Publication: defenceWeb Issued: Date: 2008-11-19 Reporter: Leon Engelbrecht   

SAAF Mulls Gripen Armament

 

Publication 

defenceWeb
Date

2008-11-19
Reporter Leon Engelbrecht   

Web Link

www.defenceweb.co.za



The South African Air Force says it will first seek to equip its new Saab JAS39 Gripen advanced lightweight fighter aircraft with a self-defence and precision-guided bomb capability before pursuing other weapons options.
 
The SAAF ordered the Diehl BGT Defence IRIS-T short range air-to-air missile (SRAAM) that is said to cost 400 000 euro each as an interim self-defence and dogfight missile in May *1. The weapon was on display at the Africa Aerospace and Defence show in Cape Town in September.
 
The missile will later be replaced by the Denel A Darter currently under development as part of Project Assegai.  
 
Air Force chief Lt Gen Carlo Gagiano says the next priority is precision guided bombs then a beyond visual range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM).
    
“Obviously we need precision guided bombs; and that we will be working on. In the meantime we are clearing our pre-fragmentation bombs and normal dumb bombs or iron bombs.”
 
Air-to-ground missiles such as the MBDA/Saab Bofors Dynamics KEPD 350 Taurus are “not on the horizon”, however. Asked about the Denel Umbani precision bomb kit, Gagino said its use on the Gripen “depends on integration issues and the complexity of that.”
 
Integration and complexity will also inform the choice of BVRAAM. “With modern flight controls it is extremely difficult to integrate a missile onto aircraft,” says Gagiano.
 
“[It is] very expensive and very complex. So my view is that for any weapon on Gripen, the future will only allow us something that has already been integrated on the aircraft, something like [the MBDA] Meteor or some of those, just because of the complexity and the cost of integration.”
 
Gagiano last week announced that the first six SAAF pilots have “gone solo” on the Gripen. “The aircraft is easy to fly, very easy to fly. [The complexity lies in] getting to grip with the systems, to utilise the datalinks … the system to full capacity. Flying the aircraft is a piece of old takkie *2, Gagiano said.
 
The CAF also added he was in favour of keeping the aircraft’s name. “I’m not one for calling aircraft after animals. They’ll stay the Gripen, the hawk, the A109. The thing is we live in a global world now, so many times when I have foreign visitors, and we talk about [the Denel M1] Oryx [medium helicopter], I have to explain I mean the Super Puma. I never used to speak about Impala, I always referred to the Aermacchi 326.
 
“In the old days when we were isolated we could [call aircraft parochial names] but on a daily basis now we have foreign visitors and travel overseas.” Gripen is Swedish for Griffin, a mythological creature with the body of a lion and the head and often wings of an eagle. The SAAF project name for the acquisition is Ukhozi, or eagle and a golden eagle is central to the air service’s heraldry.

With acknowledgements to Leon Engelbrecht and defenceWeb.
 


*1       What is amazing is that the Gripen was purchased without any consideration or budget for weapons systems.

Again this is proof that at that stage the SAAF neither needed a new fighter jet, nor was ready to acquire one.

Normally a major acquisition programme is funded from the Strategic Defence Account by the Treasury and not from the arm of service itself.

Normally all weapon systems, trialling ammunition and war stock are funded from the programme.

Of course there will be the huge expense of acquiring these weapons systems.

But it gets worse.

Due to the manner of the acquisition, the SAAF will have to acquire an interim weapon system for the Gripen (because the SAAF has insufficient funding it must retire the Cheetah Cs early and active the Gripens earlier) and then a final weapon system.

It just shows even further that Modise and his merry men wanted to buy British Aerospace jets then and at any cost.


*2      This is not in the least surprising. The Gripen and nearly all modern jet aircraft, especially fighter aircraft (even Russian aircraft), employ fly-by-wire controls. They are intrinsically dynamically unstable and human pilots cannot fly them without their control systems.

So it stands to reason that these aircraft with their electronic control systems will be easy to fly.

Like wearing an old takkie.

But the SAAF clearly knew this way back in 1997 and that why it wanted a two-tier system, i.e. learn to fly on the Pilatus trainers, learn to fly jets starting on the two-seater version of the frontline fighter jet and then graduate to flying missions on the single-seater version of the frontline fighter jet. Complex tasks such as using the systems are done mainly with simulators and partly with the dual-seaters.

But no, Modise insisted that the SAAF revert to the three-tier system.

It is easy to see why.

With the two-tier system, neither the Hawk nor the Gripen were in contention. So British Aerospace would have got anything from the Arms Deal.

With the three-tier system, the Hawk came into contention as the Lead-In Fighter Trainer while the Gripen came into contention as the Advanced Light Fighter Aircraft. So British Aerospace got 50% of the Arms Deal.

It's all there for those who care to see in the final Joint Investigation Report and draft Investigation Reports.

It's like an old takkie.