a DVD player...I mean the nation could afford an aircraft carrier....

The Thai people are lost if they are not trying to keep up with the Jones'. Aircraft Carriers and Subs are the Parliamentary equivalent of the iPhone and Toyota Hilux.

[luckizuchinni]

The Gripen is a first rate fighter, and trying to decry this will thought out comprehensive purchase initiative by comparing it to a low level corruption scandal like the GT200 is ridiculous. ... The Gripen purchase program is one of the most sensible decisions I have seen the Thai military make in the decade I have been following it. Like the wing commander said, they didn't just purchase the fighters, they purchased the airborne control aircraft, training, and maintenance as well. The Gripen is NATO STANAG, so it will wear any weapons package purchased from a NATO nation like the US or England, meaning they can arm it with their existing stock, and the biggest one, is the Swedes gave them training on the base technology, something the US and EU almost never do. This means the Thais can develop and expand the technology to suit their needs without having to depend on the good will of often fickle world powers. I applaud the Thais for this step towards independence.

Sorry, but the Gripen is not a "first rate fighter." The problems with it are many when compared to other available aircraft. However, it is a servicable fighter at a reasonable cost, so it may be a very solid choice for the Thai government.

The real threat to Thailand, in my opinion, is an increase in fighting in the south which could draw in Malaysia, and the Malaysian Air force, with both the SU-30 and F-18D would prove quite formidable to the Gripen. Without a conflict with Malaysia, though, the Gripen should do the job at a smaller cost than the newest incarnation of the F-16 or other options.

Edited April 10, 2011 by luckizuchinni

[BOS2BKK]

The Gripen is a first rate fighter, and trying to decry this will thought out comprehensive purchase initiative by comparing it to a low level corruption scandal like the GT200 is ridiculous. ... The Gripen purchase program is one of the most sensible decisions I have seen the Thai military make in the decade I have been following it. Like the wing commander said, they didn't just purchase the fighters, they purchased the airborne control aircraft, training, and maintenance as well. The Gripen is NATO STANAG, so it will wear any weapons package purchased from a NATO nation like the US or England, meaning they can arm it with their existing stock, and the biggest one, is the Swedes gave them training on the base technology, something the US and EU almost never do. This means the Thais can develop and expand the technology to suit their needs without having to depend on the good will of often fickle world powers. I applaud the Thais for this step towards independence.

Sorry, but the Gripen is not a "first rate fighter." The problems with it are many when compared to other available aircraft. However, it is a servicable fighter at a reasonable cost, so it may be a very solid choice for the Thai government.

The real threat to Thailand, in my opinion, is an increase in fighting in the south which could draw in Malaysia, and the Malaysian Air force, with both the SU-30 and F-18D would prove quite formidable to the Gripen. Without a conflict with Malaysia, though, the Gripen should do the job at a smaller cost than the newest incarnation of the F-16 or other options.

I am not sure where you are drawing your information on any of your points. First off, First rate, and absolute state of the art are not the same thing. Is the Gripen a fresh off the assembly line Raptor? No it isn't, but the Thais are a long way from that kind of a purchase. The Gripen is a reliable, well established multirole air superiority fighter, that is in front line service with a number of first world air forces, and has just undergone an extensive technology refit to bring it up to current standards. I am not sure what problems you are referring too. The SAAB had its share of the usual prototype issues that plague alot of new fighters, including the F18, but they were resolved 20 years and 3 variants ago.

It is absolutely a first rate MRCAC, and the Thais should be proud of their purchase. As for the Malays, You are not being objective. The upgrades made to the F/A18D models principally involve it's ground attack capabilities for the US Marines, which were not universally included in export models. (not sure what was or wasn't included in the Malaysian variant) As for the SU30 the Malaysians can barely keep them in the air, India has stopped supplying them with spare parts, and so has Russia. They did not buy an off the shelf version, instead piecing together components from whatever country would sell to them/give them a deal using the Indian licensed MK model as a base. You can not attribute directly the performance characteristics of the purebred Russian, or even the Indian knockoff.

In a war with Malaysia the Gripen is well matched in armament, speed, and climb rate to the Hornet and the Flanker. The Malay variant of the Flanker does have some maneuver advantage because it is a thrust vectoring aircraft, but like I said, the Malays did not anticipate the high maintenance burden of Soviet Era technology, are short of parts, and can barely keep them flying. All of these fighters are from the same era, and share much of the same level technology. With the exception of the Gripens new combat control and airborne early warning system. That is unique to the Saab. To my knowledge the Malays have no AWACS capability. And finally I didn't bring it up, because we are talking about the Gripen, let's not forget the Thais are still flying about 50 F-16s, most of which just received avionics upgrades.

If Thailand engaged in an air war with Malaysia it would surely be a battle of pilot skill not equipment superiority.

I am really at a loss as to why the purchase of a dozen new aircraft to replace an aging fleet of F5's has caused such a stir. Is it because they didn't "Buy American"?

Finally. The current insurgency in southern Thailand may well be supported by Malaysia, but it is hardly going to break into a full scale war. The Thais and Malays both participate in the Joint CARAT exercise with the US Navy every year. The Thais will more likely tangle with the Cambodians or the Vietnamese long before anything happens with the Malays, I am not sure what scenario you are envisioning where Malaysia and Thailand are in a full scale war without third party involvement. I would like to hear it though. I am always interested in a viewpoint I may not have considered. You can be certain of one thing. If Thailand goes to war at anything larger than border skirmish level, the US will be there.