Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen/Archive 2

Norway went for the F35. Removed Norway from page http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article2781493.ece Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC).

So add that Norway went with the F-35 to this article. That's not a valid reason to simply blank the section. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Missed contract is biased. Only one side of this story is presented. Heavily biased for the Gripen. There's a lot more to this than what the writer has selectively included. As it stands now, it's flat out misleading. --Weduku (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Explain further why there is bias; what is the opposing position? FWiW, and still waiting... Bzuk (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC).

What's your hurry? You can't grant me a little while here? If you had been following this issue, you would have know what I mean, but it takes a bit to dig up references and positions.

I entirely understand, but tagging a section as "biased" does require some verification. If that form of substantive data that you can research is forthcoming, then the tag can be considered suitable, but right now, the case has not been made. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC).

He* don't mind showing my IP :)No big secret to that.

Just want to point out that Gripen had a supercruise ability already from the beginning, coming as a surprise for all involved as that synonym wasn't used then.

"There was one interesting problem,” Colonel Eldh concludes with a smile. “Gripen is supersonic at all altitudes and can cruise supersonically with an external load including fuel tank, four AMRAAM and two sidewinder missiles without the need to engage the afterburner. In the early days of operations, we found some pilots inadvertently flying supersonic over populated areas. The problem was one of habit, as these pilots had their throttle settings as high as on the older-generation fighters that Gripen replaced. “It is fair to say there were a few startled people on the ground, as their day-to-day work, or perhaps sleep, was disturbed by unexpected sonic booms! It was, of course, a simple task to solve the problem – the throttles were re-set and everyone was happy."

http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE463B06-8C9B-4A49-A382-999C6AF1E53B/0/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf

And where in the world did you get this idea from?"The Gripen fighter system is expeditionary in nature, and therefore well suited for peace-keeping missions worldwide, which has become the new main task of the Swedish Armed Forces." Before anything like that will happen there are going to be a really big Swedish debate, and I mean B I G.

Sources please, and Swedish ones that is, not Chinese, nor Nato :)

Gripen is built as an interceptor. It will go up under one minute from getting the waring, Arrange a radar silent box and wait for you. Using the data link it will fool your radar, and you, blow you out of the sky without 'illuminating' if necessary (tracking can be done by systems further away.) and then be back on base in about ten to fifteen minutes. It can fly for over two hours so that leaves it a lot of fuel for further fun.

And you're totally missing out on our ...over fifteen year old now... data link capabilities?We had them before anyone even had started to consider them (Draken). And even if we have to exchange it to an inferior Nato system, as we otherwise can't 'play' in the big sandbox, it should be mentioned I think, . the best data link in the world, and you don't mention it at all?

They are what will take down any other aircraft existing as they can work under jamming and are peer to peer, including those vehicles on the ground using the same system too. We have a 3-D radar cover at all times, and you won't jam it with less than using an nuclear Emp bomb, and even then I expect ours to work. So much missing in this article about our radar systems? And with NORA?

---Qoutes-----------------

Ericsson’s future airborne radar is Not Only a Radar, NORA, but also a complete electronic warfare system including jamming and data communication. The new radar will use an Active Electronically Scanned Array, AESA, built up with approximately 1000 individual transmit/receive modules. The antenna, mounted on a single-axis platform, will give well over 200˚ coverage in azimuth. NORA will offer superior performance by virtue of a number of core capabilities at Ericsson – beam agility, beam widening, multi-channel processing, target-specific waveforms and low radar cross-section.....

It's planned to scan +-60 deg electronically and 60 deg mechanically in azimut, permitting scanning over a 240 deg arc and electronically +-60 deg up and downwards. ...

Fully programmable signal and data processors enable the radar to handle these air defence, attack and reconnaissance missions. This also gives the radar a very high growth potential to meet future requirements. The radars flexible waveforms make it possible to avoid ambiguities and allow performance characteristics to be optimized for all operating modes. The radar also matches the data link requirements for advanced medium range missiles...Ericsson has started development work for upgrading the PS05/A multimode radar. Some of the up-grades have been possible to incorporate, since new, faster and more powerful processors and components have become available on the market. An essential part of these upgrades is a new data processor who will replace the D80 processor in the Systems Computer in Swedish Air Force Gripens. It is a Modular Airborne Computer System (MACS) with higher capacity. A significant upgrade of the signal processor is also included which will dramatically enhance functions in both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions....

Ericsson AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) is a new airborne radar project currently in development at Ericsson Microwave Systems. The AESA technology will improve the radars overall performance drastically, especially its target detection and tracking capability. Beam direction can be changed instantaneously, detection range will be considerably increased, and jamming suppression further improved. The AESA radar will feature multibeam capability with all beams individually and simultaneously controlled. It can also operate simultaneously as a fire control and obstacle warning radar, and be used both in intercept and ground attack missions. The multibeam concept also allows for radar operation, data linking, radar warning and jamming simultaneously. As a consequence of the very large number of transmitter and receiver modules, the radar will have a high system availability through graceful degradation...."

End Quotes-------------------

Not that we will be using that either it seems :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.169.1 (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be some dispute once again about what constitutes "comparable". In this case, I would think any 4.5-gen fighter aircraft that also have a significant air-to-ground capacity would be comparable, without regard to such things as size. Because once you get into that type of categorization, where is the line drawn? Here is the current list in the article, and associated sizes (length and empty weight):

Gripen: 14.1 m, 5,700 kg
F-16E/F: 14.8 m, 8,670 kg
Rafale: 15.3 m, 9,500 kg
F-2: 15.5 m, 9,527 kg
J-10: 15.5 m, 9,730 kg
Typhoon: 16.0 m, 11,000 kg
F-18E/F: 18.3 m, 13,900 kg
MiG-35: 19 m, 11,000 kg
F-15E: 19.4 m, 14,300 kg

So someone tell me why any of the above 4.5-gen fighters wouldn't be comparable? ViperNerd (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Because aircraft generation is pretty meaningless as a comparator and is just used to make aircraft users feel they are getting a better aircraft then the opposition. In some aircraft articles the comparable aircraft section has been removed to avoid disputes such as this. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is no well-defined guideline at WP:AIR for this section. So what should be done in this case? Single vs. dual-engined? Aircraft less than 10,000 kg? ViperNerd (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest just removing the secton, any really comparable aircraft would be mentioned in the main aticle body and be referenced. The section is just used as part of the mine is bigger than yours, or mine is the same as the big boys have campaigns by editors. MilborneOne (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

To truely be comparable, they need to be in same role, similar mass, size, avionics Capabilities, and similar overall capabilities. Gripen seems to be a class on its own, being an "ultra" light fighter. Something like the F-5 series comes to mind, however, they are not in active combat service, and has not been.

Why not list F-35 as a comparable aircraft? I mean they are obviously competing against each other for contracts and serve a similar role which seems to be the only real way to measure if an aircraft is comparable. Some one might of course say that they one is a 4.5th generation aircraft and the other is a 5th generation aircraft but the generation definition does not really have any consensus in what constitutes one generation (or what aircrafts that belong to it), and neither is it used as a base for making decisions when nations look for new aircrafts. Besides comparable doesn't say that they have to be equally capable, only that they need to be similar enough so that a comparison is meaningful. And in this case since several nations have seriously considered acquiring either F-35 or JAS 39, it seems that a comparison is meaningful, and therefor they are comparable aircrafts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.7.74 (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Brazilian Air Force pilots put the JAS 39 Gripen at the best. Even so, Brazilian president Lula decided for the French Rafale. Agre22 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Sources?? - BilCat (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably an article like this one from Reuters. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's unofficial that Air force wants gripen, da Silva wanted Rafale and new president likes super hornet, wikileaks also mentioned about fx-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SojerPL (talk • contribs) 02:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've modified that portion of the text where was said that canards can be tilted "downwards, making them into large air brakes and further pushing the aircraft down". If any elevation surface was moved downwards a positive lift at that particular portion of the fuselage will be generated. A canard equipped aircraft would depart from the ground with such command. So "downwards" was changed to "upwards". Observe that we're not talking about control stick movements, that are different between conventional tail aircraft and canard aircraft (control push lowers elevators on conventional tail A/C; control push raises canards on canard equipped A/C).RobertoRMola (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In the photo at right, are the canards tilted "downward" or "upward"? - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

^ Exactly, thx. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You guys need to add the crash history and the corruption charges. Don't make this page look all rosy. That isn't what wiki is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.99.117 (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The aircraft is not guilty of bribery. It's individuals who are. The crash history is in a separate article, which is linked to in the incidents section. 79.138.188.218 (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Do note that the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter made repeated discussions about the bribery of its manufacturer to sell the aircraft to Germany, it seems only fair that any incidents of bribery to sell this one are equally included. The plane didn't commit bribery, but its international circulation and sales tactics are highly relivant and mentionable. Kyteto (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The Denel Dynamics-Mectron A-Darter (a 5th generation IR-SRAAM) is currently being integrated on the SAAF's Gripens. See [1].Do we add it here now or as soon as qualification is complete or should we wait until it is actually in service? Roger (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The integration and testing can be mentioned in the text now. Probably wait until it is fielded/in service to list in the Specifications section though. To me listing weapons in the armament area of the specs implies that's typical & available armament. -fnlayson (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing (?) dispute between Bzuk and me regarding citation format. Could anyone offer a third opinion on this? Maybe we should use the cite web templates instead? Our discussion - Bzuk's and mine - can be found on my talkpage. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You still do not even understand the basics of citations or bibliographic notations despite the many times I have tried to indicate the format conventions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Maybe it's something wrong with your explanations then? You obviously think that the more words you use, the better. 91.208.174.15 (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Bzuk (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

See recent edits in Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement#Norway for how Gripen lost Norway. Hcobb (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Per the new updated WP:AIR/NC guideliens, this article can now be at the Manufactuer-Designation-name format without any difficulty. Are there any objections to moving the article to Saab JAS 39 Gripen? - BilCat (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, change to "Saab JAS 39 Gripen". Gripen International is a marketing and support company/orgination, so we don't have tp worry about that. -fnlayson (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No objection, move per the new standard format. Roger (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why the name Saab JAS 39 Gripen and not only Saab 39 Gripen? What brings the Swedish airforce abbreviation JAS (Jakt, Attack & Spaning) to the English Wikipedia? //Joshua06 (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. the title is typically: Manufacturer, Type designation, Name. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

JAS is part of its military designation. The name stuff was discussed a bunch ~3 years ago. Check the talk page Archive page for that. -fnlayson (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fnlayson is correct that JAS 39 is its military designation. There's no preference in the guideliens to usung military or company designations on non-US military aircraft, and it's a matter of consensus on article-by-article basis. Here, the consensus has been to use the full military designation, as it's only "JAS 39". That's more problematic with the other types as they used a variety of designations within the types (A, J, S, AJ, JA, etc.) Also, it's almost always reported in published sources as "JAS 39", so WP:COMMONNAME would lean the title toward including the "JAS". - BilCat (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

JAS 39 Gripen is the common name, and JAS is also per definition the only configuration available, due to its multirole capacity, so we won't have to worry about other variants. Saab 39 Gripen would also be acceptable, but Saab JAS 39 Gripen is a bit over the top in my view. And imagine the name of the incidents article: Accidents and incidents involving the Saab JAS 39 Gripen. No way. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The full militray designation of this plane is 'JAS 39 Gripen' in Sweden, while the manufactor calls it 'Saab 39 Gripen'. I don't know what military designations it may have in other air forces using it. -Ulla — 16:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this article should be moved back to follow the Concorde example. I don't mean that Gripen is as well-known as the Concorde, but it's so much more known as JAS 39 Gripen than as Saab JAS 39 Gripen, that the common name should be used. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Saab don't use the "JAS 39" part themselves, so Saab Gripen would be the correct name according to WP:AIR/NC. This is how the lead section could start:

The JAS 39 Gripen, or the Saab Gripen, is a lightweight ...

HandsomeFella (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We have guidelines regarding how to designate aircraft articles at WP:AIR/NC. In general there are 3 formats used: Manufacturer-designation, manufacturer-name, and manufacturer-designation-name. (The Concorde is an exception to those formats, not a precedent; it's correct title is "Aérospatiale-BAC Concorde", and that is what is used in the Lead on that article.) Previously, WPAIR preferred the two-component formats, but we changed that this year to prefer the 3-componemt format. For military aircraft, preference is given to the desingation assigend by the primary customer, especially if it is also in the country of origin. So taken to gether, the "correct" title for this article is in the manufacturer-military designation-name format: "Saab JAS 39 Gripen". Yes, these are just guidelines, but to this point, it has been the consensus on this page to use "JAS 39". The other allowable format is "Saab 39 Gripen" (manufacturer-company designation-name), but there would need to be a clear consensus here to move it to that title, and that hasn't happened yet. - BilCat (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Saab uses neither "JAS" nor "39" in their designation, so the manufacturer-company designation-name would be "Saab Gripen" in that case, not "Saab 39 Gripen". I know the Concorde case is not a precedent, but that does not exclude the possibility of another exception, if the circumstances are identical. The designation "Saab JAS 39 Gripen" is used nowhere, and by nobody, so why should we? The two designations could switch places in the lead if you prefer that (but I prefer the one above):

The Saab Gripen, or the JAS 39 Gripen, is a lightweight ...

HandsomeFella (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• You're missing something. WP:AIR/NC says articles are named by manufacturer + designation + name. For the Gripen the designation & name part come from the more common Swedish military designation/name, not Saab's name. That is preceded by the manufacturer's name. -fnlayson (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

HF, since there appears to be a difference of opinion on essentially a "content" issue, one of the first things to do is to try an seek consensus from the body of editors who have an interest in this article. Rather than canvassing, set up a question to elicit responses and ask for "a show of hands", bearing in mind that consensus is not reached by merely a numerical count but by the establishment of a position that ALL parties can accept and adhere to, as a definitive conclusion. FWiW, it does require acquiesence that there is no other solution. Bzuk (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Should Gripen NG not have an article of its own like F/A 18 and Super Hornet ? It would seem with a different engine 40% more internal fuel, more hardpoints etc. Its a different aircraft. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It is somewhat different, but not signficantly different as in your example. The Gripen NG is only a demonstrator now (Gripen Demo). I don't think there is enough content on it to make more than a long stub of an article a this point. -fnlayson (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Gripen is definate article in Swedish, and hence the translation would be The Griffin in English. Indefinite article Griffin would be just Grip in Swedish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bärlein (talk • contribs) 13:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we know that, but some things do not translate exactly from one language to another. LarRan (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

A name should be translated exactly, or else there is no need to translate it at all. -Ulla — 16:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That is in fact the case - no serious knowlegable source in English ever translates the name, they just call it "Gripen". Roger (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentaly, SAAB translates Gripen to "Griffin" or "Gryphon" here - note the lack of "the".Nigel Ish (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A similar question has been posed at the Saab 37 Viggen article talk page, see comments and it also appears here . FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

• The footnote seems to cover this translation issue well enough without it being too prominent (undue weight). -Fnlayson (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please keep in mind when reading the above that *Ulla* (talk · contribs) and John Anderson (talk · contribs) are the same person after a checkuser done at their homewiki, svwp, so take lightly on their comments. GameOn (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just done a count through of the sources used to reference statements in this article, and I've found more than 1/3rd lead back to its own manufacturer. This level seems quite high compared with other aircraft articles, and can be viewed as a conflict of interests, or even potential advertising in the more extremist opinions. I don't really have a radical problem with it, but I felt it necessary to point this out to editors concerned with this page's welfare. It may be an idea to crack open the independent journals and books to make sure the coverage is well rounded and involves many different areas of reflection, ultimately this would be an improvement upon the article. Kyteto (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe this is due to the fact that the aircraft is manufactured by a company outside the English-speaking world (I mean natively) and has been sold to only one country inside it (SA) so far, and much of the info has probably been added by Swedish-speaking editors (such as myself). Feel free to crack open those journals and books. Cheers. 79.138.188.218 (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For an article this size, sourcing from the maufacturer is not necessarily a bad things, and in some cases may be preferred. A lot depends on how the sources are used, and what info they support. Technical data, specs, historical dates and the like are probably best sourced from the manufacturer anyway, at least in regard to the basics such as dimensions and similar. (Performance data is a bit different, but even that can vary from source to source.) Before crying "foul" (which Kyoto has not done per se, as he is just raising the question at this point), we need to analyze the data presented to be sure it even needs outside sourcing. - BilCat (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

For announcements by the manufacturer, we have generally used Gripen International press releases to get the info directly from the source. If there are questionable claims cited only with Gripen Int. or Saab references, tag them so that can be remedied. -fnlayson (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to do some work here when I have time. Right now I've been working on the Rockwell B-1 Lancer article, the overhaul has gone well there, this could be my next residence if it is welcome. Kyteto (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to my long standing concerns, although it took almost a year to find its way to the top of my priorities here on Wiki, I've more or less completed an overhaul of the article. Enjoy. Kyteto (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Well done, thanks! Moving forward, I think this article could use more early design phase info and more design details. I'll have to see what I can find on that in the Williams Superfighters book and other sources.. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it may be worth, after your additions have taken place, to put this article through the GAN process to see if it makes the cut? Even if it doesn't, the Reviewing process has proven pretty effective at generating constructive additions and highlighting deficits in the article, which should be useful in itself. Kyteto (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yea, sure. I'm across country now. And it'll be about a week before I'm back home and can glean info from that book or most of the others. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Let my join the party. I've got a few sources at my disposal, so, if no-one minds, I'll firstly expand the development phrase. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 02:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

How are we doing on this? Any major additions planned prior to nominating, or shall I press ahead with the GA Review when I clear some projects? Kyteto (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It is better. I've been too tied up & distracted with reviews to do much here myself. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Aye, we've all been paced recently. Hopefully the A330 will finally pass this time, and the Harrier as well; that'd clear two big key topics off our desks for a while. I'm definantly not going to nom until I'm down to only one outstanding GA nomination, I may even do a review! At least the AgustaWestland Apache looks nice now. Kyteto (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like all the gripen.com links redirect to saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/ . The news page on saab.com only has releases back to 2009. So either they should be replaced with archive.org copies or other references. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That's just 'great'. At least my position a year ago that this page relied too much on citations directly from the manufacturer is now completely validated. Now we have to play cleanup because Saab wants to rewrite their history books(I've noticed an amusing trend with the article re-naming, Saab do love drumming up themselves in hindsight on the re-writes of the old press releases....) Kyteto (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• I had not checked on the last part. I started checking the older releases first. Either the Gripen International group/team went away or Saab is taking more of a leadership role. I'll work on replacing them tonight. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just finished the last of them. That was a whole load of work, thanks for nothing Saab... Kyteto (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! No thanks to Saab. Not how you or anybody wanted to replace the GI links a while back. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO the section is somewhat OTT and even smells a bit of schadenfreude. We don't see long lists in for example the F-16 article crowing about everytime some country decided not to buy it. Practically every time a country buys fighters (or any other major military equipment) it involves bids from multiple suppliers and every time all except one are "losers" - yet this article is the only one where such a big deal is made of "non-sales" that it has an entire section. Roger (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that there are weight concerns about this section, with in addition, potential POV problems.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet#Potential operators is the only fighter article I can think of with similar info. But the text there is very brief. The missed contracts section in this article should be more like that, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with this consensus. In accordance with these long-standing wishes, I shall be trimming this section to make it more appropriately weighted. Kyteto (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

First there is no reason to even list which aircraft the Gripen lost out to. A simple list of links to the articles for the fighter competitions that the aircraft had failed to select in would suffice. Hcobb (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As of this morning, Nov 30, Switzerland has agreed to purchase 22 Gripens, however as far as I can see, it hasn't been stated whether they'll be the first gen C/D Gripens or the Gripen NG.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8424745&c=AIR&s=TOP(121.45.132.113 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

Good point. The section Saab JAS 39 Gripen#Potential and future operators under Switzerland has been updated to mention Gripen NG for the bid and selection per media sources (ref'ed in article). They still have to work out a contract to finalize the order though. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Finland may buy Gripens soon on a reconsideration. The finnish AF commander has publicly said they don't want any twinjets in the future, because of the high costs (even though the F-18 they have is probably the cheapest and least labour-intensive twinjet currently). Regarding the single-pipe jets, the F-35 JSF is a cost nightmare. Among the remaining unijet types Gripen is the most advanced one and the most proven. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hornets are from 90s and Finalnd is spending billion to upgarade them, so i don't see them replacing F-18 next 10 years... --SojerPL (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You probably can compare Finnish F-18 with those operated by Switzerland. They are mostly identical and acquired at the very same time (deliveries started in 1995 and 1996, respectively). It is known that Switzerland will start the procedure to replace them around 2022-2023, and that the F-18 will be retired around 2030 (most probably with new Gripen). --Spyhawk (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it was reported in the news that something burning fell into a woman's hair, which then also caught fire, but the fire was quickly put out. The woman might have had some burns from this, but I don't remember if that was reported. This was the most serious personal injury, I think, and possibly the only one. I don't have any sources to back it up, I'm afraid. The Air Force really got away cheap (if you don't count the aircraft), having to pay only for that injury and one or two dozen bicycles that happened to be parked on the spot, and consequentially destroyed in the crash and the ensuing fire. And for the restoration of the place, of course.

Maybe one could phrase it that "no one was seriously injured"?HandsomeFella (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A woman was hospitalized for three weeks with burn wounds. That is a serious injury to me... (ref page 27 in this PDF document). Paaln (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent source! It definitely should be referenced in the article, and I believe that it will be shortly. Thank you! HandsomeFella (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My memory wasn't so bad after all. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As there appears to be continual edit warring over addition/removal of the HAL Tejas to the comparible aircraft field - can something be done per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_33#Comparable_aircraft_.28again.29 to remove the comparible aircraft field or barring that, can someone implement long term semi-protection?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It is just one small manifestation of the ongoing warfare between Pakistani and Indian editors all over WP. The IP that has been doing the deletion geolocates to Pakistan. The problem is far bigger than just this article. Roger (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed the list as per previous precedent and project discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. The comparable list here does not add enough for the hassle of the back and forth edits. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The troll has also been appearing in other articles so this may not be the solution. FWiW, maybe the page can be protected? Bzuk (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC).

I've requested semi-protection - Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Saab JAS 39 Gripen .28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. Meanwhile can someone else please fight off the IP as I've already used up my 3RR allowance. Roger (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Semiprotected for three months. This is why we can't have nice things... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Saab link at the end of the first sentence is wrong. It should go to Saab AB not Saab the car company.

The current line reads "The Saab JAS 39 Gripen (English: Griffin) is a lightweight single-engine multirole fighter manufactured by the Swedish aerospace company Saab."

Saab is a car company while Saab AB is the aerospace company. 129.112.109.243 (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"In December 2007, as part of Gripen International's marketing efforts in Denmark, a deal was signed with Danish technology supplier Terma A/S which allows them to participate."

A corporation is singular and not plural. A corporation is not a human being, and the pronoun that goes with a corporation is "it", and NOT "they" or "them", and neither is "their" used. Use "its".
Hence, the sentence quoted above must conclude like this: a deal was signed with Danish technology supplier Terma A/S which allows it to participate.

Governments are also singular, so "they", "them", "their", "we", and "us" do not apply.

For more examples: McDonnell Douglas proposed its F - 18 Hornet for the competition. McDonnell Douglas later became a divison of the Boeing Company.
Rolls Royce proposed its turbofan engines for the new transport planes.
However, the General Electric Company also submitted a proposal for its turbofan engines.
The German Government decided that it would not purchase any more warplanes that were not manufactured in Germany for the Luftwaffe. Hence, it would no longer fly any new warplanes that were made in the United States or Russia, despite its long history of flying ones from Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, and MiG.
98.81.11.27 (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is an WP:ENGVAR issue. In American English collectives are practically always singular but not in other varieties of English. Roger (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not think that was BrEng. This must be the collective groups as plural thing. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that Gripen is, due to its close coupled canards, supermaneuverable aircraft - namely, canards direct air flow over wing at high angle of attack, allowing it to achieve and sustain far higher angle of attack - and thus turn rate - than would otherwise be possible. 195.29.156.233 (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately your opinion is not a reliable source. Roger (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Somebody might want to add this:

23 March 2012http://www.bangkokpost.com/media/content/2012/03/26/FCB55A2DFA724D5D8CE867ED1A09F96B.jpghttp://www.bangkokpost.com/multimedia/photo/285691/photos-of-the-week

"The Swedish Air Force has donated a Gripen 39A fighter aircraft to exhibit in the Royal Thai Air Force museum to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Thailand's first three air force soldiers. Photo by Surapol Promsaka Na Sakolnakorn." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.136.148 (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Gripen is tiny compared to the F-16 and is a much much closer match to the KAI T-50 Golden Eagle. Hcobb (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You want to compare multirole combat plane with jet trainer? If you mean FA-50 light fighter i'm not sure if prototype exists, so we don't have accurate data. --SojerPL (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The current comparison against the Viper is misleading. WP:CALC shows that it costs the same to maintain, per ton of weight. Hcobb (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, let's maintaining cost per ton of F-15E is lower than F-16, that doesn't mean that F-15 is cheaper to operate, only that it's heavier. I agree that Gripen is still light weight and F-16 become medium weight figthter, but in real world they compete for orders (FA-50 is still in development).

Aircraft are not bought for how much they weigh - it's what they can do that matters - so comparing by weight is really quite pointless. For the fighter role rather look at how large a volume of airspace can be patrolled/dominated divided by TCO. In the land/sea attack role it's the area covered that counts. The price per ton of alumin(i)um and silicon chips is irrelevant. Roger (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So the F-16 carries 50% more weaponry and fuel. So compare the Gripen not to a F-16, but 2/3rds of a F-16. Hcobb (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

[2] Could someone translate if these would be new airframes or older A/B/C/D upgraded to E/F? --SojerPL (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• It states "The government promises that Sweden will buy 40-60 of the next generation Jas"
• It states that "Switzerland will buy 22 Jas E/F"
• It states that "To get cost down Switzerland and Sweden have agreed to together go for the upgraded version."
• It states that "With this partnership we have a partner with whom we can purchase, be able to run and maintain such an advanced system"
• It states that " according to the government the development of the new airplanes is important..... "
• It states " It costs 3 million SEK per year for 30 years"

So reading it in Swedish I get the idea that it is a new airframes, since it is such a long time perspective, it is 60+ airplanes, it states, next generation, E/F, upgraded version and new airplane, but the article does not say anything specific stating upgraded old air frame or new. It is just my interpretation when reading it. --Stefan ^talk 05:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources (public press, governmental public reports and the sites of the Swedish Defence) states what will happen to the older airframes. Possibly this is due to the military not being involved in the decision making as well as the future defence- & security policies are not determined as to this date. It is clear though that the Swiss planes will be built from scratch rather than being upgraded old frames./BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_06_18_2012_p38-465770.xmlSources suggest the design will incorporate F-35-style diverterless supersonic inlets.

Any sources more solid than this on DSI? Hcobb (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not all source provide information about using Rb.71 by Gripen, [3] mention RB.74/AIM-9 and aim-120 integration in 1998. Skyflash pages mention only it was used by JA37 Viggen, F-4 Phantom II, Tornado ADV. My question is if Gripen is capable of illuminating the target for a passive radar missile or only for active guidence missile? --SojerPL (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

JAS 39B was developed as a schooling aircraft, intended for the export market-segment that did not adhere to the concept of simulator training as sole preparation for solo-flights. Flygvapnet (SwAF) was ordered to receive 12 aircraft to validate the performance.

The 39C/D have following sub-variants:39EBS HU (Export Baseline Standard Hungary) are 39C/Ds with the NATO-link 16 installed.Gripen N was the upgraded C/D offered and rejected by Norway.39X was the plane to be exported to Saudi-Arabia. No offer was made though.

Gripen NG (Next Generation) has become nicknamed Super-Gripen in Swedish media. This has caused a bit of confusion, since the manufacturer named it NG, while the official designation is JAS 39E for the one-seater and JAS 39F for the two-seated aircraft.39NG have the subvariants Gripen DK intended for Denmark and Gripen IN for India's AF (not to be confused with the Sea Gripen intended for India's carrier fleet).

Sources are found on the Swedish wiki-page./BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It suffers from poor translations from Swedish. JAS 39 is NOT , and was not, intended as a multirole fighter where attack and rec are secondary funtions, but a "enhetsplan" which means the capability for all three functions are fully integrated in the same airframe. This was intended to keep full capability while greatly lower the costs of service compared to the previous 35/37 systems since only one infrastructure would be needed.Source "JAS 39 GRIPEN", ISBN93-973892-5-0, pages 60-80/BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it reffers also to JAS 39C/D? Countries buing it cosider it multirole fighter.--SojerPL (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the term you are looking for is "swing role". Roger (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this translate to "omnirole" as seen in phrases like:

Dassault described the Rafale as being an omnirole fighter with semi-stealth capabilities.

I.e., more grand terms conjured up by the sufferers of delusions of adequacy? Hcobb (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It would refer to all versions, as the only difference between air to air, air to ground, air to surface and reconnaissance is the load on the pylons. In short it is not a fighter with added strike capabilities or vice versa like the Tornado the term originates from. Main problem is that any aircraft capable of doing more than a single thing is considered multi-role by definition, whereas the Swedish description is defining a single aircraft equably suited for all three tasks. On the talk-page for Multirole combat aircraft they suggest the "omni-role aircraft" as a possible term, but it seems that did not catch on and thus there still isn't an English term for this. As for Hcobb, I suggest you learn a bit more about language, especially when it comes to definitions, before posting snide remarks. /BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In 2012, Lars Helmrich of the Swedish air force testified to parliament that the Gripen would be useless in air to air combat by 2020. {http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/flygplan/article3578741.ece "Gripen has to be modernized to meet air battles."}

The MoD says it can stagger on until 2030. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/flygplan/article3578621.ece

What exactly makes this non-notable? Hcobb (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody said it is not notable - I reverted it because a simplistic statement such as that, without any context and detail, is simply meaningless. Give detail and background please - The SwAF has many older Gripens, is the claim about A/B models or is it about the entire type? Is it relevant tothe new E/F models that will be entering production soon? Who is Lars Helmrich? What makes him an expert? Why was he testifying to the parliament? Context and detail - that is what is lacking. Roger (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

See revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC).

That's much better! Roger (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we at least move all of the pure NG stuff into a separate section?

For example:

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-Saab/Newsroom/Press-releases--News/2012---7/Gripen-NG-flying-with-Raven-ES-05-AESA-radar/

Notes that AESA is just for NG. (So far.)

BTW: Compare 200 degree field of view PLUS IRST vs F-22s 120 degree field of view and no IRST... Hcobb (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121119/DEFREG01/311190008/Sweden-8217-s-Possible-Gripen-Cut-Prompts-Force-Capability-Fears?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE“The government had initially favored acquiring 80 to 100 fighters. This was reduced to between 60 to 80 units last spring. Now it is talking of purchasing 40 to 60 aircraft,” said Staffan Danielsson, a member of Parliament with the ruling Center Party, who sits on the national Parliamentary Defense Committee.

Sounds like the program is going to impact into its own shadow in two or three years. RS enough to note? Hcobb (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Suggest waiting until they stopping talking about a reduction and settle on a new fleet size requirement. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

60 Gripen-E (NG) has just been agreed by the swedish government for domestic use. The 22 swiss export planes are take it to a total of 82, unless more foreign interest manifests. 87.97.52.178 (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

According to hungarian press their Gripens' real top speed is only 1.45 Mach numbers (with pylons on, but without external stores or droptank).

It is well-known that the F-404 engine family has sluggish acceleration in the supersonic regime and the little Gripen probably runs low of fuel before it could go beyond M1.45 speed. Furthermore, she does not have variable intake flaps or shock cones to help her breath easily when going fast.

Another factor for the low Gripen top speed might be the status of the "Tolstoy" cockpit flip-switch. There is no proof hungarian JAS-39 EBS-HU ever flew set in the "War" position and the "Peace" position features extremely peaceful settings for all the Gripen's systems, to help lower wear and tear on the machinery, especially the turbine and save money. Maybe Gripen goes to M1.98765432 in "War" setting, who knows?

BTW, Hungary is not a large country, but it spans 700km east to west and MiG-29 have been regularly doing M1.6 there and MiG-21's of old were occasionally pushed to M2.05 (mandatory part of an 5-flight test regime done after significant repairs). 87.97.52.178 (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mach 2 claims from Saab seem clearly for the NG, and not the current model. See: http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Gripen-Fighter-System/Gripen-and-Switzerland/The-Gripen-Fighter/ which lists that speed alongside other NG stats. Hcobb (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That link is broken, but here Saab is quite clearly stating maximum speed is Mach 2.0 for the current version (C/D) 1.127.85.64 (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20130130.aspxthe JAS 39E is heavier (17 tons) that the existing 30C, has better electronics, a heavier payload (over four tons), and has a two seater version better able to handle ground attack and electronic warfare duties.

Can we have a super gripen stats block please? Hcobb (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That's my calculation on the Swiss deal. Hcobb (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a bit of a difficulty in simply dividing down by the number of aircraft from the total cost of the deal. Spare parts, training and possible intirim leasing arrangments, development of supporting infrastructure, technology-transference payments, development of specialist technologies possibly requested - it is a mine field, one I'm not particularly comfortable with. It is almost certain that the deal isn't covering the number of aircraft purchased but a procurement package; this same question was argued with on the per unit cost of the Candian Chinook procurement a few units back, as suddenly the per unit cost had doubled from previous (but very recent) sales; suprise-suprise but the deal wasn't just covering a unit purchase but a whole transfer of maintanence and support work to a dedicated Candian depot and even the promise of international Chinook work being sent to the Canadian facility as well - it wasn't a fair figure to divide by the number of units bought, as a lot more was being bought in that total price than just the individual aircraft units. Kyteto (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Also now that the stats are starting to diverge, is it time for a "Super Gripen" page yet? Hcobb (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Not yet, as there's no such thing as a 'Super Gripen', only the talked-about E/F and C/D+ variants which are similar enough to the existing C/D that a whole new page seems unnecessary. I also share Kyteto's misgivings about using the total Swiss deal value to calculate a per-unit price, as the deal may involve a whole bunch of additional elements such as support, logistics, training and industrial participation. So I suggest that for the moment the page only reflects the sum cost of the Swiss deal without showing a per-unit price. Darren (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The E/F models are what used to be called the NG (Next Generation) version.

I agree that a "unit cost" is a meaningless concept for fighters (and many other "big ticket" items. Each customer's planes are customised to a greater or lesser extent. Take for example the SAAF's planes,they have an almost entirely different avionics installation compared to the SwAF version. The deal offered to different customers include differing after-sales support, tools, accessories and spares. Workshare and technology transfer also forms part of many deals. Roger (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This article has covered the Gripen Demo/NG since the Demo were first unveiled in 2008. The NG has several changes but not enough for a separate article now. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, as long as the manufacturer doesn't name the the new versions other than E/F (or NG, or whatever), there's no reason why we should. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't know export unit cost as deal will be sign around 2013, we can only expect Sweden to spend $13,5 billion on development, acquisition, maintenance, life-cycle costs over a 30 year period i assume, so Swiss deal will probably include this life-cycle, i won't belive Gripen now cost more than JSF ;-) . --SojerPL (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Australian deal for 24 F/A-18F aircraft comes to about the same dollar figure as the Swiss deal, but for two more aircraft (each of which has about twice the engine power), and advanced jamming equipment. Or is that too OR to mention, even though the two aircraft have been bid against each other elsewhere? Hcobb (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Too bad those F/A-18 seem to crash all the time... Jonas Henriksson (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The Aussie deal was the same price, but for a larger number of a much better aircraft than the Gripen. Hcobb (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Swiss deal included R&D costs, mission planning systems, initial spares and support, training, and certification. The equivalent Aussie F/A-18F cost was twice as much, $6 billion. And "better" than what, the Gripen C? The Swiss are buying the Gripen E. 1.127.85.64 (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Gripen is supposed to fight for real soon, not libyan recce, but with bombs, missiles and autocannon. South African ground and air forces are deploying to Entebbe in order to invade the Central African Republic and annihilate the Seleukide coup rebels who killed 13 SA para-troopers about a week ago. Black-led SA, while corrupt and economically struggling, still wants to be the african superpower and is planning for a show of overwhelming force, they want to do manhunt on the coupists. They want to take the place of France as the policemen of the black continent.

On the other hand, SAAF Gripen pilots fly very few hours per year, due to collapse of the national economy since the negro took control. It could be dangerous to send the pilots into combat with such lack of experience. 91.83.37.124 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What a load of semi-literate racist nonsense. There are rumours of SAAF Gripens being deployed to Entebbe in Uganda[4] but at the same time there are rumours that the few remaining SA military personnel in CAR are to leave soon.[5][6] Roger (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Since there only seems to be rumours about Gripen deployments at the moment, any changes to the article can probably wait.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

All the sources I've seen indicate that the dumping of the Euros at the feet of the Swiss was one of the elements in their consideration. Hcobb (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The NATO response is more in line with NATO-Swedish relation articles. The notable aspect for this article is that the current Gripens were unavailable to respond to an incursion into Swedish airspace. Putting this in the same paragraph as the call for the upgrade is somewhat OR so drop NATO mention and move to bottom of Swedish service section? Hcobb (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you are talking about? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The incident has less to do with the Gripen than with the Swedish Air Force, the Swedish Armed Forces, Swedish foreign policy and cuts in Sweden's defence budget. It's not the plane's fault that there was no response. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a policy and political issue, doesn't have much to do with the plane. The best way to think of it would be to think how the article would stand up if looked at five years from now and whether it would make any sense for the QRA mention to be in there. Darren (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite having been discussed before, the article is virtually devoid of any information concerning bribery scandals, the widely publicized crashes in 1989 and 1993 or indeed anything even hinting at political controversy surrounding its development in Sweden.

Considering this was actually pointed out several years ago, and no one bothered to do anything about it, I've asked for a GAR and I'm putting up an POV-template until this is fixed properly.Peter ^Isotalo 16:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

We need to be careful that controversies are not given WP:UNDUE weighting Note the 2008 discussion on corruption allegations concluded that significant coverage of the corruption scandals belonged in the article on the companies involved, not in the article on the aircraft. Corruption allegations about South African procurement are already briefly discussed. The two crashes are discussed in reasonable depth for flight test accidents in a 25 year development history in the "Testing and development" section (with 1 1⁄2 paragraphs devoted to them) covering the causes of the accidents and the associated delays to the testing programme. I'm not convinced there has been sufficient discussion to warrant the immediate addition of a POV template and moves to delist the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The crash at the Stockholm Water Festival is treated as a minor malfunction, despite receiving huge media attention in Sweden. The article has exactly two sentences about the bribery accusations in South Africa, and one of them is devoted to Saab's "strong denials". The massive scandal involving the suspected BAE/Saab bribery in Europe isn't mentioned.

In Sweden, JAS is in the public opinion closely associated with this long string of controversies, crashes and scandals. None of this is even hinted at in the article.

And while you claim that this article is about a military aircraft and that we not give undue attention to controversies, the article has detailed information about every single purchase and planned order and three full paragraphs for just the BAE/Saab joint venture. That's clearly not balanced coverage.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The established consensus it that information about bibery and corruption belongs in the article about the company, not here - it's not the aircraft itself that is corrupt. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The same could be said about all details about business deals, planned orders and the like. If this were a GA about consumer product like a toy or makeup product that had caused controversy, no matter how, there would be a minimum amount of info about it. I fail to see that we have consensus for scrubbing the article clean of all mention of the European bribery scandals. I'm not seeking to include entire sections, but at the very least that there were several countries involved and that it was widely reported in the media.

The 1989 and especially the 1993 crashes are not addressed satisfactorily. They should be described with at least some more information since they were huge media events. They can't be limited entirely to just the consequences for the development of a piece of technology.

And then there's the issue of political controversy about the cost, relevance and scope of the project. Are you going to suggest this belongs on the article on the government of Sweden?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• The crashes are covered in the article (in "Testing and production" and "Accidents and incidents" sections) and in the separate accident article. These are not treated as common malfunctions when investigations and program delays of several months are stated. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Like I pointed out, the 1993 crash was a huge media event in Sweden. Saying you treated it as more than a "common malfunction" doesn't address the problem. It certainly doesn't justify removing the POV-tag again. To clarify the importance of these multiple issues, here are some media sources concerning those aspects that have been limited to two or three sentences in the article, or simply left out altogether.

1993 crash:

• Sveriges Radio's page on reporting of major historical events [7]
• The Royal Library page containing reporting from Swedish television [8]
• This report[9] is actually used in the article, but only to establish minor facts about the crash. The subject of the report, however, is the major scandal caused by the crash.

South African deals:

• Dagens Nyheter relays that a South African investigative commission is about to "collapse" due to political corruption[10]
• "Gripens arrive mired in controversy"[11]
• Defense news on probes into Gripen-related bribes[12]

European JAS-deals:

• Svenska Dagbladet concerning "Gripen's next fight" to get sales to Austria and the political controversy surrounding it (multi-part coverage)[13][14]
• Debate in Sveriges Radio[15]
• "Austrian count arrested for Saab Gripen bribes"[16]
• Sveriges Television recounts what lead up to the "end of the JAS-affair"[17]
• PBS' "Sweden: Uncovering the Secret Deals"[18]
• Czech newspaper reports on Gripen bribery in the Czech Republic[19]
• New York Times, "BAE lobbyist in custody in bribery investigation"[20]
• New York Times, "Sweden's squeaky-clean image sullied by scandals"[21]
• Austrian Times, "BAE bribery Count´s jail time extended"[22]
• The Guardian specifically mentions Gripen relating to prosecution against BAE[23]

Political controversy surrounding the project:

• Sveriges Radio's documentary on the JAS-project[24]
• TV4's investigative program Kalla Fakta on military and business going against political decisions[25]
• Svenska Dagbladet reports on former defense minister Thage G Pettersson's being critical of the amount of planes ordered[26]

This is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to criticism against the project in Sweden. The political criticism in the 1980s is barely touched upon here, but it would be easy to find more.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Peter, your objection seems to be an opinion. You seem to be strongly advocating for having other editors turn this article into a sounding board for your personal beliefs. Please write articles on the specific controversies you are speaking of and link them within this article. If one wants to read about the aircraft, one does not want to get bogged down in the minutia of politics, scandals, and the kind of behind-the-scenes issues that happen with EVERY military aircraft program. I do NOT think that it needs significant weight here. --Winged Brick (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If I want to read about JAS, I'd want to know about both the technical aspects and the political circumstances about how it was financed and developed. Just like in V-22 Osprey. Sweden has had numerous military projects, but none has generated so much controversy. Saying the the civilian, non-technical view of topic is "opinion" and belongs elsewhere is not constructive. You can't just exclude even brief mention about major controversies because it's a piece of technology.

You have over a dozen sources on the issues stated above. I can bring more if you need specifications.

Peter ^Isotalo 04:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing of the controversies in Sweden and have no axe to grind. As a Wikipedian I think the article appears pretty well balanced. Most of the issues at least get a mention, with the opportunity to link to more specific articles if they get created. I disagree with User:Peter Isotalo that I would want to read about the politics and scandals in detail here - I want to read about the aircraft itself - long digressions should go elsewhere. For example I would want overall production figures and date ranges but not detailed lists (which do not even belong on Wikipedia), while in reliability controversies, the reliability issue as such is about the aircraft and should be explained but any improper acts or scandals should typically be explained fully in other articles and here merely summarised in a one-liner and if need be linked to. This seems pretty much in line with the way the V-22 Osprey example has been treated, too. To suggest a way forward for User:Peter Isotalo's concerns perhaps you could identify one or two glaring omissions and put forward a proposed alternative text here, with references, for discussion? We can then evaluate them against Wikipedia guidelines and decide where best to address them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Steelpillow and would like to suggest to User:Peter Isotalo that you collect material related to scandals and corruption related to the Gripen in your sandbox - it looks like there is sufficient material to create an entire article about the issues. For an example of such an article take a look at Lockheed bribery scandals. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I can help to include content, sure, but I don't see why anyone should ask for permission to include information that can be supported with reliable sources. So far, there's been a lot of obvious ownership tendencies without any attempt at backing it up with guidelines or anything like it. If that keeps up, GAR seems like the appropriate way forward.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and can we lay off the stupid implications that anyone here has any axe to grind? I have no history of trying to skew articles on military technology or anything like that. And I edit under my real name. Anyone who suspects me for POV-battling is free to search for signs of it. I should stress that I'm not the one who who actually works in the aerospace industry.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

My apologies if my attempts at establishing consensus do not seem impartial to you, they were intended to be. Feel free to suggest a better way, as User:Dodger67 has already done. There is no attempt here to ban or censor good information, merely to find the right home for it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that downplaying notable events directly involving Gripen is a rather extreme solution. It should not be considered problematic for it to have a minimal impact on any Wikipedia article. Even with minor summaries, the content of the article would still be at least 95% industry, military and technology. Calling for POV forks for anything in excess of a few sentences is not reasonable.

I added a paragraph on the notability of the 1989 and 1993 crashes already.[27] As a source, I used the report on the crisis caused by the crash that was already in the article. That there is actually a dedicated report about the crash should be a pretty good hint of the notability of the event. Here are the other issues that I feel should be addressed to make the article adhere to in order to be considered neutral:

• "Development" is 100% focused on military and strategic evaluation. This is not the way the way the project evolved in Swedish politics, particularly after the 1989 and 1993 crashes. This should be reflected more accurately.
• There's no mention that the JAS-project has been Sweden's most expensive industrial project ever. This is a very important civilian aspect that is overlooked. There's not even mention of the total cost of project. A few extra sentences or maybe half a paragraph would easily cover most of this.
• The bribery scandals have involved not just South Africa, but a half dozen other countries, particularly the Czech Republic, Austria and Switzerland. Again, it would be a matter of a few sentences or a small paragraph.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Those three proposals sound reasonable to me provided the mentions are brief. But I am not informed on the subject matter so I cannot comment on the details, and more informed Wikipedians may or may not agree. I would add that nobody is suggesting a content fork, let alone a POV fork, merely that extensive detail should come under a more appropriate topic just as in the example provided by User:Dodger67. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no editing emergency here. I have read, reread, and re-reread the article and I see a decent article. I understand that there were crashes and issues with the development. Were that to interest me beyond what I have already read, I would want another article to click on. Why? Because the article is about the aircraft and most readers will be looking for data on the aircraft, variations, specifications, operational history, users, etc. Leaning the article to a political discussion by spinning up the stone wheel and pulling out the honing oil does not seem to further the point of the article. It's an article on the aircraft. Internationally, the aircraft is known for what is already in the article. Sure, you have a different opinion and nobody is trying to squelch that. It seems that the consensus is not to hide your well-referenced and yet unwritten content, but rather to give it its proper due in a separate article free for the reading of those who might be interested. I have read through your edit history and you are presenting yourself well here, but it doesn't seem like you're winning others to your crusade. My advice to you is to accept and work toward consensus, even if it disagrees with your gut feeling that this article needs to be mostly about a political controversy. Perhaps you can write the article then start a fresh discussion on merging your information into the greater article. You could also summarize in a paragraph or two with a "main article" header to direct to the other article. --Winged Brick (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have problems with specific content, motivate why it doesn't belong by referring to guidelines and other appropriate policy. The "it's about an aircraft"-argument just isn't relevant as a blanket excuse to oust anything non-technical from the article. 'Til then, start assuming good faith. You're not helping out by trying to make this about contributors rather than content.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@Peter, please take a minute to look at this entire conversation - you are entirely alone in wanting to turn this article into a polemic about about the development and marketing of the aircraft. All other articles about aircraft focus on the technicalities of the aircraft itself. Evem the article about the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, arguably one of the most scandal-ridden planes in history, is primarily about the technicalities - there is a separate linked article about the controversies.

You are demanding that we quote chapter and verse of policies and rules about including or excluding certain content: WP:CONSENSUS. There are at least five different editors who have expressed reservations about the direction you wish to take this article. I presented a proposal (based on the precedent of the F-104) that a separate article can be developed to properly contain all the information relevant to the controversies involving this aircraft - the proposal has received general support. A separate article can do a far better job of explaining all the scandals and controversies than a mere paragraph or two embedded within this article. The "it's about the aircraft" argument is perfectly valid as it is the general WP:CONSENSUS - that is what all the hundreds/thousands of other aircraft articles on en.WP are about - the technicalities (WP:WikiProject Aviation has style guides that address the matter too). WP:CONSENSUS trumps all WP:WIKILAWYERING.

By continuing on this course you are violating WP:CONSENSUS. The only participant in this discussion who has failed to WP:AGF is you, by going ahead with the edits while we are still discussing the matter, thus also violating WP:BRD. I hope I have referred to sufficient rules and regulations to satisfy your requirement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so we have another example about an aircraft with summaries about controversies, besides V-22 Osprey. That's great, because it's exactly what I've been arguing for. I checked out WP:WikiProject Aviation and I couldn't see anything applicable recommendations against what we're discussing. If you feel I missed something, please clarify. If you have problems with specific content in this article, try making specific comments about it.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You know, I'm struggling to fix down the point of disagreement. We all want a clear, focused article with brief reference to the associated controversies. User:Peter Isotalo has made some reasonable-looking proposals, so maybe the thing to do is just get on with them and see how it goes. No point in any of us setting up straw opponents to bash at. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Steelpillow. Here's my suggestion for a summary concerning the bribery.[28]

Peter ^Isotalo 15:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That looks pretty good, I think we're getting to a reasonable balance here. Now who's interested in working on a comprehensive article about all the troubles? What should it's title be? @Peter does the Swedish media have a general "label" for it such as "Gripen Scandal", "SAAB bribery case" or "Gripen-gate"? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Swedish perspective on this is naturally geared towards Gripen, but as far as I understand, it's part of an even more massive corruption scandal. Take a look at BAE Systems#Corruption investigations. The Guardian has a whole section devoted to BAE's shenanegance.

When it comes to Gripen specifically, a separate article might be called JAS 39 Gripen controversies or something like that. The controversy surrounding Gripen did not evolve through any single event, but rather through as series of events. An article about this could certainly be written, but my aim here is mostly to ensure the main article didn't completely overlook what actually happened during in the country that ordered, designed, produced and financed the aircraft.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Peter, I'm confused about what you want to do. I counted 15 lines (on my screen) for the Controversy section in the V-22 Article. There are roughly three lines in the Gripen article about the same. I read Aviation Week and have read it religiously for the last 30 years and I gather than the V-22 was several orders of magnitude more controversial than the Gripen has been. The controversies with the Gripen do not seem unusual in terms of aircraft development. Bribery and 'illegal' negotiations are the only way to get a procurement accepted in, I would venture to speculate, the majority of countries in the world... so nothing new here. In terms of the weight of the article, are you proposing doubling the size of the section? Making it five times larger (on par with the weight of the V-22 article)? From the sheer volume of information and references you have presented on the talk page, one could infer that there is no way that a section equal in size to the rest of the article combined would cover the subject. You advocate for adding all of this info and yet the status quo says that there is no way you could add all of that and still maintain balance with the other factors. I, for one, am not interested in doing the research and getting mired down in writing an article for you. You seem to know enough about the subject to write the separate article(s) and the heading to the current controversy section in THIS article should link to those with enough summary to give the reader an overview. While you are advocating for your position, you should be building towards consensus. That doesn't mean browbeating those who have taken enough interest to chime in on this discussion until they give up and let you have your way. --Winged Brick (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I stated pretty clearly what I was after in this post. It would be nice if you stopped speculating about what you suspect I might do and focus on what I'm actually doing. The only reason I provided an abundance of links to sources was to to clearly demonstrate notability.

So far I've added a shade under 2.5 kB to a 99 kB article. Those cover two of the four issues I brought up. I am not looking for full-blown, in-detail coverage, but to balance the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I really wish that a discussion on this topic might have been allowed to have taken place before nominating the article for a GAR. A seven year old discussion of a radically different preceeding version of this article (less than 40% of the content of the article today originates from that article!) which did not touch on many of the issues you have rightly raised is not what I would commonly identify as a prior discussion. That being said, I agree with expanding the coverage of the bribery scandal; I just wish the means of developing this content had been more gradual. Kyteto (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wish that the previous complaints along the same lines wouldn't have been rejected in such an off-hand manner. The importance of the bribery scandal was pointed out very clearly and it would have been easy to google some basic sources on it. And there were other hints: the article had been using a reference with detailed information about the crisis of the 1993 crash, including a background explaining previous controversies (Brändström).

Peter ^Isotalo 12:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"Well, I wish that the previous complaints along the same lines wouldn't have been rejected in such an off-hand manner." You're welcome to direct me to an instance of this happening; as far as I've been aware, when this issue has been discussed, it has not been rejected. I would draw your attention to an archived discussion in July 2010 in which the need for greater balance of criticism was discussed, accepted, and a great deal of corresponding development in the main article was added. Perhaps not enough for your tastes maybe, but certainly not rejected, and certainly not dealt with in an off-hand matter - the active editors of the article, me being one of them, were quite responsive then and to issues raised in this talk page. If there has been an instance of a failure to this ethos, please could you identify the time period and location of that failure or failures? Kyteto (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerns quite similar to mine have been pointed out before. You even had Fredrik Laurin, one of the SVT journalists who exposed the bribery affair, editing here. Yet the criticism-section and all the issues it touched about was eventually expunged altogether.

So how about focusing on the content issues rather than procedure?

Peter ^Isotalo 05:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That was in 2008 and 2006 and consensus can evolve over the years. Laurin's contributions could have been considered COI. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe those are fair warnings or discussions of the current state of the article - the newest of those discussions is over five years old. According to the conventions governing the GAR process, a recent conversation should have been started. Those discussions took place before several of the heavy editors of this Wikipedia article even joined the site, and the article is so drastically different from the article they were discussing it's impractical to compare the two. You're comparing discussions of a 30 kb article in 2008 to a 100 kb article in 2013- the size difference alone shows how radically different the two articles are. Finally, most of those discussions were taken onboard - not dismissed - note how in the accidents discussion most people wanted the section back - how can you consider that to be an "off-hand dismissal of the issue" when most the editors in that discussion agreed with your position you've taken now; and today in the article we have not just an accident section as determined by the talk page, but multiple paragraphs of the development section covering it - that doesn't count as a 'dismissed' issue to me, how much more accepted could it possibly be? As for the criticism section being 'removed', that was discussed as you notice; the conclusion of multiple editors being that the content belong in the manufacturer's articles - in effect, it was moved, not removed; transferred rather than expunged, in line with consensus. Now I am actually agreeing with you that we need more detail on this topic in this article; I'm just sad that the GAR procedure has been mishandled like this - I really don't think it's in the spirit of those rules to use half-a-decade-old discussions as justification for immediate GAR nomination, a conversation here wouldn't have hurt surely? Kyteto (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure we could argue ourselves to death about who said what and where. Bottom line is that whatever consensus you came up with here, it removed relevant information. The crashes were reduced to minimalistic technical bylines, the huge bribery scandals reduced to two sentences, political controversies removed altogether; everything except pure aviation buff info was removed. That's what matters. The lack of highly notable, relevant content was the only relevant justification for the GAR. If you want to read in anything else, I'm telling you now that it's not relevant.

Are you perchance interested in discussing article content instead?

Peter ^Isotalo 16:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Three whole paragraphs, two in development and a sizeable one dominating the Accidents section, is not what I would call "minimalistic technical bylines" - The Testing subsection is dominated by the crash incidents, about half the entire content of the testing development regime! How much more is needed, in your opinion? And it was a lot, lot smaller in previous incarnations of this article, compare any version from 2010 with 2012 and you'll see that the content on the 1991 and 1993 accidents has considerably expanded, not 'reduced' as you claim. Now the huge political scandal over bribery, that is interesting how that was removed, and well before my time I might add so please don't attribute it to me as per " whatever consensus you came up with here", it was not me. I think that can be fixed however. I'm not sure a whole section dedicated to the Bribery scandal might be in order, perhaps a different title such as controversies; one that could catch a wider number of topics including political and 'aviation-buff'-type criticisms and disputes? I mean, even the definitive aircraft that comes to mind when the words 'aviation' and 'bribes' are mentioned together, the F-104 Starfighter, for all its significance, doesn't have a section dedicated to the scandal; a scandal so huge it almost destroyed Lockheed, or so they say. Is this now on-topic enough for you not to be dismissive of? Kyteto (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A further point on the level of content in regards to the early 1990s accidents involving the Gripen - As well as the issue dominating all other aspects of the Accident and Testing-Production sections, it was intended for the bulk of detail on all accidents and major incidents to be covered in that greater detail over on the dedicated article for that purpose, namely Accidents and incidents involving the JAS 39 Gripen. It may have escaped your notice, but this article is actually running up against the WP:length limits that have been set down - greater detail on the accidents should in all honest be put over to the daughter article rather than the main, as it is, in my opinion as well as several other editors who have spoken in this discussion, sufficiently covered here in the parent. This subtopic already has a dedicated sub-article to expand onto, and has by few people's opinions been marginalised. Would you disagree with this perspective or the suggestion for action in this regard?Kyteto (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't suggested anything more on the crashes, actually. I just pointed out that those two crashes are infamous and should have at least a brief summary here. The other crashes are nowhere near as notable. I believe there should also be something about the other things I mentioned, but I'm more in favor of brief summaries than going into excruciating detail.

Regarding WP:Length, it's really a recommendation as far as I know. The article just went past 60 kB in prose size. Nothing extreme, but if you're worried about size, why not work on reducing "Operation history"? The level of detail is very high in relation to its notability. For example, three paragraphs on just the failed bid in Norway is quite a bit extreme.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"I just pointed out that those two crashes are infamous and should have at least a brief summary here" A question to clarify: Where is here; on this talkpage discussion? Because, as said and apparently accepted, in the main article, they already have a far beyond that of a brief summary - they have a generous paragraph that is basically 90% of the words for the Accident sub-article summarization here in the main article, and then they have 50% of the testing subsection of development. I really don't understand what you've been arguing we do in this matter, at the start you said "the article is virtually devoid of any information concerning... the widely publicized crashes in 1989 and 1993" and now you're saying "I haven't suggested anything more on the crashes, actually." - it appears as if a 180 has happened on this topic; yet this particular part of the content hasn't changed since you've initiated this discussion; so I'm lost - is the coverage of the accidents in the article sufficient, or insufficient, in your view? Because you've apparently implied both points of view simultaneously. I'm confused by what you're asking of us in regards to the coverage of the 1989 and 1993 accidents. Kyteto (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

My latest comment basically meant "crashes are now okay (because I added info myself), but there's other stuff than needs to be covered". By "other stuff" I mean two of the three points that I brought up in response to Steelpillow's request for clarification.[29]

Peter ^Isotalo 08:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Peter, I'm particularly concerned by the manner in which you've been re-editing content recently added to the article. The following was converted from "according to Annika Brändström, the Gripen project had risked losing credibility and the undermining of it's public image" to "Gripen project suffered loss of credibility its public image was undermined" - Ignoring the fact that the reedit doesn't make grammatical sense, it has changed what was worded as the expressed opinion of an expert to appear as definitive fact. The edit also expunged key qualifiers of 'risk' to implicated that the loss was definantly incurred, which is well beyond anything to which the source actually says - That is either false attribution to the source, or WP:Original research - this needs a separate source that actually does go so far as to say that. In short I'm concerned that what you've edited this content towards is not WP:Neutrality as you aspire but putting more negative words into a source's mouth than what was actually voiced. The tilting of coverage towards a negative POV, beyond what the given sources say; that doesn't appear to be editing in line with WP:NPOV. Kyteto (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that a report devoted to crisis management was there to actually deal with a crisis. But what do I know? Maybe crashing brand new, previously untested fighter aircraft in the middle of a country's largest city with 100,000 ppl watching wouldn't affect public opinion in the US or France.

If you want a source confirming this, Sveriges Radio made an excellent documentary about the JAS project back in 2008.[30] It details the criticism from the Social Democrats, TV4, defense politician Maj-Britt Theorin and others. It includes an interview with Tommy Ivarsson, one of the engineers who worked on the project, who comments how bad the crash was for the project. Another example of a controversy is that the former head of Försvarets materielverk had specifically forbidden Gripen to be flown at the 1993 Stockholm Water Festival before retiring and chewed out his successor in a taped phone conversation that later leaked to the press. It's also described here.[31]

Peter ^Isotalo 14:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"I assumed that a report devoted to crisis management..." And that's the problem; you assumed something the source said without reading it, and falsely attributed something you wanted to say about the aircraft to the document. Perhaps reading it would have been wise, we report what the cited sources said, not make up things and attribute them to parties that did not say any such thing, as that's editorial fabrication. You are not editing in a WP:NPOV manner; you're impressing your own views instead of the source's views. Kyteto (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"But what do I know?" It does not manner what any editor thinks or knows about a topic, it's about what the source does or does not say. We cannot, cannot make up what a source says to fit our personal views; all editors should impartially represent what a source has said about a given topic, free of any twisting to fit their personal thoughts, positive or negative. That's what neutrality is all about. You're welcome to quote a negative point of view from an expert, but not to heavily alter the meaning and spirit that which was said to fit your personal outlook on the project. WP:Original Research is not allowed, and neither is false attribution. Kyteto (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You added wording that described "ill-informed media analysis" and framed the government's reaction as quick and resourceful.[32] It seems like you're actively "balancing" any controversy or facts about negative public image perception by accentuating positive facts, describing the public as "ill-informed" and presenting the government response as quick and resourceful. That worries me, because it's obvious you have no previous knowledge about the Swedish context, yet you have already made up your mind that it's merely "negative POV".

I provided two Swedish sources (SR and Ny Teknik) which report on the negative reactions and the poltical pressure to get Gripen in the air, despite the risks. I think you should comment more on them than me.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the Brändström report says only that "The JAS project risked losing both credibility and trust", so cannot be used to support Peter's edits. But the resources referenced above do appear to support it. So it looks to me more like unskilled editing by Peter rather than PoV editing. On the "quick and resourceful" Government, the report does use the word "quickly" in this context, but I see no sign of Kyteto describing it as "resourceful". These are small misunderstandings in an otherwise well-informed and balanced bout of editing. I do hope you guys can give each other a little more credit for doing their best. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the word "resourceful" appearing once in the entire body of the article - Peter, could you at least accuse me of real things I have done rather than made up things, rather than things that were not - I never once described their response as being resourceful. However, your accusation that of me inserting into the article the fact that the government's response was quick is correct - Because that's exactly the words of the source; you may check the cited page range at your pleasure. The same goes for the "ill-informed media speculation" - those are an exact summary of the words written by the expert in the cited page range given - unless you're disputing the source now too. The words and phrases I am using and attributing to the source actually are in the source, and have been cited correctly to the relevant pages of it - unlike your edit, which twisted Brändström's words to state things that went beyond what was reported in that source. Kyteto (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You have provided two apparently good Swedish sources and I have not discounted them as "negative POV", only that your twisting of Brändström's words and continuing to attribute them to her via sole-citing those words to Brändström was unsupported negative POV. I would be fine to include comments from those sources - only I cannot add them as I cannot read Swedish; hence the lack of comments on them, if I cannot read them I cannot reflect upon them. I have not made up my mind about the Swedish context, only that attributing comments to someone who did not say them and twisting the words of experts is wholly unprofessional and wrong. I have accurately reported details of what the given source said and cited them correctly. Kyteto (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Peter, considering that you have make comments effectively accusing my edits being POV, perhaps you should consider passing less comments on me as well. Ironically, perhaps the main reason I didn't work hard on researching and adding content on the political background of the Gripen when I write up 25% of the article's content in 2011, was this EXACT squabble over what is and is not bias coverage. Many editors do not like writing about the politics of a project because there is so much hot air, unsubstantiated opinion, and people with an axe to grind out there. That is the real reason, in short, as to why I never bothered in 2011 to add these sort of political observations, I side-stepped the whole poisoned chalice and just got on with the stuff you write off as being 'aviation buff stuff' - solid, hard, uncontroversial facts; far more enjoyable and productive to write about in my opinion. Far less squabbles too, because facts are facts. Kyteto (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• I won't comment on the GAR, but if a variety of good sources have covered bribery &c in the context of this aircraft then our article should reflect that. We would do a great disservice to our readers if we followed a general rule that corruption around particular aircraft should be moved off the aircraft articles and put somewhere else. bobrayner (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

GAR closed

Since the GAR seemed to achieve nothing constructive I've closed it without delisting the article.Peter ^Isotalo 21:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)