Band of brothers

[ran 0]

soon , but we have some other priorities right now like the hk pack

[Blaegis 0]

7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 02 2002,177)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Gripen has had two crashes total during its test period(same pilot, believe it or not! ) which is nothing compared to for instance the F-16 who was responsible for killing > 20 pilots during its test. Gripen is actually a very good aircaft. It slightly outperforms the Eurofighter and is slightly cheaper too. Otherwise they are very similar.<span id='postcolor'>

As I seem to recall, one of those crashes happened over Stockholm. It was blind luck that the plane fell down in the park and not into an apartment building (or the Royal Palace, hehe ) I don't believe Gripen significantly outperforms Eurofighter (or Hornet, for that matter), at least not before I see some evidence to the contrary.

Oh yeah, and the Finnish F/A-18s are brand new, thank you very much

[Paratrooper 0]

What impresses me is that a country of Sweden's limited power and status(not a jibe there) has such a vibrant and successful Aerospace industry. The Grippen is a first rate plane and it is a tribute to Sweden's ability to manufacture defence equipment.

[billytran 0]

We didn't lose Vietnam. Our objective was to maintain the independence of South Vietnam. We won every single battle (most major battles ended with about 200-300 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead NVA/VC). And when we finally got tired of it we pulled out of the coutry, with the independence of South Vietnam intact. A few years later the North Vietnamese invaded. We just stopped caring, we didn't lose.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 02 2002,18:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We didn't lose Vietnam.  Our objective was to maintain the independence of South Vietnam.  We won every single battle (most major battles ended with about 200-300 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead NVA/VC).  And when we finally got tired of it we pulled out of the coutry, with the independence of South Vietnam intact.  A few years later the North Vietnamese invaded.  We just stopped caring, we didn't lose.<span id='postcolor'>

Why did you write that now?

Plus it isn't correct. Evacuation of Saigon ring any bells?

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 02 2002,18:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We didn't lose Vietnam.  Our objective was to maintain the independence of South Vietnam.  We won every single battle (most major battles ended with about 200-300 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead NVA/VC).  And when we finally got tired of it we pulled out of the coutry, with the independence of South Vietnam intact.  A few years later the North Vietnamese invaded.  We just stopped caring, we didn't lose.<span id='postcolor'>

That is typical american rationalization.

Paint it however you like it. The NVA managed to inflict heavy enough casualties on the US Armed Forces that US public opinion basically scuttled the war effort. And if that isnt losing..I dont know what is.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ Aug. 02 2002,18:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't believe Gripen significantly outperforms Eurofighter (or Hornet, for that matter), at least not before I see some evidence to the contrary.<span id='postcolor'>

As for Hornet it is no question that Gripen has better performance since it is two generations ahead. As for the eurofighter vs gripen, I was pretty sure that Gripen was better since it is newer. I have looked around a bit and it seems that both the aircraft have very very similar flight characteristics. The Eurofighter has some technical advantages (twin engines, larger weapons load) and most of all certain logistic advantages (sevral countries involved in the production, which means that access to supplies is safer). Jas has more modern on-board computer systems and better radar, but most importantly it is cheaper.

A brand new eurofighter costs about 20 000 000 € while the JAS is only 8 000 000 €.

You can find a comparation between the aircraft here. If you don't know German, use Babelfish to translate it. The site is Austrian and they discuss the advantages of JAS 39/EF/F16 for the Austrian airforce. Austria finally chose the Eurofighter later on, but that has very little to do with the actual aircrafts involved and is more politics.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 02 2002,18:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What impresses me is that a country of Sweden's limited power and status(not a jibe there) has such a vibrant and successful Aerospace industry. The Grippen is a first rate plane and it is a tribute to Sweden's ability to manufacture defence equipment.<span id='postcolor'>

Heh. Sweden has always been a producer of weapons. Bofors is one of the world's largest producer of things that explode (AT,mortars,howitzers etc). We have our own aircraft, ships, submarines etc. The only big exception has been licencing the Leopard II tank from the Germans but otherwise we are largly self-sufficient.

As for Swedens 'limited' power - we havn't been at war for 200 years now. There hasn't been a war on Swedish territory (not counting Finland) since 1676. We have no general interest in war (except for supplying anybody who wants with weapons).

Last time we were interested in war, we fought on equal terms (and won most of the times) with Russia, England, Holland and Denmark. So we do have a military tradition, but we have chosen peace instead of war

(It could also have something to do with the fact that Sweden became very under-developed after the industrial revolution and it took quite some time for it to return to normal European levels )

[Tex -USMC- 0]

When a Swede says they chose Peace over War, they mean that they chose volleyball and sex over War

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 02 2002,19:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 02 2002,18:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We didn't lose Vietnam.  Our objective was to maintain the independence of South Vietnam.  We won every single battle (most major battles ended with about 200-300 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead NVA/VC).  And when we finally got tired of it we pulled out of the coutry, with the independence of South Vietnam intact.  A few years later the North Vietnamese invaded.  We just stopped caring, we didn't lose.<span id='postcolor'>

That is typical american rationalization.

Paint it however you like it. The NVA managed to inflict heavy enough casualties on the US Armed Forces that US public opinion basically scuttled the war effort.  And if that isnt losing..I dont know what is.<span id='postcolor'>

When you lose a war, one side surrenders and comes under control of the other. That didnt happen. We withdrew all of our combat troops about three years before the NVA overran Saigon. Did the NVA defeat the US? No, they beat the South Vietnamese. They had no victories against the US. Our people just stopped caring, mostly because of the way the politicians ran the war.

[Placebo 28]

This thread now has nothing to do with the original subject.