Armasuisse made a first evaluation of the Gripen, Rafale and Eurofighter in 2008. Several Air to Air and Air to Ground trials were performed by the 3 contenders, in Switzerland, in order to assess their relative efficiency in different roles.
A second Evaluation was done between March and August 2009 to take into account the upgrades and improvements of the 3 fighters in their "2015 form". This evaluation was based on data provided by the manufacturers or simulated flights. This final Armasuisse report, with updated rankings was released in November 2009 and is recommending the Rafale for the Swiss Air Force (confirming the rumors heard during the last 2 years).
In this report, each capability is ranked on 9 points, 6 points being the minimum score to meet the Swiss Air Force requirement (We understand that the 6 points benchmark would be the F/A-18C score)
 |
| ©Basler Zeitung November 30, 2011 |
- The Rafale is ranked first with 7.28 and 7.41 points,
- The Eurofighter second with 6.49 and 6.54 points,
- The Gripen is third with 5.68 and 5.62 points. Therefore it does not manage to pass the threshold of 6 points.
Various quotes from the report :
"Rafale and Eurofighter showed generally better performance than the F/A-18, Gripen worse"
"The performance of the Gripen in air-air engagements as well as attack missions was insufficient"
"The most limiting factors of the Gripen design were the operating time, the flight performance and the maximum weapon load"
"The Rafale is the only aircraft that has met the requirements of the Air Force in all types of applications"
So the report is quite clear regarding the capabilities of the 3 aircrafts:
1- The Rafale is the best technical performer and thus recommended as the Tiger replacement.
2- The Rafale was ranked above the Eurofighter in both Air defense and ground attack missions.
3- The Gripen has serious weaknesses and is considered as a step back compared to the F/A-18 operated by the Swiss Air Force.
Sources:
Basler Zeitung
Bazonline.ch
This evaluation won't count much unless it involves elimination of one or more contenders. If the Gripen met the minimum requirements of the Swiss, despite being ranked lost, it still makes sense to choose it.
ReplyDelete@Justin, the gripen don t reach the minimum requirement.
ReplyDeleteSwiss government say him selft, they don t want take the best, the contract is not signed, green party don t jet fighter, and it seem get a very hostile political position, because gripen take the money on other part of budget. i think the contract is dead next year.
The evaluation is based on heads on fighting without a plan. That is what the French have been doing for quite a while in their history losing time after time to Germany's clockwork soldiers and ruthlessly efficient leaders.
ReplyDeleteThe Gripen has a plan. It is not and never was designed primarily for symmetrical warfare. It is designed to negate and win by attrition through assymetrical fighting and teamwork. As Russia got better radars and started to create monsterplanes that could carry a football field of weapons and equipment we knew we had to make our next plane smaller and smarter than the Viggen. We did it. Learning to love the Gripen can be hard for someone who spends most of his time wishing he had a bigger cock. But in real war the man with the plan and the logistics wins over the guy with the biggest penis extender. Gripen is everything Rafale should have been but failed to be because France looked too much at what Eurofighter was doing and Eurofighter looked too much at the F-15.
Raffeur,
ReplyDeleteThe Gripen does meet the minimum NECESSARY requirements of the Swiss AF. It has its drawbacks but it fits the bill to replace the F-5; or else it would not have been cleared by the military. Here the issue is not the best but being good enough. The Rafale is the best but the Gripen has proven to be good enough.
If the contract is cancelled, what makes you think the Rafale has any chance left? Unless Dassault gives a big fat discount, the Gripen remains in pole position.
@AtmosphericMk2 What you are saying doesn't make any sense at all.
ReplyDeleteBoth the Gripen and the Rafale have what you call a "plan", but the Gripen and the Rafale are in different league. The Gripen is smaller, less capable, less complex than both the Eurofighter and the Rafale. However, the Gripen is cheaper and cheaper to operate and maintain.
Sure the Gripen will do good flying over Switzerland to police the sky to intercept lost Cessna and Airliners along with performing great during air shows. However, when it comes to strike deep inside enemy territory for instance (which Switzerland will never do), both the Rafale and the Eurofighter will do much better than the Gripen. In the Lybian conflict for instance, the Rafale (and the Eurofighter) did great. It would have been very different using the Gripen.
The Rafale will certainly do better in symmetrical warfare than the Gripen because of its overall better performance, better sensor systems and higher payload etc…
When you compare all the fighter jets on the market, the bests in term of versatility/performance/stealth/cost are the Rafale, the Eurofighter and maybe the F-18. Amongst this 3, the Rafale has an edge in modern warfare.
Let say in the coming months, NATO has to strike Iran. Do you really think a Gripen will be able to sneak inside the tight air-to-air defense systems and fly deep inside enemy territory to strike underground nuclear facilities? I doubt it. On this other hand, the Gripen is perfect to intercept Airliners over switzerland.
Those tests were made on the Gripen D version which is the two seater version of the Gripen currently being used by the Swedish airforce.
ReplyDeleteThe Gripen NG would have 2 more weapon pylons 20 % more thrust, 40 % greater range, 2 tonne higher maximum take off weight and the ability to supercruise.
http://www.defensenews.com/osd_story.php?sh=VSDF&i=3625513
And neither Gripen nor Rafale or Eurofighter were really put to test over Libya. The initial strikes took out the Libyan anti air defense and those where mainly carried out by Tomahawk missiles and legacy aircrafts.
ReplyDeleteSergio H,
ReplyDeleteCan you name the last time when aircraft were really put to 'test'? From Desert Storm onwards, every major conflict had started with cruise missile and stealth bomber strikes. The last ones were probably the Israelis over Syria in 1982 and the Vietnam war.
Again, the Rafale was among the first, if not the first fighter carrying out recce and strike missions over Libya.
I am in agreement with you regarding combat testing and Syria 1982 being the last good example of symmetric air forces with modern equipment fighting each other.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Libyan war is probably the most asymmetric war of the period. Especially the long range Tornado flights to conduct Storm Shadow strikes seem suspiciously much like a marketing job considering how costly they are and how late they were conducted.
There's little for the Tornado or the Storm Shadow to prove. Both have seen combat before (Iraq-2003), so very little to market.
ReplyDeleteAgain long range strikes are expensive but they do make sense in certain situations when you don't have bases close to the target. Remember US B-52s launching ALCMS at Iraq in 1991? Those aircraft deployed from the US and returned back. Surely they could have done the same from Diego Garcia or somewhere in Europe-was marketing also the intention there?
Once bases in Italy were activated, all the Libya participants (including) France shifted away from long-range strikes.
Again, the 'marketing' explanation for the Libya operations seems straight out of a juvenile socialist textbook. Most militaries have their own assessments of their respective threat scenarios. So the Indian and UAE forces would have obviously studied the Libya action, but it wouldn't convince them to buy any of the goodies on offer.
ReplyDelete@ EricdL
ReplyDeleteUnlike France Sweden has built a real warplane. Because unlike France Sweden has been preparing for a real defensive war against Russia since 1945.
You talk about Rafale being more stealthy in an attack against Iran. (As if that was the mission the Swiss air force was horny about...) Well: the Gripen was the most stealthy plane in spring flag Italy 06 and all the red flags it has participated in. Saab claims the Gripen C has a clean RCS of 0.1 m2 and international exercises seem to confirm it.
Umm,
ReplyDeleteAtmospheric, perhaps you should ask yourself why 'big' buyers like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Japan and India aren't considering the Gripen. Sure it's a smaller aircraft and size matters in close combat. But that's about it. You want long-range strike, maritime strike/recce and air dominance missions, the Gripen won't cut it. It was not meant for the role. unlike the Rafale, Eurofighter or F-15.
@AtmosphericMk2
ReplyDeleteHard to imagine the Gripen was more stealthy than the others.
The Gripen NG will be a good evolution of the Gripen but it will still fall short behind the Rafale. In term of maintenance simplicity and operational usage, the Rafale is probably not very distant from the Gripen as the Rafale has been designed from the start to be navalised and therefore is operated in a constrained space with a minimum staff.
That being said, the Gripen will be perfect for patrolling the Switzerland sky. That's about it.
Now imagine that, in the very unlikely situation, Sweden needs to go into a defensive fight against Russia with a choice of aircraft: Gripen NG or Rafale. The Gripen will certainly do good but the Rafale will be much more effective for similar missions.
By the way, I'm glad to hear that Sweden is the only country in Europe that build real warplane...
For the price of 1 Rafale, Switzerland can buy 1,5 Eurofighters or 2,5 Gripens.
ReplyDeleteNow, that's an advantage.
Possibly, the Rafale has features that other aircraft will never have, and nations will never need...
@ Justin P.
ReplyDeleteThe Gripen E/F has decent range:
1300 km with six AAMs + drop tanks, and 30 min on station.
@ EricDl
Gripen has low observability that works. It has proven it in exercises frustrating other participants who very much wanted a "Gripen kill" on their score board. Part of this low observability comes from the fact that Gripens hunt together. It is a netcentric fighter built to win by attrition, and only dogfight as a last resort. The best quality of the Gripen in a dogfight is that it has a good chance of dodging the whole affair and coming back the next day to continue playing its own favorite game. If the Typhoon is a tiger, the Rafale a leopard then the Gripen is a wolf - it is designed to wear out its prey and cooperate cooperate cooperate.
Atmospheric,
ReplyDeleteThe Gripen's range will start to drop once the scope of engagement expands. The Typhoon can carry up to 12 AAMs while the Rafale can carry 10. What is it's range when lunging two cruise missiles?? This is not to berate the Gripen; its range is enough for the likes of Switzerland.
Pretty much all fighters now have network centric capabilities-the question is do you have the firepower to do it an air dominance scenario where you take the war to the enemy's territory. The Gripen would find it harder than the Rafale or Typhoon.
@ Justin P.
ReplyDeleteYou make claims like: small size is only good in close combat.
There is an American F-15 pilot by the name of Corkey Fornof. You can ask him why he considers a small Mig 21 with good avionics and missiles a bigger threat than the Su 30 MKI.
The Mig 21 achieved its air victories in Vietnam in hit and run attacks. Often - the only reason it would be spotted was because the Americans had hundreds of radar sets in the air. The Gripen takes that tactic and improves it 10 levels. The Rafale may be able to win over the Viper more times in ACM. But the Gripen can do it without having to get its hands dirty. Not because it is better in ACM - the F-16 will always be good there BTW, but because has a netcentric plan that only requires another Gripen.
Atmospheric, my friend ask yourself what you want to go up in for the most number of scenarios? I know about the kind of dubious stuff that Colonel Fornoff talked about; he can't even decide what engines the SU-30 uses so I don't really want to ascribe him a lot of weight.
ReplyDeleteVietnam was 40 years ago and both sides learnt a lot of lessons.
Again, coming to size, who detects whom first?? The fact is that any formidable military will have AEW capability, so the relative sizes of the mig-21 or Gripen may not matter. Again you keep talking of multiple Gripens exploiting network centricity; what makes you think rivals like the Eurofighter or even thE SU-27 don't have the same datalink capability. Everybody is working on it whether you want to accept it or not.
@AtmosphericMk2, all modern fighter jets have net-centric capabiliy that includes the Rafale and others. The Rafale is a net-centric asset with Link16 capabilities like other NATO warplanes.
ReplyDelete@axl, the actual cost of the Rafale is unlikely to be that high and is more-or-less in line with the Eurofighter. Buying a warplane is first a political decision. The Rafale lost in Switzerland likely because of recent political tensions between France and the current Swiss government. The Swiss military really wanted the Rafale, and they had the money for it. We all concord that the Rafale is a bit overkill for the needs of the Swiss army. However, the Swiss army apparently wanted to buy it.
The Rafale also lost in Korea because of political reasons (despite being ranked first) and the strong military ties between the US and Korea. The Korean ultimately decided to buy the more expensive and less capable F-15K over the Rafale. Japan could also be a potential buyer of the Rafale. Japan is ready to spent billions of dollars to get the F-22 but the ties between Japan and US is likely to prevent any deal for Eurofighters or Rafales.
EricdL: I'm going to try and be as gentle as I possibly can. Why is it, that even though the Rafale, according to you and some others, is cheaper than the Eurofighter, better than any 4.5th generation fighter in the world and has unmatched capabilities (not to forget the French willingness to sell arms to whomever is willing to buy), hasn't been bought by any nation apart from France themselves?
ReplyDeleteRegarding Libya, the only fighter plane which proved its all-around capabilities was in fact, the Rafale. The Eurofighter came in astonishingly late and had to stand in the shadow of the Tornados which did most of the work even though Great Britain, Spain and Italy all were tied to the air policing of this conflict. The Gripen had its hands tied behind its back as the social democrats in Sweden decided it would be morally wrong to bomb in a campaign.
Saying that the Gripen-platform is more or less "unable" to perform deep strikes into hostile territory is probably an accurate standing point. However, neither is the Rafale, the Super Hornet or the Eurofighter. Modern air defense systems together with modern enemy fighter jets will be a problem for any of the North Atlantic fighter planes single handedly. To perform "deep" strike missions you need an array of subsidiary systems such as pre-emtive missile strikes, electronic warfare systems, AEWACS, tankers, ground support and a comprehensive logistics factor. It's not the Hollywood lone wolf fighter jet flying deep into some country guns blazing, which I'm sure you understand.
The Gripen was developed during the 80's to be able to withstand a Russian invasion on Swedish soil, thus it had the absolute highest demands on 3 factors.
ReplyDeleteThe first is to be able to withstand a numerically superior enemy consisting of Su-27's, MiG-29's, Su-25's and Su-30's. This were to be done by using a small RCS, a small IR-signature, advanced weapon systems and an advanced networking suit.
The second most important factor was to be able to have extremely high operability. This meant being able to land on a small road-base, be re-armed, re-fueled, updated on the battlefield situation and take off in less than 15 minutes by the hands of 4 conscripts, 1 technician and one vehicle. This was important since the most crucial parts of a possible soviet war was during the first 24 hours. The multi-roll JAS 39 were to take on all the roles of the Viggen. Partly attacking Soviet amphibious vessels in the baltic sea, partly attacking soviet round-up positions on soviet territory on the other side of sea, partly keeping Sweden free from bombers, attackers and fighters and also partly giving close air support for Swedish troops on Swedish soil. In order to do this, the 39 Gripens would have to be able to get up in the air as fast as possible after coming home again. Since the baltic sea isn't very big, large internal fuel tanks were thus not necessary.
The third biggest factor was to be able to In order to maintain a large Swedish air force, they had to decrease the operating costs compared to the much more costly 37 Viggens and the 35 Drakens.
The Gripen has met these demands extremely well and there are verified documents leaked from the Swedish air force informing that the Gripen Alfa and Bravo models had an RCS of less than 1 square dm.
In time, the C/D Gripens were created to meet the international (NATO) standards instead. This meant, amongst things, of incorporating the LINK 16 system instead of the national system (which was better but was unable to work with foreign countries).
The E/F system, or NG if you will, offers a much more broadened service. Extremely good electronic warfare systems, a T/W-ratio much like that of the Eurofighter and the Rafale, further reduced RCS/IR-signature, the Raven AESA radar, 40% more internal fuel and the capacity of 3 large 450 gallon external tanks, more pylons, Meteor & IRIS-T incorporation (and unlike the Rafale not with a downgraded version of the Meteor), an IRST frontal system and 360° IRST coverage. In terms of BVR fighting, it's probably among the best in the world together with the EF, the Rafale, the Su-35, the Super Hornet and the F-22. In terms of WVR fighting it lacks thrust vectoring, but is other than that very maneuverable which there are many documents and videos to prove, amongst things it has the smallest turning radius without the use of thrust vectoring compared to any fighter jet.
Regarding the Gripen E/F's payload "concern", it's able to carry...
8 GBU-39 (4x2)
4 GBU-49 (2x2)
4 Meteor (2x2)
2 IRIS-T
1 Litening pod
or...
16 GBU-39 (4x4)
4 Meteor (2x2)
2 IRIS-T
1 Litening pod
or for an air-superiority/air policing-task...
10 Meteor (4x2+1+1)
2 IRIS-T
1 1100L-fuel tank
1 Litening pod
Which is more than enough for one fighter.
Regarding Switzerland's choice of fighter. The Gripen has relatively low scores due to the fact that only the C/D were allowed to participate in the trials. The Swiss air force expressed that they focused on maneuverability in the alps. The C/D Gripens have a T/W ratio of 0.97 whilst the EF and the Rafale both have a T/W ratio of over one. The E/F Gripen however will have a T/W ratio of between 1.7 and 1.18 depending on various sources. Over 1 nontheless. Another factor is that the Gripen is replacing the F-5 which in its turn is a small fighter and operated by reserve-officer cadets rather than the fully contracted officers working with the F/A-18. Also take note that the F-5 has been used on road bases, just like the Gripen, and is expected to be serviced by conscripts, just like the Gripen.
ReplyDelete@Landers. The Gripen-NG is indeed a great evolution of the Gripen, still falling short of the capabilities of the Rafale or Eurofighter for countries like India or Brazil. Nontheless, the Gripen is indeed a great and valuable plane which is attractive for its price/performance ratio. But the Gripen-NG exists only in paper and it is a risky gamble for Switzerland as there will be some budget overrun and other technical hurdles along the way before the delivery of the first plane. Many in Switzerland are not so pleased with the choice of the Gripen-NG over the Rafale…
ReplyDeleteRegarding the cost of the Rafale, here are some numbers: 40.7 billions euros for the development cost of the Rafale versus 32 billions euros for the Eurofighter. The average price tag of a Rafale is apparently around 103 millions Euros versus an average of 105 Millions for the Euroflighter. That being said, the actual cost of a fighter is much more complex as it includes weapons, technology transfer among others. The deal to sell a fighter jet is a rather complex mixture of politics, industrial transfers, economics and technical performance of the planes.
Why Dassault hasn't been able to secure any sell outside France just yet?? The answer is likely to be not related to the overall performance or the capabilities of the Rafale but, perhaps, lies into the sell strategy and the non-willingness of Dassault to transfer the technology of the Rafale and its sensors…the question is open to debate.
I don't think technology transfer is the major issue for Rafale's lack of export success; French companies have been relatively more flexible than the US or even other European competitors in this regard.
ReplyDeleteI think cost/capability is the major issue. On the one hand, an F-16 or Gripen can meet needs of most customers (Morocco, Switzerland, Oman) at a far lower price than the Rafale can; it's additional capabilities and superiority don't count in such markets.
On the other hand, the Rafale's exclusive French nature would mean creating a new logistics chain for several countries. For example, the Saudis could buy Eurofighters and utilise their existing stock of Sidewinders or Paveway bombs and affiliated guidance kits when they purchased the Eurofighter. The South Koreans could integrate pretty much all their existing weaponry and sensors on their F-15Ks without building new infrastructure. In both countries, buying the Rafale would have led to the need to buy the Mica missiles, Damocles and associated sensors and what not. That adds up to the costs. This wouldn't necessarily be a factor in India or the UAE which are and will be operating new French systems on the Mirage-2000.
@Justin, you are correct. Either a strip down version of the Rafale or an aircraft between the Mirage 2000 and the Rafale would have been ideal for customers that don't need all the capabilities that offer a Rafale F3. However, there is a market for the Rafale (India, UAE, Brazil…).
ReplyDeleteOr a Rafale equipped with American F-414 engines and the usual range of US weaponry!!!!!
ReplyDeleteIt would be better than the Super Hornet/F-16 and be about as affordable.
@ EricDl
ReplyDeleteYou seem to think that the Gripen NG would be an inferior choice for India.
You are deluded.
In a war with China Gripen would offer the resilience and sustainability that India would desperately need. Requiring less maintenance,less precious fuel and being able to operate from improvised road bases close to the front with ease. It also has a chance to both evade an overwhelming attempt to destroy it on the ground and to wear the Chinese down through attrition by assymetrical tactics. The Rafale and the Eurofighter don't even come close to these capabilities.
As defensive fighters in a tough scenario the Typhoon and Rafale are highly questionable. They cost more but seem to offer very little before being overwhelmed and/or being taken out with their base. If they can't hold their strategic wall they are out of the game. And how on Earth is India supposed to hold a strategic front in the air against China ?
Also a war against China or Pakistan might be a war against the other as well since Pakistan and China cooperate more and more. So the Indian air force would be outnumbered and facing strikers from two directions. If I was in charge of the Indian air force this would be the scenario I would prepare for. I would have bought the Gripen, the Mig 35 or the Viper for the MRCA plane. Gripen is the best tactically. The other two are affordable and come with the promise of possible allied help from Russia and the US respectively.
Atmospheric,
ReplyDeleteI don't see any proposals for how an Indian Gripen will be able to conduct interdiction missions against Chinese basses in Tibet and Xinjiang. The kind of attritional tactics you talk about make little sense given the Chinese reliance on both air and missile strikes and their advantage in numbers. Where in the world are you going to base and resupply your Gripens if you are at risk of missile strikes. The Gripens don't have the range/payload to strike Chinese bases from central India; the two bigger Euro-canards do.That's a fact.period. You either use your fighters to take out enemy launch facilities or wait for them to wear you out.
For the nth time, the kind of dispersed operations you talk about is of limited effectiveness in the subcontinent. For the simple reason that only few countries have developed to logistics to resupply and service aircraft in such conditions. There's no point operating the Gripen, if your airforce and infrastructure are not oriented for dispersed operations.
About allied help..Russia supplies weaponry to China while the US arms Pakistan. Enough said-there's only two allies India can count on. One is itself, the other is God.
@AtmosphericMk2. Well well well…the world is a better place since the Gripen shows up isn't?
ReplyDeleteMore seriously, the fact that the Gripen can easily be operated off-bases on improvised road is indeed of significant tactical interest in circunstances you mentioned. For Sweden, it was certainly the best solution to defend itself against a possible attack coming from the Soviet Union during the cold war.
However, in the scenario you mentioned and in today's world, ballistic missile strikes between now and then would have put and end to this game way before the Gripens feel the need to scatter in the wild on improvised road bases don't you think?
The Rafale has been designed for aircraft carrier operations right from the start meaning low approach speed, easy maintenance and fast turnaround processes. The Rafale as well as the Euroflighter can certainly be operated on improvised road bases in world war 3 like situations. No doubt about that.
@ Justin P.
ReplyDeleteYou contradict yourself. Fixed bases are much more vulnerable to missile strikes, or any other strikes, than dispersed bases that shift around.
Also: decoys are much more efficient with the dispersed base system. You know: decoys ? The sort of thing the Serbians used to fool the crap out of a combined Nato task force with ? Let's play this game Frenchie: find the real Gripens. Playing area: Northern India.
Has India signed any cluster bomb treaty ? What do you think happens to a fixed air base if two Gripens taking off from a forward improvised secret base cluster bomb said fixed base ? The planes standing in the open would not fare so well I think xD
@AtmosphericMk2. I see you point but your arguments don't make much sense at all.
ReplyDeleteHow can you possibly reconcile the ability of the Gripens with the geography of India/Pakistan, the type of mission you are talking about and the distances to cover over whatever country with a large area? As much as you think the Gripen is a good fighter, it is not the best asset for every tactical situation.
Take Korea for instance. The Korean decided choose the F-15K and didn't even consider a smaller single engine fighter. Why? the main reasons include payload, range, survivability (two engines), the ability to perform long range strike in a highly mountainous area. Also, in Korea, most of the highway can be use as alternate off-base runways for the F-15 in case of missile strike on fixed airbases. Apparently, even a F-15 can be operated off-base too.
Atmospheric,
ReplyDeleteYou really are overplaying this dispersed base fantasy. Take a look at a map of any Indian map including the states of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. Tell me how many roads they have or how many caves there are near any major roads. You will find that the dispersed base fantasy won't work in areas where the terrain is just too rocky and hilly to even have proper roads. So where exactly are you going to base your Gripens? In South India, where it would need 4 aerial refuellings?
@AtmosphericMk2. Justin P. is correct. The dispersed base thing is a pure fantasy for this part of the world. It might be working in video games but not in the real world.
ReplyDelete@ Justin P. & EricDL
ReplyDeleteI see your points exactly. India has no roads, is not capable of building them and a twin engined plane which requires much more fuel to operate and more service with a bigger maintenance team is just as good at serious dispersed operations as the light weight single engined Gripen which is optimized for it in so many ways...
I don't live in fantasy land - you do.
Other people who live in fantasy land are those who think peace is possible in the India - Pakistan region. You see Pakistan depends on meting water from Himalaya for their water supply; water that India largely controls and also wants for itself. Due to global warming that water will run out. And unless Pakistan scraps its military and throws all its resources at building desalination plants and moving people to more water rich areas they will be in deep shit and likely to start a war.
Atmospheric, my friend. Ask yourself a very simple question. Why is it that only a handful of countries have invested EXTENSIVELY in dispersed operations (Taiwan, Sweden, Switzerland). Are the rest all living in fantasyland like me because they look at dispersed operations as a last resort.
ReplyDeleteAgain ask yourself this-what is the point in dispersed operations if you are not able to target your enemy's infrastructure?? You have intentionally left out answering this point. Dispersed operations inevitably involve limited payloads given the logistical constraints. How exactly do you propose that an Indian Gripen attack Chinese facilities in Tibet. Or is that something you don't think they should do.
Passengers can confirm same-day flight changes when they start the check-in process online, at any airport kiosk, by calling the reservation department of united airlines or through a united airlines change flight
ReplyDelete