I agree with your premise, but those metaphors are horrible.
It would be like giving the USSR an R class whilst giving the UK Marlborough, yes the USSR used the R class, but so did tbe UK and Marlborough is worse than the R class.
And before people forget again, the UK is a codeveloper of Gripen, like how Lockheed Martin helped with the KF-21 Boramae. The UK were the ones who modernised it from the A to C.
That said the UK should have at best the same variant of the Gripen as Sweden, and te current statement of the next major isnt satisfactory, they should just reskin the one in the UK TT.
Do you have any sources for the UK helping to develop the airframe? I can find only mentions to BAE helping advertise the Batch 3 models internationally for a few years then taking a chunk of shares in SAAB after the agreement ended in 05
Okay I’ve found some (less than ideal) sources that do mention BAE helping to modernize the Gripen into its export flavor but nothing in regards to what they exactly did. Mention of “updating to NATO standard” which I imagine would just be control software? But either way it’s not as if they were solely for export as I believe all if not most Batch 1 and 2 models were updated to the Batch 3 standard.
That’s not fully true. It’s thanks to BAE which helped make it NATO capable but it’s SAAB which introduced new weapon systems, avionics and also integrated all of this into the new modernized Gripen airframe. Gripen A was a fully Swedish product before (engine aside), it’s just that Britain gave it access to NATO stock since C version.
The first wings were 3D built by the UK and then the further wings in Sweden via technology transfer the technique used is Super Plastic Titanium Bonding which is patentwd by BAE.
If the argument is “technology transfer” the Gripen would be as much a aircraft for the US as it is for the UK as the engine was designed by GE. The gripen using some fabrication techniques from the English is not a basis to claim it is an English made plane
I did not for a second even infer English made, I said co-developer, which is objectively true when it comes to the Gripen C, you could use design consult if you prefer the term but it remains that the marketing title of the Gripen C on its debut even acknowledged this as it was the ‘SAAB-BAe Systems’ Gripen.
I chose my words carefully for that exact reason. I also am not arguing anything, if you refer to my original comment, I said Sweden should get the Gripen C as the same model as the UK.
But i’m getting pretty sick of this ‘The UK has nothing to do with the Gripen so why do they get it from South Africa’ rhetoric because it’s frankly BS its like saying Spain has nothing to do with Eurofighter. The UK’s BAe was a co-developer/design consult or whatever you wanna call it, for the Gripen C. Furthermore the radar is based on Blue Vixen, the HMD is based on the UK’s HMS for the Eurofighter, the ejection seat etcetera etcetera.
@Pingwin1375PL@Faster_Boiiiii I think it would be cool if they modelled the canard downward deflection in-game in a similar manner to drag parachutes, once wheels are on the ground below 300km/h they deflect to -80 degrees.
As for Gripen A to C modernisation BAe did all the work on the retractable refuelling probe (which was new at the time and also very few aircraft had them) and the RAF donated an aircraft for them to test the probe on. BAe also did software work for some of the NATO weapons integration, the HMS is based on the BAE HMS, Gripen was also going to be overweight until the new composite material from BAe debuted, the radar is based on the Blue Vixen and further improvements such as the AESA based on the UK-Italian ECRS MK.2 (might be MK.1). Those are off the top of my head.
İ dont take your words seriously after you called me Gripen hater, despite i was the one who created this thread in order to discuss this situation with everyone else.
The SAAB-BAe agreement was to assist in marketing the Gripen as BAe thought it would also fit nicely between their available products at the time. I never said you didn’t say Sweden shouldn’t get the C but I see a lot of people in game say that BAe helped make it so Sweden shouldn’t get the C now.
I never said the UK had nothing to do with the Gripen, I just don’t believe their relatively small contributions to the batch design should entail them to be a vehicle specific to the English tree for several months.
The radar is mainly of Ericsson design, while “sharing some technology from the Blue Vixen” and the ODEN HMS was from FFV Aerotech development starting the in the 70s, and had a prototype for the Viggen, and was adopted for Gripen. I don’t believe they’d have much to do with the Eurofighter.
And the EJECTION SEAT nation of origin lmao
SAAB would have needed BAe for NATO software integration due to Sweden not being a member of NATO itself, but it is not as if it happened randomly, Sweden wanted to be able to sell to countries who wanted NATO compatibility and thus went to BAe for their software.
The AESA radar doesn’t affect anything earlier than the latest Gripen E variants which is a weird thing to throw out in this but yea they modern Gripens do work very closely with tech from other nations
Many European nations co-manufactured F16s, including Norway and Belgium yet neither Germany nor the Swedish tree have access to an F16. That may sound off topic but the model that South Africa ordered goes to the former colonial power?
I’'m not saying the UK shouldn’t have access to it or that they didn’t play a role in the direction of development for the aircraft but there is no argument that the UK did so much for the JAS39C that Sweden goes without it. Sweden manufactured the planes, AND used them in service just like export nations did.
Before I respond, I think we largely agree here but I have a few issues.
Not just marketing but also development, BAe sold their shares because they were caught money laundering in South Africa and bribing officials but that doesn’t mean they ceased aiding in development.
I agree with the second part, but the estimated UK development of Gripen has a figure for 30% on the C and 35% on the E, that’s not particularly minute, but yes I agree the Swede’s should get a Gripen C, equally the UK should get the SAAF one as a combination of SA sub-tree and co-developer. Simply because the UK has no options to fill this gap.
Yes but its co-developed by GEC-Marconi which is a UK-Italy company. Furthermore their basis was from the Blue Vixen, again i’m not saying English radar, I’m just pointing out collaboration which makes the UK not wholly irrelevant.
Again this has Swedish basis and its not entirely British, but was not adopted onto Gripen until after BAe had made their production standard HMS, which was then used as a way of incorporating Swedish technology onto a proven ‘frame’ so to speak.
That was just something to throw in, the UK makes almost all western ejection seats.
yes this is true, but Gripen C wouldn’t have sold without NATO software integration. Sweden had a limited inventory themselves and of course could have made their own domestic alternatives to NATO equipment but many nations would probably have just gone for F-16’s at that point.
This is also true, but part of SAAB’s new marketing is the AESA jamming which comes from the AESA radar.
I know, in fact the BAe designed the cockpit.
The UK was the primary ‘marketer’ of Gripen C once it debuted, that was part of the reason SAAB turned to BAe, particularly for the South Africa deal. Also, South African subtree.
Oh I absolutely 100% agree with this part, for sure. Sweden should have the best version of the Gripen at all times, whether it has to share it or not. Plus, this Gripen A could’ve been added with the damn MLD or the F-14 based on its kit and just limited to AIM-9L’s rather than the 9M’s but retaining the SKYFLASH.
Holding out without Gripen A for this long would’ve been slightly justified by us at the very least receiving the Gripen C right away. But no, now we have to Grind and Spade an inferior Gripen that’s gonna become obsolete once Gripen C hits in 3 months. Thanks gaijin.
