Hrvatska kupuje borbenu eskadrilu zrakoplova, otpali su izraleski F-16, ostale su dvije opcije

Švedski Gripen JAS 39 C/D verzija i južnokorejski FA-50 najbolje su opcije za opremanje Ratnog zrakoplovstva novim avionima, zaključak je i preporuka stručnog savjetničkog tima ministra obrane za zrakoplovstvo koji čine umirovljeni generaliJosip Čuletić, Josip Štimac i Vlado Bagarić, doznaje Jutarnji list.

Naš je zaključak da Hrvatska treba zadržati borbeno zrakoplovstvo te preporučujemo da se odluka o zadržavanju donese početkom sljedeće godine, a da se odluka o odabiru vrste aviona donese do kraja 2017. godine - rekao nam je Josip Štimac. On nije želio detaljnije govoriti o zaključcima savjetničkog tima osim što nam je potvrdio da su zaključili “koji su to avioni priuštivi i održivi Republici Hrvatskoj”. Ti zaključci preneseni su ministru obrane i predsjednici Republike.

Savjetnički tim za zrakoplovstvo osnovao je bivši ministar obraneJosip Buljević i njegova je zadaća bila analizirati četiri neobvezujuće informacije (Request for Information - RFI) o mogućnosti opremanja Ratnog zrakoplovstva novim ili polovnim avionima. Ponude su dali švedski SAAB za JAS 39 verzija C/D, Izrael za polovni F-16, Južna Koreja za FA-50 i Francuska za Rafael. Riječ je o informativnim ponudama koje Ministarstvu obrane daje određene smjernice u donošenju budućih odluka. Drugi dokument je “Studija razvoja sposobnosti zaštite zračnog prostora Republike Hrvatske višenamjenskim borbenim avionom”, napravljena prošle godine, koja je temelj za donošenje odluke o sudbini borbenoga zrakoplovstva.

Pri utvrđivanju najboljih varijanti za Ratno zrakoplovstvo uzete su u obzir tehničke i ekonomske opcije ponude. Kako doznajemo, zaključeno je kako uvođenje ova dva aviona zahtijevaju najniže operativne troškove korištenja, minimalno ulaganje u infrastrukturu te najbolje ekonomske benefite. Prema dostupnim informacijama, švedska država Hrvatskoj nudi eskadrilu novih aviona JAS 39 verzije C/D uz kreditnu liniju na 15 godina uz tri godine počeka. Osim toga, ako se Hrvatska odluči za ovaj avion, Šveđani Ratnom zrakoplovstvu nude četiri aviona besplatno na korištenje uz plaćanje operativnih troškova do uvođenja naručenih aviona u operativno korištenje.
Službene financijske ponude ni od jedne strane nema. No, prema neslužbenim informacijama, SAAB je spreman dati ponudu koja bi godišnje hrvatski proračun opteretila s oko 400 milijuna kuna, ovisno o tome koje bi naoružanje Hrvatska odabrala. S druge strane procjenjuje se kako bi eskadrila FA-50 mogla stajati oko 400 milijuna dolara.

http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/novosti/hrvatska/clanak/id/460511/hrvatska-kupuje-borbenu-eskadrilu-zrakoplova-otpali-su-izraleski-f-16-ostale-su-dvije-opcije

ja sam oduvijek za gripene.

ovo koreja hyundai kaj ja znam...

RayMabus wrote:Francuska za Rafael

rafale, jebem ih glupe ....

fala kurcu , inače na vojnom forumu još prije 5-6godina se raspravljalo da su Gripeni ili Korejski najbolje rješnje.. inače korejski avioni su ultra jeftini, ali nisu neki high tech, ali su ultra jeftina soldina solucija koja će obaviti posao..
Gripeni, to je već za ratovanje

Pinochet wrote:fala kurcu , inače na vojnom forumu još prije 5-6godina se raspravljalo da su Gripeni ili Korejski najbolje rješnje.. inače korejski avioni su ultra jeftini, ali nisu neki high tech, ali su ultra jeftina soldina solucija koja će obaviti posao..
Gripeni, to je već za ratovanje

pisao sam u par navrata i o avionima pa malo i istražio, grippeni su puno jeftiji operativno od f-16 i imaju iste ili bolje osobine, gotovo u svemu.

jedina mana tog aviona: nikad nije iskušan u borbi.

inače imaju ga česi i mađari pa bi i to bilo dobro da se formira jedna onako malo austrougarska eskadrila

Sada ne znam ima li Korejski/Hrvatski FA-50 šanse protiv Srpskog Mig-29.. treba vidjeti kakvo oružje ovo nosi, i koje je godište Srpski Mig-29

imali su ih i Srbi 1999 , ali doslovno su išli u napad a pola aviona nije valjalo

marcellus wrote:

Pinochet wrote:fala kurcu , inače na vojnom forumu još prije 5-6godina se raspravljalo da su Gripeni ili Korejski najbolje rješnje.. inače korejski avioni su ultra jeftini, ali nisu neki high tech, ali su ultra jeftina soldina solucija koja će obaviti posao..
Gripeni, to je već za ratovanje

pisao sam u par navrata i o avionima pa malo i istražio, grippeni su puno jeftiji operativno od f-16 i imaju iste ili bolje osobine, gotovo u svemu.

jedina mana tog aviona: nikad nije iskušan u borbi.

inače imaju ga česi i mađari pa bi i to bilo dobro da se formira jedna onako malo austrougarska eskadrila

a i 98% ruske tehnike nikada nije okušano u borbi, pa ekipa je proglašava ili smeće , ili oružje koje je božanstvo/s-300 ili s-400 pa do raznih novijih lovaca, krstarećih raketa, protu tenkovskih projektila.. 

eto tek u Siriji smo vidjeli da i Rusko oružje radi solidno..

hoću reći, nema veze što Gripen se nije nikad koristio u ratu, mislim da će funkcionirati sasvim solidno.

Pinochet wrote:Sada ne znam ima li Korejski/Hrvatski FA-50 šanse protiv Srpskog Mig-29.. treba vidjeti kakvo oružje ovo nosi, i koje je godište Srpski Mig-29

imali su ih i Srbi 1999 , ali doslovno su išli u napad a pola aviona nije valjalo

Ima šanse al zar stvarno misliš da cemo se mi i oni ratovat tako il ce samo avioni štiti svak svoju zonu a zna se da ti za napad treba tri puta jaca sila .....tako ti je i u zraku ....i da ideš sam sa njima oni da napadaju moraju imat tri puta jacu snagu od nas a kad imaš i korejca oni nemaju taj omjer.

Za obranu ti mora bit samo da si više od 1/3 jaci od protivnika.

Pinochet wrote:

marcellus wrote:

Pinochet wrote:fala kurcu , inače na vojnom forumu još prije 5-6godina se raspravljalo da su Gripeni ili Korejski najbolje rješnje.. inače korejski avioni su ultra jeftini, ali nisu neki high tech, ali su ultra jeftina soldina solucija koja će obaviti posao..
Gripeni, to je već za ratovanje

pisao sam u par navrata i o avionima pa malo i istražio, grippeni su puno jeftiji operativno od f-16 i imaju iste ili bolje osobine, gotovo u svemu.

jedina mana tog aviona: nikad nije iskušan u borbi.

inače imaju ga česi i mađari pa bi i to bilo dobro da se formira jedna onako malo austrougarska eskadrila

a i 98% ruske tehnike nikada nije okušano u borbi, pa ekipa je proglašava ili smeće , ili oružje koje je božanstvo/s-300 ili s-400 pa do raznih novijih lovaca, krstarećih raketa, protu tenkovskih projektila.. 

eto tek u Siriji smo vidjeli da i Rusko oružje radi solidno..

hoću reći, nema veze što Gripen se nije nikad koristio u ratu, mislim da će funkcionirati sasvim solidno.

trebao bi, po svemu. Istina, bilo je rušenja radi softvera, ali davno. F16 jedino ima prednost bitno većeg doleta, ali obzirom kolika smo mi zemlja nama je to savršeno nebitno... od zagreba do zemuna stignu, dalje nije naše

a inače su generaciju ispred ruskih 29-ki, c verzija...

odnosno desetak godina noviji dizajn

http://www.aviatia.net/gripen-vs-f-16/

Vidjet cemo , uglavnom je definitivno da F 16 otpada i definitivno je da ako onda jedno od ova dva ....osobno oba su mi ok.

U NATOu smo , netreba nam nešto ekstra ...i ovaj Golden eagle je sasvim ok.

marcellus wrote:http://www.aviatia.net/gripen-vs-f-16/

U biti vrlo ujednaceni avioni.Obratiti paznju na avioniku

Nek kupe bilo šta samo da leti , nosi raketice i može radit air policing i štiti koliko toliko kopnenu vojsku i mornaricu iz zraka.

jako zanimljivo mišljenje:

I will start by telling upfront that it is very hard to get enough reliable information to draw a conclusion, everything I say here is based on my best knowledge and incomplete information.

First, the Gripen is fairly small. I would put it in the same class as F16 and Mig 29 and I would never compare it to anything larger - no F22, no F35, no newer versions of Su 27.

Second, it is a fairly old plane - in the years where technology advances so fast and 75% of a fighter plane's worth is technology, this makes a huge difference. It does not matter so much a great engine, aerodynamics and maneuverability if your enemy shorts you before you can see it on your radar - either because his radar is better, his stealth characteristics are better, his jamming is better or any combination of these. The C/D radar is a generation behind, AESA is supposed to come on E/F.

Then when it comes to dogfighting Gripen may be a decent plane, similar with F16, better than F35 (just for the sake of positioning versus others) and worse than any modern Russian fighter. Here the helmet-assisted missile launch is of great importance.

In the end, the operating cost and maintenance: the operating cost is marketed to be about half of F16's, but many operators say this is a lie and the cost is ~ 75% of F16's. The reliability is also controversial, a friend in Sweden that knows the situation a bit told me recently the Swedish planes have a very low availability rate because of 2 reasons: lack of parts and low skills of the army conscripts doing maintenance. The lack of parts is a very political subject, Volvo is a fairly small company with limited capacity in a socialist/nanny state so deliveries have priority to external operators (it is bad publicity if you don't give them the parts) and the Swedish army is at the bottom of the list. Also given the political regime there is no real reward or punishment if you do the job well or bad, you will still have the job (they cannot fire you, unemployment needs to be very small, they cannot reward you as being richer than others is not a good socialist example) so there is no big focus on improving the situation in any way.

For some operators the Gripen is the perfect solution for their problems: there are a number of East European countries that used to have Russian fighters (mostly venerable Mig 21's, some Mig 29's) that cannot fly anymore, so they need some planes - not for war, but for having planes to do some airspace policing, to train the pilots and look good on paper. The decent financing conditions made some of them to already use the Gripen, others are considering it seriously, the low budget and low requirements make the Gripen a decent choice.

The Gripen NG (E/F) is currently a marketing plan: if enough interest will exist from external operators there will be a NG version, if not there will be none. Sweden alone does not have the capability to build it alone with shrinking military budgets and increasing social costs, top notch technology costs a lot and the only upgrades one can do to a 30 year plane is in radar, engine and any part that does not require a complete new plane.

PS. The engine is a GE that is partially built in Sweden; they probably wanted to build it under license, but did not quite have the capabilities to build some of the advanced technology parts like the compressor blades, so GE is manufacturing that. This is mostly a speculation based on non-confirmed information, but I believe it enough to mention it.

ovo "worse than any modern russian fighter" se jasno odnosi na su35, nove verzije 27-ica i to, što je ipak druga klasa aviona i u biti nepotrebno iz naše perspektive (srbi to ionako nemaju niti će imat, a od 29-ki je grippen svakako bolji - 29-ke nisu nikad dobile bitku protiv f16, a grippen bi od njega trebao biti nešto bolji)

marcellus wrote:jako zanimljivo mišljenje:

I will start by telling upfront that it is very hard to get enough reliable information to draw a conclusion, everything I say here is based on my best knowledge and incomplete information.

First, the Gripen is fairly small. I would put it in the same class as F16 and Mig 29 and I would never compare it to anything larger - no F22, no F35, no newer versions of Su 27.

Second, it is a fairly old plane - in the years where technology advances so fast and 75% of a fighter plane's worth is technology, this makes a huge difference. It does not matter so much a great engine, aerodynamics and maneuverability if your enemy shorts you before you can see it on your radar - either because his radar is better, his stealth characteristics are better, his jamming is better or any combination of these. The C/D radar is a generation behind, AESA is supposed to come on E/F.

Then when it comes to dogfighting Gripen may be a decent plane, similar with F16, better than F35 (just for the sake of positioning versus others) and worse than any modern Russian fighter. Here the helmet-assisted missile launch is of great importance.

In the end, the operating cost and maintenance: the operating cost is marketed to be about half of F16's, but many operators say this is a lie and the cost is ~ 75% of F16's. The reliability is also controversial, a friend in Sweden that knows the situation a bit told me recently the Swedish planes have a very low availability rate because of 2 reasons: lack of parts and low skills of the army conscripts doing maintenance. The lack of parts is a very political subject, Volvo is a fairly small company with limited capacity in a socialist/nanny state so deliveries have priority to external operators (it is bad publicity if you don't give them the parts) and the Swedish army is at the bottom of the list. Also given the political regime there is no real reward or punishment if you do the job well or bad, you will still have the job (they cannot fire you, unemployment needs to be very small, they cannot reward you as being richer than others is not a good socialist example) so there is no big focus on improving the situation in any way.

For some operators the Gripen is the perfect solution for their problems: there are a number of East European countries that used to have Russian fighters (mostly venerable Mig 21's, some Mig 29's) that cannot fly anymore, so they need some planes - not for war, but for having planes to do some airspace policing, to train the pilots and look good on paper. The decent financing conditions made some of them to already use the Gripen, others are considering it seriously, the low budget and low requirements make the Gripen a decent choice.

The Gripen NG (E/F) is currently a marketing plan: if enough interest will exist from external operators there will be a NG version, if not there will be none. Sweden alone does not have the capability to build it alone with shrinking military budgets and increasing social costs, top notch technology costs a lot and the only upgrades one can do to a 30 year plane is in radar, engine and any part that does not require a complete new plane.

PS. The engine is a GE that is partially built in Sweden; they probably wanted to build it under license, but did not quite have the capabilities to build some of the advanced technology parts like the compressor blades, so GE is manufacturing that. This is mostly a speculation based on non-confirmed information, but I believe it enough to mention it.

sviđa mi se kako između redaka sere protiv švedske kao socijalističke i socijalne države :D :D

da, to...