Hacker News Reader

Comment by Eupolemos | Hacker News Reader

I don't know about that.

Isn't the exact reason for such planes to be able to have a credible defense vs. Putin and his ilk, so as to not tempt Russia to make advances on Europe. AFAIK, Denmark is patrolling the skies of the Baltic nations vs. Russia right now. I don't think Denmark wants to do that in an obsolete 1970s fighter plane.

The F-35 looks like a disappointment, but we can be 100% sure it will be able to carry the newest weapons-systems for the foreseeable future. That begs the question; is it preferable to have ageing weapons on a nimble plane, or the newest weapons on a clumsy plane?

I don't feel Europe has the luxury of skipping the F-35 (or equivalents, which the Saab is not, AFAIK) for a successful successor, when Putin is going crazy with propaganda inside Russia.

View on HN

You're not wrong, but the initial bid was for I believe 60 planes. Something SAAB could deliver within the budget. We're now down to ordering maybe 30 planes or less. Partly because of the price of the F-35, but also due to the overall economy within Denmark.

You can bolt very advanced weapons onto the Gripen, or the Eurofighter, but you can also buy two or three times the amount of planes.

European countries, as least not the small one, will just buy less planes if the cost goes up. So it might be better to have more of a 1990s plane, than a few of a 2015 era plane.

> you can also buy two or three times the amount of planes.

we're close to the turning point where for air superiority a fleet of missile armed drone seems the cheapest and more effective way to go

but we just love to design the best thing that would have won the previous war. I guess if that effect is known in psychology, because I see it even in the day to day life at way smaller scales.

This is very true. A drone could quite likely do maneuvers that a traditional jet couldn't do because of the limits of what the squishy human body inside can withstand.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future we see a drone capable of taking F-35's, F-16's, and any other human piloted plane out of the sky.

>> You can bolt very advanced weapons onto the Gripen, or the Eurofighter, but you can also buy two or three times the amount of planes. Don't you then also need 2-3 times the amount of pilots, airfield, fuel, hangars, maintenance crews...

> is it preferable to have ageing weapons on a nimble plane, or the newest weapons on a clumsy plane?

Why not put the newest weapons on the nimble plane? I don't see why you wouldn't be able to put the newest weapons on an F-16. Requires more electronics on the plane? You can put new electronics in an F-16. Planes get updated all the time.

Eurofighter is cheaper and BETTER that the F-35. Plus it's local so helps European economy instead of sending money to the EEUU.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com