Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Copyrighted text

Some text of this article is from http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/gripen/ and http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/gripen/39altern/altdesigns.html. It was posted by 82.182.143.16 in this edit. I have e-mailed the author to verify that the text was uploaded by him or with his permission. Here's the reply I got:

From:      Urban Fredriksson <e-mail omitted>
To:        [[User talk:Lupo|Lupo]]'s e-mail address elided
Subject:   Re: Your Saab Gripen text on Wikipedia
Date sent: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 11:35:38 +0200 (MET DST)

> Could you please deny or confirm that
> 1) You are the copyright holder of this text

Yes, I wrote the original text years ago.

> 2) the text is posted to Wikipedia with your permission, and

No, I didn't know about it.
But I probably would have allowed it if asked.

> 3) that you authorize the re-licensing of this text under the
>    GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anybody to edit
>    and re-distribute this text, even for commercial purposes?

Since it's not the whole web document but only part of it,
the answer to this question is "yes".

Best regards
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson

Thank you, Urban. Lupo 08:09, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Range

I noticed on a number of the other aircraft pages that ferry range is indicated. If so, is the 800km specified in this article the combat range and would it be wise to include the ferry range of 3000km on Urban Fredriksson's website? Edward Sandstig 18:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

800km for a modern fighter seems awfully short. But since its of swedish design and original intention, its probably likely thats how far the aircraft can go with the fuel just on its own. The ferry range of 3000km could be achieved with drop tanks or inflight refueling probably. Jak722 15:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Stop me if I'm wrong, but this article strikes me as being a bit of a sales pitch for the Gripen. Is their anyway of cleaning it up?

ManicParroT 22:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's called the "Edit" button at the top of the page. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Be more specific. What makes the article feel like a sales pitch? I don't see any of the other fighter aircraft articles mention crashes...
Check the articles on the F-16 and F-15 for reference. Edward Sandstig 20:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the article looks like it's been written by flight enthusiasts who focus on the plane and nothing else. This article should be written in a more nuanced way. Gripen is much more than an aircraft; it has been a huge and controversial undertaking for Sweden and part of a Swedish political game. This is entirely missing in the article. In addition, the recent alledged briberies to sell Gripen to the Czech Republic and South Africa aren't mentioned. In that respect, the article is a sales pitch. There's much to do to fix this article to an acceptable standard. In fact, I think a complete rewrite is warranted here. Relrel 20:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This page seems to me to be in breach of Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox: "Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style."

"Gripen International acts as a prime contracting organization and is responsible for marketing, selling and supporting the Gripen fighter around the world."

"marketing, selling and supporting" is an indication this text was sourced from marketing material because of the redundancy of "marketing" & "selling". One would also expect a company who sells aircraft to support them?

"The totally integrated avionics make it a "programmable" aircraft."

sounds like more marketing, why "_totally_ integrated"? and what does ' "programmable" aircraft' add to the information?

"Gripen affords far more flexibility than earlier generations of combat aircraft"

how? in what way?

"This is especially impressive as the Gripen is a more capable aircraft, with a low purchase price."

"especially impressive" does not sound like the language of an encyclopedia, "low purchase price" sounds like marketing also. Apart from that the rest of the article is good, in my opinion. David Woodward 07:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Jakt Attack Spaning?

Shouldn't the word for "attack" be in Swedish (anfall, IIRC)? 84.231.99.112 06:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No. The swedish word used for "attack aircraft" is indeed "attack-flygplan", not "anfalls-flygplan" ("flygplan" = aircraft). --J-Star 09:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

AESA

Does the Gripen have an AESA radar or is this still under development? If it does, it ought to be mentioned. It's quite notable. Joffeloff 17:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know th Gripen does not currently have an AESA radar. --J-Star 07:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

BAE Systems involvement

Were not BAE Systems involved in the development of this plane? I am positive I saw some BAE promotional material to this effect. 86.17.246.75 10:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ive seen something like that too. Ive read on an aircraft recognition handbook about fighters that BAE had some commercial marketing involvement with Saab and the Gripen.Jak722 15:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

According to http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/gripen/ BAe is supplying the main landing gear unit, wing attachment unit, and have been involved in the development of the IHMD together with Saab Aerospace and Denel Cumulus. BAE Astronics have produced the fly-by-wire system together with Lockheed Martin. Gripen International is a joint venture between Saab and BAe intended to market Gripen. /Bengt

Note:
BAe = British Aerospace
BAE = BAE Systems
Sorry for splitting hairs.Mark83 20:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

a hyphen between JAS and 39?

Current pagename JAS"-"39 seems odd to me... isn't it? I feel: Saab 39, Saab Gripen, Saab 39 Gripen, JAS 39, or JAS 39 Gripen, are all acceptable but there shouldn't be any hyphens. See, for instance, sv:lista över Försvarsmaktens flygplan and isn't it obvious to use the space for flygvapnet designations? --marsian 15:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep will request a move. --Edward Sandstig 19:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Edward for your starting the survey! --marsian 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Consensus approved Move. Yanksox 17:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

JAS-39 Gripen → JAS 39 Gripen – Need to use correct designation. See JA 37 Viggen and J 35 Draken Edward Sandstig 19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. That's the swedish armed forces website writes it. --J-Star 11:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per nomination. --Edward Sandstig 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. And there's yet another supporting fact: swedish air force museum page. --marsian 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per above. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• some of the designations on the page I present (swedish air force museum page), such as Sk 60 perhaps should strictly be SK 60 and this capitalisation seem to be applied to the designations after 1964, accorging to sv:Diskussion:Lista över Försvarsmaktens flygplan. --marsian 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Crashes removed

I have removed the crashes section because it's not a common section for aircrafts in Wikipedia. There are many reasons for that. One is that it's very hard to keep this information accurate. Please respect this. Haksve 01:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should we respect you, when you cant respect us? You've broken the Three-revert rule by removing the same content 7 / seven times when warned about discussing it the talk page first, you have done exactly the same on the NN wikipedia and disrespect us for claimng were not able to keep it accurate. And why should only a few wikis remove this section upon your command while others not? And you want respect? Let me tell you, this is wikipedia, edited by billions of users each day, there is no big problem keeping lists accurate, history has shown. And adding lists to other aircrafts notable for crashing, would be relevant too --AndersL 01:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Keeping track of crashes and their reasons can not be accurate because this is military stuff. Billions of wiki users can't help that. Crashes have been removed on many others aircrafts articles, Gripen should be no exception. I'm sorry for seeming disrespectful but please focus on the subject, not on my person. You surely must see the problem with this issue. I wont edit the NN version again, I take it you are responsible for most of it so you can do it yourself. But I assume you have some personal reason for letting crashes be the only section in that article so I doubt that it will be done. --Haksve 02:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree. Please do not remove it again. Thanks. --Guinnog 03:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And your reasons for disagreeing? --Haksve 04:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The crashes are individually and collectively interesting, verifiable, and tell a lot about the early development of the plane, especially the software development. What is your reason for wanting to delete the section? --Guinnog 05:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My reason? Read above. Also, the crash-section makes the Gripen article feel biased. Wikipedia should not be part of negative campaigning. But I'll leave it to rest. Anyone else that feel that the Gripen article is biased, feel free to edit. --Haksve 05:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with Guinnog, crashes belong to the article and should not be removed. It is the information verifiable and useful plus interesting, there no obvious reasons to remove it. TestPilot 20:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guinnog: The crashes section should stay in. Especially concidering the negative reputation the plane has gotten and the myths that are flowing around saying the aircraft is crash-prone, it is good to have the actual amount of crashes and their causes listed. This does not make the article biased... on the contrary it would be to bias the article by cutting away a section of fact.

For other aircraft articles there are notable crashes mentioned. The Su-35 page has the Paris airshow crash of 1999 mentioned. The DC-10 page has a huge section called Safety Record. All four of the crashes by the JAS 19 are notable. The two first because they received wide attension as they were caught on tape. The third because the plane wasn't at fault. And the fourth because the plane behave very strange and because the cause is still to determined.

Unless you can point to a rule saying that crashes must not be mentioned in aircraft articles, you have nothing to go on. Stop reverting the article Haksve. --J-Star 08:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The crash section is relevant as for time being. Gripen has probably been the most reliable fighter aircraft in service the last 10 years. But in the future as more planes might crash, a list will be hard to keep accurate and it will make the page look even more strange. Can you imagine how a list of the F-16's crasches would make it's page look like? As I said, there is a reason why crasches are not listed. Ok, but I will edit the part about the swedish public thinking that Gripen is an embarrassment. It's an authors POV about the publics POV, not relevant. I'm a swede myself so I know it's not even near the truth anyway. --Haksve 08:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well this isn't the F-16. This isn't a plane made in an excess of 4000 manufactured, started in the 1970's. You look at what you have right now. Not what you might have in the future or what others have. Cutting out the list now because there might - in the future - be too many crashes to be practically listable makes very little sense. --J-Star 09:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what makes sense? In an aircraft encyclopedia with comparable articles... should an unbiased editor solely give the headline "crasches" to one of the least crash-prone fighter aircrafts ever? My idea is that articles in an encyclopedia should correspond with each other but obviously there are some here that don't think so. This article looks like a joke because of this. --Haksve 10:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As a Swede I must strongly object to removing the crashes section. "Crashes" and "JAS 39 Gripen" is synonymous to every Swede, and even if Gripen is less prone to crashes than just about any other modern aircraft it's an integral part of the history and development of the aircraft. The first of the crashes were very spectacular and almost got the whole project canceled and second led to very restrictive legislation regarding airshows near populated areas. The crashes section is perhaps the most important part of this article if you are a Swede.. it's the only thing we really care about regarding Gripen. -- Henriok 21:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Which of course can not be true. Fighter aircrafts attract more interest than any manmade objects except the space program perhaps. People care about many things about these planes. Why do you think airshows are so popular in Sweden and elsewhere? So please don't use the word "we". Swedes are no different than others in this respect.83.248.209.36 14:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your comment doesn't have any obvious connection to mine. It is a fact that the Gripen crash over Stockholm lead to a more restricted legislation regarding airshows over populated areas. I'm not arguing that airshows are popular or not. They certainly are. -- Henriok 16:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to your statement that 'we' in the meaning 'swedes' only care about the crasches. That was what you wrote. It's a stupid to make generalizations like that and in this case I know it's not true. Maybe you are just using 'care' in the sense 'know of'. But even then it would be a stupid generalization.83.248.209.36 13:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My humble opinion is that the Crashes section is fully motivated, for multiple reasons. In Sweden virtually everyone knows of the crashes, and conceiling them here could indeed, from that point of view, be deemed biased. The opinions (in Sweden) on the plane may vary (depending on your personal position on matters such as weapons), and in the years after the first two crashes there were many cheap jokes about it, but I think the general view of the Swedish public on the plane now is that it is a good piece of engineering, just like Volvos and Saabs and Scanias. My second reason discards any claim that the Crashes section would be biased on the negative: a mere four crashes in 18 years, with only a handful of slightly injured people involved, that is brilliant, no question about it! Lars R.

ETPS usage

I don't believe the Gripen has entered common use with the ETPS yet, despite one being displayed with ETPS livery, is this correct? TiHead 23:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo request

Has anyone seen a photo online of a Grippen equipped with laser guided bombs and a targeting pod. I saw one once on the Grippen official website but could not download it. Thanks Chwyatt 16:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There should be some more information included.

Since July 2006 at the FARNBOROUGH show an advanced version of the Gripen was being offered to replace the F-16 in Denmark and Norway. The new Gripen named Gripen N and Gripen DK is more advanced than the normal version. You should note that this is a project and has yet to be made.

So for obvious reasons I feel a new page should be added with the relevant information of the new developments of the Gripen. This new project also interests the British as it could further evolve as a possible replacement of the JSF.

I have the 2 official files in pdf concerning these informations.

If you want to contact me please send me a mail to this add:

mehdi_mu@hotmail.com

Thanks,

MehdiMautbur 17:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is illusional to think any Jas-39 variant can replaced the F-16. The Gripen is a tiny plane, its powerplant is mere half as powerful (85kN vs. 145kN for latest F-16). The bang for the buck is also very different, as F-16 can carry 4tons of bombs PLUS lotsa fuel, while Gripen suffers with 2,5 tons of payload. Gripen is for countries who want a really modern plane, but wish to stay out of conflicts (e.g. buy F-16 and dread the day Uncle Sam asks you a favour like help bomb Iran or the Serbs again). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, this could be argued. The Gripen is a lighter plane, thus the power advantage of the F16 erodes somewhat. The Gripen is also an extremely agile plane, with excellent manoeuvering capabilities. So, if a certain number of F16s would have to fight their way through a barrier of the same number of Gripens, they would probably have problems reaching their designated targets, the Gripens would be like wasps over them, smaller but with a sting that would indeed be felt. If you add the price advantage, which means that you can buy 50-100 % more Gripens for the same money, well who knows what the outcome would be. Let's hope we'll never find out. Lars R —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.101.122.141 (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

You are a bit on the low side on your estimated payload for the Gripen, it can take 5.3 ton in the C/D version, and the E/F version will carry 6.5 ton, with an option to carry more internal fuel if the buyer wishes (as Norway requested). Also you always have the option to use more planes if you wish to drop more bombs, and as the Gripen is more affordable than the later models of F-16 that is certainly an option. But the Gripen is not designed as a bomb truck and was not intended to be used for preparing invasions, but to fend off invaders and retaliate if necessary. 83.248.192.253 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian Gripens are not used ones.

The hungarian planes are not ex-swedish airforce items, they are newly manufactured JAS-39EBS versions, because the orignal leasing contract was changed in 2003 for more modern planes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Accidents

In relation to the main body of the article, there seems to be a large emphasis on the accidents. Can these observations be cut down? Bzuk03:49 18 February 2007 (UTC).

I noticed that an IP editor cut out the details of the 1999 incident, but that edit has been reverted. I tend to agree with the IP editor that such detail of the accident analysis really doesn't belong in this overview article. Actually, there's probably enough material there for a stub article about the incident. Akradecki 20:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference sources

Where are textual reference sources? Bzuk03:49 18 February 2007 (UTC).

I reverted to a previous version, merged your changes and added a references section. Please don't remove the {{cite_web}} templates. --Edward Sandstig 09:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Incident split proposal

If the incident is noteworthy enough, it should have its own article, which would conform to WP:AIR Accidnet task force, and Distarer Project guidelines. In any event, the "Incidents" section is just to be a summary, not a place for debate over the incidents themselves. But I see know reason for a separate article on Gripen incidents - there aren't that many to begin with. - BillCJ 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Potential Operators

This section is becoming quite a mess. I have brought up the issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/page content, so will wait for some sort of decision of the issue before making wholesale changes myself. The Operators section should be limited to users who actually operated, currently use, or have purchased the type. Potential operators should be covered in the text. See C-17 Globemaster III for a good example. - BillCJ 23:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. I think a 'text only in paragraphs' format makes more sense for this section. A sentence or two on Norway and Sweden's recent agreement (MoU) would be good. -Fnlayson 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, we can't make such lists for maybe-they-will-choose-it operators. All info from potential operators can be covered in text in subsection. When country choose aircraft in competition we can add it into standard operators list. Piotr Mikołajski 18:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed "after involuntary ejection" from paragraph on Vidsel incident

I had to temporarily remove the words "after involuntary ejection" from the paragraph about the incident at Vidsel, since the investigation is still ongoing and as of yet, there is no confirmation on what caused the crash.[1] --Edward Sandstig 19:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: 2007-06-05 Heptor added a link to an article from air-attack.com dated 2007-05-24 which was basically rehashing the earlier reports from Swedish media. However, as of 2007-06-04, the same original source specified (Swedish Radio) reports that the possible cause could have been the ejector handle being too stiff and going off due to pressure from the pilot's g-suit.([2], [3], [4], [5]) The case is still under investigation by the Swedish Accident Investigation Board, but considering SAAB has already stated that they will be making changes based on their own internal investigation, I guess that could indicate that the latest reports are more accurate. Question is, do we wait until the official investigation is over, or do we keep updating the article as more speculation's come up? --Edward Sandstig 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I added 'The accident is currently under investigation.' to that entry. I'd wait until there's something official from the SAAB. -Fnlayson 18:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To Edward Sandstig: Do those reports really contradict each other? The report referenced to by Air-Attack ([6]), says that the ejection mechanism is activated when the g-forces are high enough. The report you bring([http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/ekot/artikel.asp?artikel=1406909) claims that the ejection handle was inadvertently activated by the g-suite, which would expand acting on increased g-forces. In any case, I think it should at least be mentioned that the pilot claims that it was the cause of the incident. -- Heptor _talk 01:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Previous statement implied that if the aircraft was subjected to certain G-forces that the ejector seat would automatically eject the pilot, whereas the more recent statements from SAAB's internal investigation clarify that it isn't really the G-forces acting on the aircraft that cause this, but more of how the pilot's G-suit, upon expansion, can cause the ejection lever to activate. I've mentioned in the main article that current evidence points to the ejector seat as the culprit, but don't want to expand on it until there's official word from HavKom, or at least the internal report from SAAB. --Edward Sandstig 10:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I now only added that the pilot claimed that he was ejected without pulling the ejector cord. There is strictly speaking no contradiction between the intermediate reports from the investigation, as the g-suite expands on increased g-force. -- Heptor _talk 11:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. We can leave it as is until we get more info from SAAB and the HavKom. --Edward Sandstig 13:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving the crashes section

I'm planning on removing the detailed description of the crashes to a list of Gripen crashes, according to previous suggestions. This is in analogy with the list of C-130 Hercules crashes, among others. The disputes over this might then go away. I plan to keep only a short paragraph linking to the crashes page, probably in the "operational history" section. LarRan 21:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Gripen versus JAS 39

As you probably know, the Swedish Air Force uses a designation sequence to their aircraft models: 29 (Tunnan), 32 (Lansen), 35 (Draken), 37 (Viggen) and 39 (Gripen). This sequence is - in my view - unique. It does not seem logical for other air forces to use the same designation. For example: the C-130 Hercules is called TP84, which is short for "transportplan 84". I suspect no other air force - and definitely not the manufacturer - uses that designation.

Thus, calling the plane 'JAS 39 Gripen' is probably tautologous. Saab just calls it 'Gripen', or possibly 'Saab Gripen'. Having said that, I realize that the expression 'JAS 39 Gripen' is widely used by the general public (especially in Sweden), and to some extent probably by the military too.

In strict military talk though, the Viggen, for example, was called 'Flygplan 37' ("Aeroplane 37"), abbreviated 'Fpl 37'. From that, the names of the specially developed versions - like the JA37 (air-to-air + air-to-surface), the SH37 (reconnaissance over sea), etc - were developed. Since the Gripen is a true multirole aircraft, the only version (and designation) is the JAS39 (albeit in varous variants/batches). Having only one version may have contibuted to the use of 'JAS 39 Gripen'.

I have mailed the public relations officer at Gripen International. We'll soon have his answer.

LarRan 21:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how JAS 39 and Gripen are tautologous (my first exposure to that word, and English is my first language!). F-16 and FIghting Falcon are certianly not. One is a name, while the other is a designation, which is not unique to just the US or Sweden. Other nations do assign designations and names to aircraft of both domestic and foreign origin, such as Canada, the Neterlands, Spain, Brazil, and China. Our usual pattern here on Wikipedia is to list military aircraft by their official government, not company, name, unless it has so many government names that the company name is a better title. Even so, exceptions are usually handled on a case by case basis.

As the 35 and 37 are under Saab 3# name pattern, you could propose moving the page to Saab 39 Gripen. However, JAS 39 is commonly known, and unless the Swedish military states that is it absolutely not the designation they use, I see no problem using the curret title.

- BillCJ 00:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My point is this: if you would want to read about the Viggen, what would you search for, and what articles would you expect to find? You would have to decide whether you wanted to read about the JA37 Viggen or the SH37 Viggen. And you would have to keep separate articles for each version - if you include the version designation in the name of the article. In the case of Gripen, there is only one version, thus it works, though it's logically wrong. In the case of the Hercules the correct name would probably be Lockheed Hercules - without the 'C-130' in the middle. But I won't press this further. (It just nags me a bit, I'm a logical person.) Btw: I have not heard from Saab. The PR officer is probably on vacation. LarRan 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what the Communications Manager replied:

Hello and thank you for contacting Gripen International.

Yes, you are correct. 'JAS 39' is only used in the Swedish Air Force, as 'JAS' is a Swedish language abbreviation for Jakt, Attack, Spaning, which in English translates as air–to-air combat, ground attack and reconnaissance capability. The Gripen fighter is designated JAS 39, as in accordance with the Swedish Air Forces numbering system, Gripen was officially the 39th aircraft system to enter service.

Our export customers also call their Gripens 'Gripen', although the Hungarians sometimes call theirs 'JAS39 Gripen', because these aircraft are 'A/B' standard to 'C/D' standard conversions leased to the Hungarian government by the Swedish government, who of course call them 'JAS39'. Perhaps now you can see why we prefer to call all aircraft simply 'Gripen'! For all export sales/customers, we simply call the aircraft 'Gripen' ('Griffin' in English), which is much easier to understand (and have to explain each time!) than 'JAS'.

On your grammatical point regarding whether 'JAS39 Gripen' is tautologous or not, I suppose it could be, although as this is a combination of a set of numbers and a word, neither of which are readily understandable if you don't know what they are, one could argue otherwise. My understanding of tautology is where a series of words is used to say the same thing, for example "I, myself, personally think Gripen is the best..........." All 3 words 'I, myself, personally" all refer to the writer, so this would be tautologous. An interesting debate.

I hope this helps and once again thank you for contacting Gripen International.

http://www.gripen.com/en/index.htm

Best regards

etc

LarRan 21:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was not that it would be unique for the Swedish Air Force to have designation sequences, of course not. I'm aware of the fact that other airforces do that too. What I meant was that the designation sequence they're using is unique within the Swedish Air Force. One cannot expect the number 39 to be protected from use by other airforces. Thus, one should not include one government's/airforce's designation number in the aircraft designation, since there will be many, if the aircraft is exported - or produced in more than one country, like the Eurofighter might be. (I don't know if it is already, or ever will be, but it might be.) LarRan 09:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the Eurofighter, there will also be more than one 'official government'. Quod erat demonstrandum. LarRan 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Many aircraft have articles headlined with a designation that is country specific. Just try these links and see for yourself F-14 F-15, A-6 Intruder. Keeping the article name as "JAS 39 Gripen" is in line with this. --J-Star 16:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that. Being many doesn't necessarily mean you're right, it just means you're ... many. LarRan 23:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure why you object to a fighter designed and built by Sweden to Swedish Air Force requirements, and produced originally for the SAF, using its official SAF designation! We do the same thing with US military aircraft, even when they are sold overseas, and even when they have had foreign partners from the beginning, ie F-35 Lightning. I sincerely hope the US military aircraft pages are not your next target! For that, you would need to get the WP:AIR naming conventions changed, and I really don't see THAT happening any time soon.

But you have a right to your own beliefs and preferences, and if you want to move this page, propose a move (rename). I'll do the work for you if you're not sure how to do it, as I do beleive in seeking consensus, even if I disagree with the goal. But I will "oppose" the move in the poll section. If you gain a consensus to move it, fine, but if there's not a clear consensus, it will stay here for now. - BillCJ 17:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess you could say that it's 'designed and built by Sweden', but it's more accurate to say that it's built and designed by Saab (albeit with some very major subcontractors such as Volvo Aero and Ericsson) for the SAF. I'm just looking for a consistent way of naming military aircraft.

May I assume that you don't want one article on the AJ37 Viggen, and one on the SH37 Viggen? Consequently, we can rule the 'JAS' part out. If the Gripen weren't a true multirole aircraft, it would come in several versions. It just happens that it is, and thus all Gripens are JAS:es, meaning that it works in this special case, and there will no need for multiple articles.

In my opinion, the article should be named 'Saab Gripen', in analogy with Saab Tunnan ('Fpl 29' i SAF, see above). On the other hand, the Lansen article is stored under the name Saab 32 Lansen. By the way, the designation sequence isn't Saab's, it's SAF's, so 'Saab 39 Gripen' wouldn't be correct either.

The Hercules may well be known under the C-130 designation in large parts of the (English-speaking) world, but the Hercules name is, I think, even more widespread. What's wrong with the name 'Lockheed Hercules'? Isn't that what the manufacturer calls it? And you didn't say what applies when there are several original and official governments, as in the case of the Eurofighter. LarRan 23:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had give this link before, but didn't see it above. Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) - that covers most major types. I think Swedish aircraft are something for which we probably need a clarification, so feel free to take up the issue there. And sorry, I didn't realize Saab wasn't a Swedish company. My bad. - BillCJ 00:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm noting that you've not answered a single one of my questions. What is the Hercules called by its manufacturer? Would you like separate articles on the AJ37 Viggen and the SH37 Viggen? What applies when there isn't one, but several, official governments?

What happened with the "always assume good faith" bit? I resent the kind of malicious irony you're displaying. Such remarks remarks only incite Wikipedia:HATE. It's like I would say "I didn't realize a Swedish company and Sweden was the same. My bad.". Which I, of course, would never do - 'cause I have read the five pillars (have you recently?). I give up, I'm leaving wikipedia, I don't like to be insulted. You'll have to target someone else now. LarRan 09:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't "malicious irony", just sarcasm. You could have just played along (your retort would have been a good one, and I would have conceded your point!), but instead you chose to take it personally. My point was that since the Gripen is a Swedish product built in Sweden at the behest of, and for, the SAF, shouldn't we consider what the SAF calls it? And it doesn't matter what Lockheed calls the Hercules, since the naming conventions we use say we call it by its official US DOD designation. For most other other countries' aircraft, we do use Company/name or company/designation, and once in a while we use company/designation/name.

I did look at the Swedish wikipage for the Gipen, and it is "Saab 39 Gripen". But since you rejected that one too, I suggested you propose a move. I notice you didn't reply on that either. If you're going to be this intractable in all your discussions, I can't help that. You seem to have a deep interest in the Gripen, but I don't know if that extends to other aircraft or not. I'll argue with a fencepost give the oppurtunity, so I'm guilty of letting this discussion go on too long from my end. I've tried to move it along by suggesting the move proposal, but that didn't work! Anyway, what you do is your choice. If you think my "malicious irony" is bad, then there is no way you could handle some of the criticisms you would encounter from some other editors that are here. If you want to keep editing here, I don't have a problem with that - I meant nothing personal by my comment, and I have nothing against you. I'm sorry that I caused you offense, and will try to watch that in any future converstaions with you, should you chose to stay. The choices are yours. Make the best one for you. - BillCJ 16:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

LaRan, hold yours horses a bit before you confuse people to much! You are correct to a level, but most of what you say is wrong!!! Yes, the Swedish Air Force do have a unique system of designation of their aircraft that goes back to 1926, but the numbers have not always been randomly. When it comes to Saab aircraft they have all with two exceptions been given an Air Force designation based upon Saab's own project number! That is, that Saab 37 is Saab's own name with a number picked by Saab, not by the Swedish Air Force! The SAF did put their own pre-designation AJ, JA, SH and so on before the number depending on their use of the airplane. Viggen have never officially been called "Flygplan 37" or "Fpl 37" by the SAF! You are probably confusing it with "System 37" wich was SAF's generic name of all Viggens. How people talk is another story. The pre-designation "Fpl" or "FPL" as short for "Flygplan" have been used exlusively by the Swedish Army only, and only for three different airplanes! None of SAF's airplanes have ever been designated with a "Fpl"! (And before you say "Fpl 801", they were never owned by SAF!) In other words, JAS 39 is called 39 only because Saab gave it the number, not the Air Force! The Air Force did nothing but added JAS! It's also worth remembering here that not all of Saab's airplanes even have names! Also, not all names are official by Saab! Names like Lansen, Draken, Viggen, Gripen, Safir and Scandia are all official names given by Saab in different ways and reasons. But Tunnan, or Flygande Tunnan was never an offficial name by Saab! Same thing with Lill-Draken. Saab airplanes 17, 18, 21, 21R, 105, 340 or 2000 didn't even have any names! Another good example, the first Saab Safirs in the SAF was designated Tp 91 only because 91 was the projekt number of the airplane given by Saab them self, i.e. SAAB 91. SAF have "borrowed" numbers for their designations with other airplanes than from Saab. Example, the Dornier Do 24 became Tp 24, the Canadian Harvards became Sk 16 only because they were called "AT-16" in USAF (not by USAAF). Beechcraft C-45 became Tp 45 and so on. Also, there have never been anything called "JA37" or "SH37". Correct spelling is JA 37 and SH 37! There is ALWAYS a space between letters and numbers in swedish military aircraft designations! There are NO exeptions! And yes, not everyone in the Swedish Air Force today do know this! Is that spelling important? Well, anyone who thinks "airforce" is correct probably don't care.

There is no conformaty what so ever with the article names about Saab aircraft here right now. The only way to make them all neutral no matter what air force using what Saab airplane with what name is by going by Saab's own project numbers only. They are, in a complete list as follow: Saab 17, 18, 21, 29, 32, 35, 37, 39, 90, 91, 105, 210, 340 and 2000. Any names, if given, should be in the text only. Not in the name of the article! Who will take the task to straighten this up? --Towpilot 04:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

To this demonstration of authoritative knowledge one must yield! As a matter of fact, I was starting to hesitate myself, as I found the Saab 21, without any other name. That signalled to me that maybe it wasn't SAF's designation sequence after all. Also, should I have been right, that does not necessarily mean that the articles would have to be named accordingly. Thanks for the exhaustive explanation. Maybe this constitues an article in its own right? You're right, some articles need renaming, since they are not consistently named. A case for WikiProject Aviation or WikiProject Sweden? LarRan 17:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidents sub-page

Isn't it time to move this section into an associated article? It appears to be detailed and takes away from the main article. FWIW Bzuk 01:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

See List of Gripen crashes. I thought it had been remved here already. I guess the creator either forgot, or doesn't think the new page is ready yet. It should happen this week tho. - BillCJ 01:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm planning to move the incident detailing, I'm just waiting to see reactions to the proposal, as the incidents page is rather new. LarRan 12:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. And the incidents page appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know? column on 12 July 2007! Hooray! LarRan 21:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Any Hungarians aboard?

The article on Gripen in the Hungarian Wikipedia seems to have a lot more information. Any Hungarian-speaking wikipedian that could see if more information could be obtained from there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarRan (talk • contribs) 11:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft

I think we need some consensus about what aircraft are comparable to the Gripen. First, all aircraft in the same generation (4:th generation) are in my view comparable, that is Gripen, Eurofighter and Rafale.

I do not agree that Gripen is comparable to Rafale and Eurofighter. Perhaps in 'generation' but certainly not in size. The two latter are about twice as heavy. BAe even marketed the Gripen side by side to the Eurofighter because of them not competing with each other.

On the export market the Gripen often competes with the F-16. So, altough the F-16 is a considerable older aircraft it is in some way comparable. Also the F-35 that belongs to the 5:th generation (because of stealth) competes with the Gripen in Norway and Denmark. So also F-35 is in this sense comparable. Olert 09:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I do agree about the F-16 (1/2 generation older) and F-35 (1/2 generation newer) however. Also the F-20 that Bzuk brought up since it was competing with the Gripen for the SwAF purchase. T96 grh 20:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's true that they are not comparable in size; the Gripen has one engine, the others are twin engined. But there is more than size: All three are european unstable aircraft. All three have fully movable canards. All three have digital flight control systems. All three are designed for communication in networks using datalinks. The functionality of all three aircraft are to great extent controlled by software. All three projects started during the 80:ies and aimed for operational service in the 90:ies. Unfortunately Eurofighter and Rafale have suffered delays and missed that target. But that doesn't make them more modern, they are just more delayed. And at least Gripen and Eurofighter are competing for the same customers in a lot of markets, for example Norway and Denmark.Olert 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but what you're here would make the aircraft listed under the same generation appear in this page - which they do. With your arguments, The P-51 Mustang and B-24 Liberator would be listed as comparable aircraft because they both had laminar profile wings and cable controlled actuators. IMHO, aircraft should only be comparable if they competed for the same potential sales. The Gripen does not directly compete with Rafale and Typhoon because of the size/cost difference (even there might be competition due to political reasons). Hope you see my point here. T96 grh 23:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I would not consider the Mustang and the Liberator comparable. That's since the Mustang is a fighter and the Liberator is a bomber. Gripen, Rafale and Eurofighter are all multirole fighters.

But still, you got a point. The difference in size and cost can not be extreme if the aircraft should be considered comparable. For example F-22 could not, in my view, be considered comparable to Gripen. But that's not only because of size but also becasue it's not a multirole figher but an air superiority fighter. It's also more stealthy than Gripen.Olert 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take it as we agree that Rafale and Typhoon are not comparable to Gripen then, since they are twice as heavy and twice as expensive. T96 grh 19:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you have misunderstood me. I weight difference by the factor 2 is large but not extreme in my view. By the way, F-35 is also twice as heavy as the Gripen but it seems you are considering those two comparable? You also said that you consider aircraft comparable if they compete for the same sales. Gripen and Typhoon did compete in Austria and they are competing in Norway and Denmark (as do F-35).Olert 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A weight, thrust and range factor of 2 is a significant difference IMHO. Noone would say the contemporary F-15 and F-16 are comparable (2x difference in thrust and MTOW). Same thing with the contemporary Boeing 747 and DC-10 (even though they are both classed as widebodies). As for competing sales, I did mention the whole new dimension of politics. Seldom does the airforce get to pick for free what aircraft to request offers for in international sales. T96 grh 03:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I withdraw my comparison with F-35 because of the weight-issue. The F-35 is probably most comparative with the Typhoon (since the F-22 is not offered to foreign customers) and neither are really comparative with Gripen. I'll remove both of them because of the weight class. T96 grh 17:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Olert, please do not continue to revert the comparable lists while this is being discussed. It's poor form, and if it violates WP:3RR, can lead to you being blocked by an admin. As to the issue, the Gripen and the others (Typhoon, Rafael, and F-35) are multi-role fighters. However, the Gripen is in a lower weight calss, and it's basic design is a good 5-10 years older than the EuroTwins, and much older than the F-35. In addition, several potential users have dropped consideration of the Typhoon because it's too expensive, and are looking at the Gripen instead. So while technically they are in competition with each other, it's like comparing a mid-size basic sedan with a full-size luxury sedan. Also, ther is a definition at WP:AIR/PC for what factors are to be considered in judging what aricraft are comparable. Please look at them, and try to make your arguments based on them. Thanks. - BillCJ 22:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting comment. I started this discussion October 20. On October 27 BillCJ reverted the comparable aircraft list. And he did it without giving any arguments in the discussion! So I'm quite surprised when he says that my behaviour is poor form and might lead to me being blocked by admin. Well, admin better block both of us then.Olert (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

latest information releases reveals that the latest version of the Gripen has been pitted against the F-35, making it comparable to F-35 to a certain extent,the new Gripen model has new IRST system,higher payload,improved range,AESA radar which will be developed jointly by SAAB and Thales, improved engine with higher thrust,better landing gear,latest avionics,there may exist super cruise ability (unconfirmed)e.t.c. The only factor that is missing in Gripen is lack of stealth making F-35 better option for air-to-ground missions but the belance certainly in favour of Gripen for air superiority missions as it has an edge over F-35 in the air-to-air missions F-35 not being an air superiority air craft. Daredevil555 (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are qualitative statements, while yes, the Gripen uses fairly recent technologies in its avionics, the power of such avionics is not even close to comparable to that of the much larger F-35. Example such as comparing an M-4 to a glock 17. Both have synthetic materials, both shoots bullets, both... etc. But they are Not in the same class. Lastly, stealth is no one tiny factor, with just stealth, you have effectively at least trippled your combat performance for the same avionics.

• When was that supposed to have happened? The F-35 is in flight testing now. Maybe a simulation or other aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think pitted against just means that it was put forward to meet the same customer requirements, not sure that makes it comparable. MilborneOne (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Gripen NG is still under development, and will probably be fielded at around the same time as the F-35. As noted below, we'll probably have a separate article for the NG at some point in the future, and I think it would be appropriate to list the F-35 there at that time, but not here. - BillCJ (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes by pitted I mean it is one of the contender. As regards the air-to-air mission capability that is my personal comment and should be ignored.It is impossible to judge which is a better aircraft at present. Daredevil555 (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

SAAF Deliveries?

The article text stated that deliveries to South Africa are to start in March 2008. There are photos on the page now (January 2008) of an already delivered 2 seater at the TFDC Base. So what is the real story? Roger (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Gripen at AFB Overberg has not yet been delivered. It is still a Saab aircraft. Delivery is scheduled for March/April... Zerbet (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Roger (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Teaming agreements

I grouped the various marketing and development agreement subsections under a single Teaming agreements subsection. This is currently under Operational history. But I don't think this is related to operational use, so I suggest moving the Teaming subsection to be under Development. What do you think? Any other suggestions? -Fnlayson (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be a reasonable suggestion - fits better in development. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK, it's been about a week and no arguments against. So I'll move the Teaming subsection is a little while. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article?

I think the article has benefited from latest changes, and that it now has a very good structure. Isn't it time that it was nominated to a Good Article? LarRan (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think it should be close anyway. I suggest asking for peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review first though to help catch anything major. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Asked for review comments here: /Peer review/JAS 39 Gripen -Fnlayson (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Got some comments and incorporated most all of them. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Should Generation Be Mentioned ?

There are many ways to count aircraft generations most being centric on the nation that does it. I don't see mentioning generation bringing any clarity as it is such a rough estimate most of the time. It would be better to say that the aircraft was designed in the 80's at the same time as the Eurofighter and Rafale. This lead to more advanced computers being used to calculate airflows producing a more advanced airframe then the fighters designed in the 70's (F-16 F/A-18). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.234.247 (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

While fighter generations is mostly marketing bullshit, that really does not tell you much about the characteristics of an airplane, it gives at least a hint of what technology level the fighter is designed after, which is an argument for leaving that info in the article. But assigning a generation to a fighter is not more descriptive than to simply state when the aircraft was first designed and when additional enhancements stopped being developed for the model (which will probably not happen for another 20 years in the case of Gripen). Gripen or any other fighter aircraft will not have significantly less computing power or technology level than any other fighter that continuously are upgraded, and they will all in a sense belong to the same generation until the development of the aircraft ceases, which is an argument to remove the marketing bullshit. 83.248.192.253 (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The generation of a fighter aircraft is not "marketing bullshit", it's an agreed-upon division of aircraft of various times. See article Fighter aircraft, section Generation 4.5 (1990-2000). LarRan (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

South Africa

The South African AF is supposed to be handed over their Gripen's starting soon. Their web site says first quarter of 2008.[7] I can't find any press releases that say this has happened yet. Should be soon anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They may not have been delivered to South Africa but images are on the web of SAAF aircraft test flying in Sweden with SAAF pilots! MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. Gripen International and the SAAF have been putting JAS 39s through a flight test program there.[8]
• This does make things more complicated as to whether SAAF is a Gripen user or not. I can see BillCJ's side now. Someone is welcome to unhide the South African AF in the Infobox if they want as far as I'm concerned. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The first aircraft was delivered to the SAAF Flight Test and Development Centre to carry out a flight-test programme in September 2006. The delivery scheduled for March/April 2008 is for the first aircraft to enter operational service.[9]. Seems reasonable to have the SAAF as an operator as they have operated an aircraft since 2006. MilborneOne (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In previous versions of the Gripen page, there was a picture of the first Gripen to be delivered to SAAF, the SA01, at the AFB Overberg, where it had been stationed since the fall of -06. The comment to the picture said that the aircraft was still the property of Saab. Obviously, the aircraft isn't stationary, it's probably being used for evaluation and education purposes. But it isn't operational yet. Until an official delivery has taken place, I don't think we should list SAAF as a user. What's the hurry? LarRan (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

By that reasoning I expect you all to be removing the users from the Infobox on the F-35 forthwith, since the first production plane hasn't even flown yet! Having different standards on different pages is very confusing, as no where in the WP:AIR/PC does it list "official delivery" as the standard. I seriously don't understand the objections to having the SAAF listed here, but I obviously don't have the consensus to keep it in. I guess it's time to get a consensus from WP:AIR on this, but I'm going to wait a week or so and see how things shake out first. - BillCJ (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the template should have another variable: "ordered_by"? LarRan (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The official delivery should take place sometime this month, so this specific situation should resolve itself shortly. Until then, it's probably worth leaving the SAAF off the Primary Users list, since it's only going to be a couple weeks at most until we can add it back. In the larger issue of how this applies to other articles, I'd suggest that we keep to the current standard. For those aircraft already in service, future users are not necessarily guaranteed and should not be in the Users list, but for aircraft still in development (like the F-35), I think it's fine to list future users in the Users list as readers should be intelligent enough to be able to understand the difference. Though that said, I can see problems arising once the F-35 begins deliveries to the USAF and not yet to the other primary users, but I honestly think that's a bridge we can cross when we reach it. — Impi (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Gripen Technology Demonstrator

The Gripen Demo aircraft is described a little here: Saab reveals Gripen Demo. The landing gear is moved out to make room for 2 fuselage hardpoints. See demo images: Front view main landing gear area Here's a JAS 39 landing image for comparison. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A new wiki article has been split off for the Gripen Demo by another user today. See Saab 39E/F Super Gripen for that. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the new article is premature, and so I have redirected it back here. The Demo is not, as far as I can tell, the definitive E/F, and I don't think "Super Gripen" is official either. - BillCJ (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't sure. The super article omits "JAS" in the designation as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well thank you very much for that BillCJ, Super Gripen article creater Walle83 (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

BillCJ is correct. As yet, the only name Saab has given to the proposed future aircraft is Gripen NG, not 'Super Gripen' and not the JAS-39E/F designation (though that will almost certainly be the designation once in service). The Gripen Demo is only a prototype which will be used to test the new configuration and aspects of the Gripen NG design, but it's not yet close to the definitive final configuration. It does not have the new avionics architecture installed or the specific AESA design planned for the NG, for example. For now, I think the best approach would be to add a section to the article, titled 'Gripen NG', under which we can place information regarding the Gripen Demo and the progress being made towards the final configuration. — Impi (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. LarRan (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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))

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.[10] -Fnlayson (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

A VERY well known picture!!!!

The picture of the three split formation is taken by the world famous japanese photographer Katsuhiko Tokunaga [11] 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

How does one transfer the canard picture from the Spanish wikipedia to the English?

LarRan (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)