Which aircraft did you DACT with in Gripen and how would you rank them in terms difficulty to defeat? Any surprises?

“I’ve flown against F-16s and F-18s. No surprises really, they are what they are. The F-16s are a lot like the Gripens but you can claw yourself closer and closer to their behind, if that is your goal.

For F-18s you have to look out for their ability to do high AOA turns for quick point-and-shoot. They will be sitting ducks after such a move though. The Gripen ‘carves’ through the air better then both and you will not lose as much speed when turning. Saying that, I believe that ACM is mostly a curiosity today, but a damn fun one and good for training aircraft handling. The IRIS-T missile is so good (and as are others) that everything you can see with your eyes is basically within your Weapon Employment Zone, WEZ. You can of course end up in a ‘furball’, having to fight your way out with guns, but it would suboptimal to craft fighters for that purpose today, as anyone with a missile left would win hands down. So, it’s always better to opt for one more missile than guns, if we’re talking ACM.

I know the guys in the Swedish Air Force are very keen to fly their Gripens in air combat manoeuvres against Denmark’s and Norway’s F-35s. I think you can guess why.”

How you rate Gripen in the following areas:

Pilot comfort

“Very Good. You sit great, though not as leaned back as in the F-16. The suit is also great and give you enough support to make 9g fairly tolerable. The small number of gauges and knobs and the good reachability of everything you need to touch during a sortie makes the aircraft wonderful to work with. A side stick would give it a perfect score, but I know pilots that does not share my view on this.”

Instantaneous turn rate

“Perfect. You get 9g almost instantaneously for combat speeds, at most relevant altitudes. The care free manoeuvring means you can pull the stick as fast and hard as you want, and the aircraft will respond with 9g within a second or so, given you don’t have something hanging that make the flight control system automatically limit max g. No need for more here.”

“Lots! But that might be because I have been an inventor and innovator in this field for the two years. Many of the things are also now in the Gripen E. First and foremost, I would’ve liked to have a Missile Approach Warner (MAW) in the C/D. In a hostile environment you have to spend too much time looking at the ground without one, and the MAW is better at it anyway and never gets tired or distracted with pilot shit. I think the Gripen E’s AESA radar would be my next choice. The much greater search volume is nice, but I’m more excited about the increased flexibility in radar programs, anti-jamming, better low observability target tracking (de-stealthing) and such that AESA gives. When it comes to software, I’m probably most excited about the increased survivability our new optimal evasive manoeuvre AI algorithm HUMAN would give. It takes an incoming missile and calculates an optimal trajectory for the aircraft, given any number of overlapping priorities, like staying in doppler-zero* , aiming your Electronic Warfare System antennas towards it or just physically be as far away from the incoming missile as possible. Few pilots react perfectly when you might have seconds to live and an automated or semi-automated system might do a lot for pilot survival. Would it be too self-serving to also ask for our AI decision support system Rattlesnake? It keeps track of all known enemies and their history, our own capability and conduct massive parallel simulations (now off-line due to our patented AI) to be able to show the pilot (or fighter controller) how to fly to stay away from enemy missiles and how to manoeuvre for an optimal shot. I honestly want it as it would make me almost invincible in a BVR environment.  I could go on and on here, but maybe we should save that for a specific innovation interview?”

*Ed notes (“the classic zero doppler target is one which is on a heading that is tangential to the radar antenna beam. Basically, any target that is heading 90 degrees in relation to the antenna beam cannot be detected by its velocity”)

What was your most memorable mission and why?

“Without a doubt the first mission in the Operation Protector over Libya. It was the first time in 50 years that Sweden was abroad with the Air Force in a conflict and I had the opportunity to lead our first mission into the area. Even though the memories of most of the following missions in the operation have faded, it feels like I remember every minute of that first one, better than any of them. It wasn’t very exciting per-se, and the mission went as planned, but it was uncharted territory psychologically. It was a little extra exciting as I had our squadron commander as my wingman and the mission could not fail, for many reasons, both military and political. It started with a very exciting air refuelling were we had to connect right after take-off due to fuel incompatibilities on the Sigonella base (don’t ask..). The bingo fuel warning alarm went off almost right away and creative manual calculations had to take its place. There were a few refuelling misses involved, the Air Force Chief looking back at us from the tanker, which was a C-130 that was really just a trainer, and me having to do a few short cuts through the Fighter Area of Responsibility to get on station on time and with enough fuel. But other than that, quite uneventful as we were just doing Defensive Counter Air for the tanker fleet. Psychologically it turns out that live missions are very similar to training ones, even pulse wise, but I didn’t know that before taking off. Train as you fight works.”

Would you have been confident going against Flankers?

“Yes. Going up against Flankers is a very probable and much trained for scenario, given where Sweden is geographically. We’ll do great. One-versus-One air combat manoeuvring  is not how we expect to meet them though. A more likely scenario is large force operations/combined air operations where there’s a lot of aircraft in the area — and the chess game is on with beyond visual range combat in a complicated environment. in this situation achieving Situational Awareness is key to success in denying heavy enemy strike access to our airspace. Flankers are a hybrid of figure and speed skaters. Great for acrobatics, pirouettes and pure speed, but we expect the fight will be more like ice hockey, and we have the best all-round players for that. Throw in great team cooperation with reliable and fast fighter links, and I become even more confident. I guess the Flankers would want to make the battlefield as chaotic as possible so we can’t cooperate and keep our lines. That’s usually what you want when doing offensive operations against a organised defender. I also think they will come in great numbers, trying to saturate our defences and fewer resources. Our answer to that is staying organised, having many options to land for a quick turnaround (we have road bases, though not nearly as many as before) and practice keeping situational awareness in a chaotic environment.

Gripen C/D+ has great missiles, maybe the best in the world with our integrated Meteor and IRIS-T, so if we can get a lock on then and can be at the right place at the right time, BVR duels shouldn’t be much of a problem. The Flankers have better weapons coming though (e.g. K77M), and our missile advantage might go away, but that’s how this very material sport works. Development is not static though and the Russians are putting a lot of effort into their modernisation and re-arming programme, while Sweden are lagging behind in spending.”

Which three words would you use to describe the Gripen? Well-balanced, cost-effective and future-proof.