I would like to know why the SAAF chose such a high-tech, sophisticated aircraft (“Warbirds”, June Issue) to defend us and defend against whom? Can your writer name one threat north of the Limpopo within the 800 km operational range of the Gripen? And how about the data link to a non-existent ground radar?

Ground attack? I think a squadron of Rooivalk helicopters, with their in-your-face weapons systems, should be able to defend the border. Even if we did need a sophisticated and versatile attack / defence aircraft, my choice would be the battle-tested General Dynamics F16 variants.

I have no doubt that the Gripen is a brilliant aircraft, but it was designed to counter a threat far removed from any that Africa could present.

On the other hand, what if we offended Uncle Sam with his Tomahawk missiles and B52s. How now, Gripen?

Instead I would have thought that the Lockheed P-3 Orion or the like, coupled with our surface vessels, would be far more effective in patrolling our coastline and the riches it contains rather seeing off an unlikely assault of  tyrants from the north.

Ken Scriven

Orange Grove

Writer Helmoed Romer Heitman replies :

Why such a “high-tech sophisticated aircraft?” Because the SAAF will be using the Gripen through to 2030.

Buying a less capable type would just set pilots up to be killed. As for threats, there is no relevant threat today within 800 km of the border, but consider this : the Gripen can double or conceivably even triple its combat radius by refuelling in flight, and is easy to deploy to trouble spots.

The SANDF is going to be operating in other parts of Africa, and some of those operations will require air support. The threat can come to South Africa. Angola, for instance, has Sukhoi 27 fighters and Sukhoi 24 strike aircraft that could reach South African targets from inside Angola.

The strategic balance can change dramatically in a very short time, and an effective fighter force cannot be quickly created when a threat does emerge.

Next, let’s deal with “the data link to a non-existent ground radar”. The link is not only to ground radars; it is also between aircraft, allowing them to share target and threat information, as described in the article. The SAAF has a ground radar system covering much of the key border area, as well as mobile radars.

And the Rooivalk? The Rooivalk and the Gripen have very different capabilities and roles. The Rooivalk is optimised for close air support and special forces support, the Gripen for interdiction and deep strike missions against high-value targets.

You ask “Why not the battle-tested and proven F-16?”. an F-16 with the same capabilities as the Gripen would cost substantially more and would not be as flexible, requiring much more ground equipment and more technical personnel. The F-16 is also an older design with much less growth potential. And the P-3 Orion : maritime patrol aircraft are essential, but this is not an “either/or” issue. The SAAF needs both. And finally, your comment about “an unlikely assault from the north”.

Unlikely now, perhaps, but defence planning must take a 20 to 30-year view, and there is no guarantee of peace over that period.

With acknowledgements to Ken Sriven,  Helmoed Romer Heitman and the Popular Mechanics.