Jump to content

Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.138.188.218 (talk) at 20:30, 26 July 2010 (→‎Comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Name of the article

Shouldn't the article name be "Saab 39 Gripen", and let the "JAS 39 Gripen"-page be a redirecting page. Magnus Andersson (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"JAS 39" is far more common. This appears to have been discussed here before at Talk:JAS 39 Gripen/Archive 1#Gripen versus JAS 39. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engine

How about a little info about the powerplant? This may be important because the US have blocked sales to South America because the Volvo engine is a licence-built General Electric F404. Saab and BAESystems have considered offering a version with an EJ200 for sale on the South American market. (Sapperhutch (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Do you have a link to an article about that? Seems unlikely that Boeing would bother talking to Brazil about the Super Hornet if all of South America is blocked.[1] -Fnlayson (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Gripen is also being offered to Brazil. Since BAE left the Gripen partnership in 2005, I think what the user is referring to is dated info. I doubt Saab would have chosen the new F414G to power te Gripen NG if it that issue was a problem they were worried about. If something from a reliable source can be found, then it could be worth addin gto the article history. I assume, however, that the user want's more info on the RM12 itself, not just the considered/rejected replacement with the EJ200? We can see what's out there, but most of that should be in the F404 article, if it isn't already.

Critisism section removed - and undone

Dear all, I edited the article on the Gripen jet-fighter on Wikipedia on 3:d of September 2008 adding to the existing entry "Critisism" the facts on the ongoing bribery investigations into all of the Gripen deals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAS_39_Gripen#Criticism)

That whole section was removed on the 7:th by signature "Ericris" who motivated the deletion with "Very poorly sourced, not NPOV (Neutral Point o View), and not criticism of the Gripen aircraft but the manufacturer, try the article on SAAB/BAe if any"

I do not share the statement "not NPOV" - quite the opposite. The text entered is solely based on the factual reporting done by reputable media institutions like SVT of Sweden, The Guardian, UK, and the New York Times.

None of the reporting used as basis for the text has been questioned by BAE or SAAB.

Im sorry if the entry seemed to be poorly sourced and have now added sources to all the relevant parts of the article - and included BAE:s and SAAB:s statement on the issue to enchance the NPOV.

I sincerely hope that wiki-world can handle also this part of the Gripen-saga and not just the part that the arms-industry would like to be what the wikipedia-user is getting.

I would very much like to communicate further with user "Ericris". Anyone who knows more than me about how to find and communicate with users on Wikipedia?

Yours

/F Laurin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaurin (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a little more detailed than we need on this article, which is about the plane. --John (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This article is about the aircraft itself, not about the business activities - irregular or not. Maybe the section could/should be trimmed a bit - and/or possibly moved to a sub-section of the "Development" section.
If there is sufficient material to support an article (of notability) on the business activities, then the material could be placed there, and referenced to in this article.
LarRan (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. To contact another user, just edit his/her talkpage.
OK. You are more experienced in the Wiki-world. And I see the point of fokusing on the plane. But it seems quite reasonable to me that since the business side of the project is fairly well covered in the article - the, in Sweden, very much disputed government grants to the Gripen-project and the subsequent bribery-scandals have a place in the same context. Flaurin (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Key word: "some" in that a judicious application of WP:WEIGHT must be administered. It is a relevant issue, should be mentioned but in context, the above posts indicate that trimming or "pruning" is in order. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
On the sources, it looks like Swedish public service television (SVT) is the primary source for this section. Other sources include "The Guardian" and "The Mail and Guardian" with nothing from New York Times. Most of this belongs in the Saab and BAE Systems articles, in my opinion like other company articles, e.g. Lockheed. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It might even justify an article of its own eventually, if enough reliably referenced information is available. --John (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been discussing this (in Swedish) with user flaurin, and it feels like we are arriving at the same conclusion. This is mainly criticism against the producer, and thus it should be placed there. The first paragraph (about the costs and the alledged motifs of the project) could remain here, but possibly as background info in the "Development" section, and possibly with a short reference and a link to a (new) criticism section in the Saab article. If the criticism amounts to an international level, or at least becomes notable in the English speaking world (this is the English wikipedia), maybe then it should have an article of its own, but until then I think a section in the Saab article will suffice. LarRan (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Like the Gripen, the V-22 has endured much criticism throughtout its development, but these have mostly focused on accidents, and design problems and limitations, not finanacial questions of its manufacturers (at least not yet!) As such, design controversies are rightly covered in the V-22 aircraft article, though they may get to the point where they overwhelm the article, and then need to be split off. The accident sections of both the V-22 and Gripen had to be split off for just this reason. While discussion on the V-22's controversies have often been very contentious, I am glad to see that the discussions here have been more peaceful (probably because I have not commented until now!) - BillCJ (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I am glad to see that the discussions here have been more peaceful" - Well thats because there is no American involvement (except for the "under licence" engine of course) LOL! Seriously though - the absence of US involvement (political interference) can in some cases be a "selling point" - if they can get a different engine. Roger (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I was referring to the discussions here on this topic, verses the contentious discussions on the V-22 page. Several Americans have been participating in this discussion. Btw, Saab has already chosen a new enginge for the Gripen, the F414G for the Gripen NG. Will we find out later that GE gave out huge bribes to Sabb for that selection? ;) - BillCJ (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Flaurin, I removed your section according to this:

  • Foremost, almost all of the 'sources' are non-English, which is not acceptable on English Wikipedia, see policy WP:NONENG
  • Several sources are pointing to trojkan.se, which apparently is Flaurin's (Fredrik Laurin) own domain. Self published sources are not acceptable, see policy WP:SPS
  • It contains weasel words such as "Skeptics claim...", a sure sign of a low quality text and against policy, see WP:WEASEL.
    (besides, it's probably the opposite of what "Skeptics claim" that is true, else Sweden would today sit with more than 200(!) heavy and much more expensive twin engined aircrafts such as F/A-18. Remember, the original order was on 320 Gripen aircrafts.)
  • The section does not describe a worldwide view (policy WP:NPOV). If I remember this correctly, prosecutors in both Hungary and Czech Republic (these are just the cases I remember on top of my head) have investigated these claims but have not found any evidence and thus closed their investigations. Which you conveniently fail to mention... In fact, I don't think a single person has been prosecuted on the basis of these bribe accusations, but correct me if I'm wrong. These type of accusations are common in affairs such as this, so it shouldn't come as a suprise.
  • You are criticising the manufacturer on the aircraft article.
    Also, if I understand your claims correctly, it's mainly the marketer/seller of Gripen, BAe and not SAAB, who you accuse. The article on BAe Systems already has a criticism section. If you rewrite your section according to Wikipedia standards I think it's more suitable you continue there.
  • A statement as 'Fokus 2008' is not acceptable as a source. Your "Mail and Guardian" source does not work etc etc etc...

Lastly, I acted according to:

Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page, quoted from policy WP:BURDEN.

You must also understand that any material without a reliable source can be removed (WP:BURDEN) according to the policies. Don't take it personally.

Ericris (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NONENG does not totally prohibit non-English sources. It says "editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages ...". English translation link would be included in the reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A VERY well known picture!!!!

The picture of the three split formation is taken by the world famous japanese photographer Katsuhiko Tokunaga [2] and NOT by the idiot User:S5switch who so far has not understod 20 other different warnings about copyright violations!! To claim it as his own is about as smart as saying he painted Mona Lisa!--Towpilot (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why not tag the image as unfree/copyrighted on Commons then? -Fnlayson (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice pictures in the Spanish article

There are some very nice pictures, especially on the canards and the HUD, in the Spanish article on Gripen. Could they be transferred here, without violating any copyrights? LarRan (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings LarRan. Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I've checked the status of the canard and HUD shots and they are both in WikiCommons, which means they can be used. I don't have time right now to copy, format & paste 'em, so maybe someone... Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where to add the close-up image of the canard. The HUD image in the Spanish article is actually one of an F/A-18 Hornet, not JAS 39. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Fnlayson. Before checking out the Spanish article, I had meant to add a comment that based on earlier experiences, the Sp. Wikipedia was not as rigourous as one would like to expect, but on such a technical matter, I thought maybe... Sigh! --Technopat (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. I just didn't want the image added here. I put the HUD image in the Hornet category on Commons. The Spanish wiki editors may be using the HUD image a representative view, since JAS 39 or Griphen is not mentioned in the caption. Ah does not matter much anyway... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does one transfer the canard picture from the Spanish wikipedia to the English?
LarRan (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, the canard pic is a Commons image, which means it does not need to be transferred to en.wiki. Just add the filename from Commons, File:Saab JAS 39 Gripen Canard.jpg, to an article just as you would any other image. - BillCJ (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norway

Norway went for the F35. Removed Norway from page http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2781493.ece Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

So add that Norway went with the F-35 to this article. That's not a valid reason to simply blank the section. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The Missed contract is biased. Only one side of this story is presented. Heavily biased for the Gripen. There's a lot more to this than what the writer has selectively included. As it stands now, it's flat out misleading. --Weduku (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explain further why there is bias; what is the opposing position? FWiW, and still waiting... Bzuk (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
What's your hurry? You can't grant me a little while here? If you had been following this issue, you would have know what I mean, but it takes a bit to dig up references and positions.
I entirely understand, but tagging a section as "biased" does require some verification. If that form of substantive data that you can research is forthcoming, then the tag can be considered suitable, but right now, the case has not been made. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Gripen weapons

Why this article doesn't mentioned than the Gripen can carry the bombs GBU-10 Paveway II? This is mentioned in the official website of the Gripen. Here is the link. --190.172.229.190 (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparable aircraft

Well, there seems to be some dispute once again about what constitutes "comparable". In this case, I would think any 4.5-gen fighter aircraft that also have a significant air-to-ground capacity would be comparable, without regard to such things as size. Because once you get into that type of categorization, where is the line drawn? Here is the current list in the article, and associated sizes (length and empty weight):

Gripen: 14.1 m, 5,700 kg
F-16E/F: 14.8 m, 8,670 kg
Rafale: 15.3 m, 9,500 kg
F-2: 15.5 m, 9,527 kg
J-10: 15.5 m, 9,730 kg
Typhoon: 16.0 m, 11,000 kg
F-18E/F: 18.3 m, 13,900 kg
MiG-35: 19 m, 11,000 kg
F-15E: 19.4 m, 14,300 kg

So someone tell me why any of the above 4.5-gen fighters wouldn't be comparable? ViperNerd (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because aircraft generation is pretty meaningless as a comparator and is just used to make aircraft users feel they are getting a better aircraft then the opposition. In some aircraft articles the comparable aircraft section has been removed to avoid disputes such as this. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is no well-defined guideline at WP:AIR for this section. So what should be done in this case? Single vs. dual-engined? Aircraft less than 10,000 kg? ViperNerd (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest just removing the secton, any really comparable aircraft would be mentioned in the main aticle body and be referenced. The section is just used as part of the mine is bigger than yours, or mine is the same as the big boys have campaigns by editors. MilborneOne (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To truely be comparable, they need to be in same role, similar mass, size, avionics Capabilities, and similar overall capabilities. Gripen seems to be a class on its own, being an "ultra" light fighter. Something like the F-5 series comes to mind, however, they are not in active combat service, and has not been.
Why not list F-35 as a comparable aircraft? I mean they are obviously competing against each other for contracts and serve a similar role which seems to be the only real way to measure if an aircraft is comparable. Some one might of course say that they one is a 4.5th generation aircraft and the other is a 5th generation aircraft but the generation definition does not really have any consensus in what constitutes one generation (or what aircrafts that belong to it), and neither is it used as a base for making decisions when nations look for new aircrafts. Besides comparable doesn't say that they have to be equally capable, only that they need to be similar enough so that a comparison is meaningful. And in this case since several nations have seriously considered acquiring either F-35 or JAS 39, it seems that a comparison is meaningful, and therefor they are comparable aircrafts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.7.74 (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Griffin

Gripen is definate article in Swedish, and hence the translation would be The Griffin in English. Indefinite article Griffin would be just Grip in Swedish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bärlein (talk • contribs) 13:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know that, but some things do not translate exactly from one language to another. LarRan (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Air Force

The Brazilian Air Force pilots put the JAS 39 Gripen at the best. Even so, Brazilian president Lula decided for the French Rafale. Agre22 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Sources?? - BilCat (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably an article like this one from Reuters. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canards on landing

I've modified that portion of the text where was said that canards can be tilted "downwards, making them into large air brakes and further pushing the aircraft down". If any elevation surface was moved downwards a positive lift at that particular portion of the fuselage will be generated. A canard equipped aircraft would depart from the ground with such command. So "downwards" was changed to "upwards". Observe that we're not talking about control stick movements, that are different between conventional tail aircraft and canard aircraft (control push lowers elevators on conventional tail A/C; control push raises canards on canard equipped A/C).RobertoRMola (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the photo at right, are the canards tilted "downward" or "upward"? - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^ Exactly, thx. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

He* don't mind showing my IP :) No big secret to that.

Just want to point out that Gripen had a supercruise ability already from the beginning, coming as a surprise for all involved as that synonym wasn't used then.

"There was one interesting problem,” Colonel Eldh concludes with a smile. “Gripen is supersonic at all altitudes and can cruise supersonically with an external load including fuel tank, four AMRAAM and two sidewinder missiles without the need to engage the afterburner. In the early days of operations, we found some pilots inadvertently flying supersonic over populated areas. The problem was one of habit, as these pilots had their throttle settings as high as on the older-generation fighters that Gripen replaced. “It is fair to say there were a few startled people on the ground, as their day-to-day work, or perhaps sleep, was disturbed by unexpected sonic booms! It was, of course, a simple task to solve the problem – the throttles were re-set and everyone was happy."

http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE463B06-8C9B-4A49-A382-999C6AF1E53B/0/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf

And where in the world did you get this idea from? "The Gripen fighter system is expeditionary in nature, and therefore well suited for peace-keeping missions worldwide, which has become the new main task of the Swedish Armed Forces." Before anything like that will happen there are going to be a really big Swedish debate, and I mean B I G.

Sources please, and Swedish ones that is, not Chinese, nor Nato :)


Gripen is built as an interceptor. It will go up under one minute from getting the waring, Arrange a radar silent box and wait for you. Using the data link it will fool your radar, and you, blow you out of the sky without 'illuminating' if necessary (tracking can be done by systems further away.) and then be back on base in about ten to fifteen minutes. It can fly for over two hours so that leaves it a lot of fuel for further fun.

And you're totally missing out on our ...over fifteen year old now... data link capabilities? We had them before anyone even had started to consider them (Draken). And even if we have to exchange it to an inferior Nato system, as we otherwise can't 'play' in the big sandbox, it should be mentioned I think, . the best data link in the world, and you don't mention it at all?

They are what will take down any other aircraft existing as they can work under jamming and are peer to peer, including those vehicles on the ground using the same system too. We have a 3-D radar cover at all times, and you won't jam it with less than using an nuclear Emp bomb, and even then I expect ours to work. So much missing in this article about our radar systems? And with NORA?


---Qoutes-----------------

Ericsson’s future airborne radar is Not Only a Radar, NORA, but also a complete electronic warfare system including jamming and data communication. The new radar will use an Active Electronically Scanned Array, AESA, built up with approximately 1000 individual transmit/receive modules. The antenna, mounted on a single-axis platform, will give well over 200˚ coverage in azimuth. NORA will offer superior performance by virtue of a number of core capabilities at Ericsson – beam agility, beam widening, multi-channel processing, target-specific waveforms and low radar cross-section.....

It's planned to scan +-60 deg electronically and 60 deg mechanically in azimut, permitting scanning over a 240 deg arc and electronically +-60 deg up and downwards. ...

Fully programmable signal and data processors enable the radar to handle these air defence, attack and reconnaissance missions. This also gives the radar a very high growth potential to meet future requirements. The radars flexible waveforms make it possible to avoid ambiguities and allow performance characteristics to be optimized for all operating modes. The radar also matches the data link requirements for advanced medium range missiles...Ericsson has started development work for upgrading the PS05/A multimode radar. Some of the up-grades have been possible to incorporate, since new, faster and more powerful processors and components have become available on the market. An essential part of these upgrades is a new data processor who will replace the D80 processor in the Systems Computer in Swedish Air Force Gripens. It is a Modular Airborne Computer System (MACS) with higher capacity. A significant upgrade of the signal processor is also included which will dramatically enhance functions in both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions....

Ericsson AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) is a new airborne radar project currently in development at Ericsson Microwave Systems. The AESA technology will improve the radars overall performance drastically, especially its target detection and tracking capability. Beam direction can be changed instantaneously, detection range will be considerably increased, and jamming suppression further improved. The AESA radar will feature multibeam capability with all beams individually and simultaneously controlled. It can also operate simultaneously as a fire control and obstacle warning radar, and be used both in intercept and ground attack missions. The multibeam concept also allows for radar operation, data linking, radar warning and jamming simultaneously. As a consequence of the very large number of transmitter and receiver modules, the radar will have a high system availability through graceful degradation...."

End Quotes-------------------

Not that we will be using that either it seems :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.169.1 (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You guys need to add the crash history and the corruption charges. Don't make this page look all rosy. That isn't what wiki is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.99.117 (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft is not guilty of bribery. It's individuals who are. The crash history is in a separate article, which is linked to in the incidents section. 79.138.188.218 (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saab_JAS_39_Gripen&oldid=375611269"