Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Reference format change?

Is there any consensus for the recent changes to the reference format? I have tried to repair some of the damage done by the change, but I am unsure whether the changes really improve the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I though it was normal practice to leave whatever reference format is in use without a clear consensus, cant see one and I am not sure we need a change just for the fun of it. MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, sorry and please tell me which damage… I only tried to hyperlink remissions to the bibliography and give consistency to references.

— Lgfcd (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You are meant to seek consensus before making changes, not do a mass of edits to force the use of citation templates and sfn templates, especially when the article already has a consistent refernce stype, which it seems you are ignoring.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The references or most of them were properly formatted. There's no hard requirement for using cite templates. So no need for such a change. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And the change continues regardless. Oh well. Kyteto (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not only is the editor in question determined to force their own personal preference of reference format without any apparent concern about consensus, all the offending edits have also been marked as minor. This is doing nothing to improve the article, and is getting close to disruptive in my opinion.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I have asked Lgfcd to come back and revert all his/her changes against consensus to the reference style. 21:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he's going to accept our comments - Looking at his talk page, he's been pointed by other editors over half a dozen times to WP:CITEVAR, specific section being WP:CITEVAR#Variation_in_citation_methods; yet he just continues to bulldoze those articles he's come across regardless. I've made similar mistakes in my early years, but at least responded to dialogue - he's commented here and taken notice of the conversation, and less than 24 hours later continued plowing on for a total of 50+ edits. Let's hope Lgfcd wishes to understand why we would want him to stop. Kyteto (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Lgfcd and two IP socks were blocked this week for block evasion (see User talk:Lgfcd). The IPer were doing similar edits to the above. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Boeing and SAAB to team up?

Does anyone know more about this article, stating "Boeing and Saab will announce ... that they will team up to offer the JAS 39 Gripen for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X future trainer requirement"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.140.177 (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

More like a fusion of the fighter tech of the two companies. See: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_16_2013_p30-645781.xml Hcobb (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Failed bids

Failed bids are not really notable, aircraft will enter evaluation competitions and bids and proposals in as many places as the manufacturer thinks it is in with a chance but if nothing comes of it nearly all of them are non-notable and part of the background marketing done with every type. Suggest the section is deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. IMHO the section looks somewhat like gratuitous SAAB-bashing. Very few (if any?) other military aircraft articles have entire sections dedicated to detailing every time some country chose not to buy it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

These would be better covered in a main section and given due weight, i.e. brief coverage only where notable. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Is anybody gonna go ahead and rewrite the section? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been slimming down both the future and failed bids in accordance with this consensus, but only to a moderate extent so far. Hopefully this won't spark a backlash... Kyteto (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I have hard time understanding why the section about Finland was removed and the others kept. Gripen was thoroughly evaluated in Finland and the bid was not in any way less significant than Poland or Norway. Gripen was also a real contender and for political reasons many considered it to be a quite likely choice. Deleting the whole section or combining it to the other parts of the article I could understand, but I don't understand the logic behind the currently listed countries. Khilon (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I chose to keep India because of the significant scale of the program, to keep Norway because of the major industrial teaming agreements that had gone above and beyond the normal and later the political revelations of high-pressure tactics being employed by the US to sabotage the bid. Poland was a 50/50 in my mind, but I decided to keep it as it was so thoroughly covered and was quite a controversial choice at the time. The Finnish competition didn't appear to have long term controversy or political mechanizations, nor scale - I saw it as a fairly routine bid. Sorry. Kyteto (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Mass text add & reverts

If an editor makes substantial contributions and specifically express that citations might been forgotten when writing said contribution but will be supplied if pointed out, it's quite disruptive to simply revert the lot. If the request for a PM can't be obliged, there's the excellent tag {{Citation needed}} that can be used. BP OMowe (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edits have been helpful is some ways and not in others. Your most recent edits added redundant content and uncited or poorly cited text as my edit summary stated. I suggest you thoroughly read through the article before adding info to make sure it is not already covered. This article has Good Article status and its overall quality should be at least maintained. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

as it has reached "Good article" status, changes are expected to be more incremental to maintain the status, and it could also be held that in this case the Bold Revert Discuss cycle has been triggered. A cycle of Re-Addition and re-reversion is definitely not the approach.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that changes are due, there are improvements to make. But at the same time, some of your additions have broken the article - Just look at the lead right now, that's certainly not an improvement. Your changes also appear to break a few language conventions; single-sentence paragraphs are heavily discouraged, yet you've created half a dozen or so, including one in the lead. There is an entire paragraph five lines long without a single shred of evidence presented - this alone would get the article de-listed as a good article if a review was initiated right now, and rightly so, uncited paragraphs have no place on a live Good Article. You could move the edits to a sandbox, the content could be refined to at least a basic standard there, and then reintroduced; that would be my recommendation for at least some of these changes. Kyteto (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

For your convenience, I have just spent half an hour manually unmangling the article, undoing the worst of the errors introduced and adding detailed explainations area by area on my edits. Much of your changes are still there, but there is still a considerable citation issue. Kyteto (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the clean-up and copyedit work! -Fnlayson (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

While a good portion of the errors were introduced by alterations to the original sentences, yours included, you certainly have put a lot of effort in with commendable results. BP OMowe (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Differences with E model

Should we have a section that details the differences of the E model, now that it shall be built?

For example: Two fuselage hardpoints to be added that will usually block the centerline hardpoint. Hcobb (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It would seem a little undue without a corresponding section from A/B to C/D, wouldn't it? Kyteto (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There were no major hardware changes from A to C like with the C to E. A sentence on the added hardpoints (or weapon stations) can be added with the other changes made for Gripen Demo. An early Flight source (ref. # 54 now) on Demo mentions 2 hardpoints added on the fuselage. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A reasonable comparison would be the difference between Gripen and Gripen NG would be the Hornet and Super-hornet, so a separate section is definitely in order. BP OMowe (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Again these differences are covered in at top of the Further developments section about the Gripen Demo. There's no need to repeat these elsewhere in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
A summary of the changes is also mentioned in the Variants section. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

So we're already mentioning some of the same information twice, because we don't have a dedicated Super Gripen section? Hcobb (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, one sentence in the variant entry is not any real duplication. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody have the sourcing for this information:

http://i.imgur.com/QAbfbWV.jpg

So we can add it to the Super Gripen section? Hcobb (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Of 71 total aircraft, 100 are in operational use

"The SwAF has 134 JAS 39s, including 50 JAS 39As, 13 JAS 39Bs, 60 JAS 39Cs and 11 JAS 39D Gripens in inventory in January 2013,[119] with approximately 100 JAS 39C/D Gripens in operational use."

Are we sure about these numbers? Hcobb (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

50 + 13 + 60 + 11 = 134, not 71. The numbers add up. Of a total 134 aircraft, 100 are in operational use. You added something incorrectly. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What part of "100 JAS 39C/D Gripens in operational use" did I get wrong? Hcobb (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Found the 30 missing fighters and corrected the article. They do have around 100 at the "C/D" level, even though they never built that many. Hcobb (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Some were upgraded A/B models weren't they? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently 31 A's were bumped up to the C level and the 60 original C's will be padded up to E's, correct? Hcobb (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell none of the As have been upgraded and most have been withdrawn from use, have a look at scramble.nl for details. Over 100 C/D serial numbers have been allocated for Sweden a few still to be delivered (note includes some loaned to the Czechs):

39208-39294 as JAS39C (87)
39815-39842 as JAS39D (28)

Looking at individual aircraft:

39208-39233 active (26)
39234-39245 loaned to Czech Republic (10)
39246-39258 active (13)
39259 written off 2007 (1)
39260-39282 active (23)
39283 on order (1)
39284-29285 active (2)
39286-39294 on order (9)
39815-39816 active (3)
39818 on order (1)
39818-39819 loaned to Czech Republic (2)
39821-39827 active (7)
39828 written off 2010 (1)
39829-39837 active (9)
39838-39842 on order (5)

So that is 75 active Swedish Cs and 17 active Ds - all original research and just for info. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiseman's Wisdoms — the foremost site for Swedish defence debate — made this summary as of late 2012. translate.google.com yields reasonable results for those who doesn't know Swedish. In summary, the JAS 39D is "upgraded" using two JAS 39A, while the JAS 39B simply are scrapped or mothballed. With two C/D-aircraft written off for irreparable damage, the total number is 98, but export commitments can lower that further. BP OMowe (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Designer in infobox

Edit was reverted stating it's reserved for single designer. That does not seem to be the consensus of the talkpage, and to exclude FMV would be misleading as FMV has been working in close integration with every major development project for the Swedish military. BP OMowe (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You're misreading the consensus then, or else you're not understanding the discussions at all. Also, Saab is the prime contractor, and that's usually sufficient. - BilCat (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@BP OMowe: I did not participate in the discussions -- I merely looked at the guidelines at Template:Infobox aircraft. Feel free to revert my edit if it contradicts with the concensus. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@BilCat: It might very well be that I misunderstood something in the 2011-discussion, so please review it and correct that. However, SAAB did not become the prime contractor until 1999 when they purchased Celcius AB, in which Förenade Fabriksverken had been incorporated into during the consolidation and sale of the Swedish governmental industries in the 1990s. Still, Saab didn't had majority ownership in IG JAS until 2006 with the purchase of Ericsson's military division. BP OMowe (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was to use the design group label for groups and keep "designer" for individuals. I've updated the documentation for the infobox template (Template:Infobox aircraft type) to clarify this. The details of this should be covered in the article, not just in the Infobox. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The line "design group" was missing in this article, so I figured it had been merged into "designer" as that was one of the suggestions to the template. Added it now. BP OMowe (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Good article nomination (has GA been since 2011)

Is the article good enough for nomination already?

―200.219.132.104 (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Uh, it has been a GA for over 2 years. See Article history banner at top of this talk page and the green GA icon on the main page. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're looking to make a positive input, you could respond to the above discussion about the citation style conversion in February 2013; that issue has not been settled. Kyteto (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Consensus regarding erroneous name translations disputed

Its one thing to adhere to English grammar in the text, but deliberately disregard proper translations in the descriptive text is simply not OK by any encyclopaedic standards. Hence the lead should read "The Saab JAS 39 Gripen (The griffin) is a lightweight single-engine" since the singular definite is a well established practice in the Swedish airforce since 1950 with Flygande Tunnan. BP OMowe (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

In English, using the definite article with a name usually implies a specific or certain thing being named. "The Griffin" implies a specific griffin, and is thus a misleading translation. - BilCat (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A specific or certain item is the very definition of definite article in all Germanic languages, Swedish and English included. In this particular case, the closest comparison is naming a class (Forrestal-class aircraft carriers) and referring to the class as the Forrestal, omitting the rest. BP OMowe (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

With Forrestal, the English idiom would probably be "the Forrestals". The line is in keeping with other articles such as Messerschmitt Me 262 "Schwalbe (English: "Swallow") " and "Focke-Wulf Fw 189 Uhu ("Eagle Owl") ". GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a very odd comparison, as the German names originally lack the article (der,die,das) and thus have the same form as the English. Quick walk-through in Swedish: grip [griffon], en grip [a griffon], gripen [the griffon]. Using it as a name, first letter is capitalized just like in English; Grip, Gripen. Point isn't grammar though, as the practice isn't consistent with normal Swedish grammar, but that poor translation removes a distinguishing military tradition of Sweden. BP OMowe (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The "bottom line" is that the niceties of Swedish grammar, or "a distinguishing military tradition of Sweden" are of no interest at all to this article - we follow the English usage in reliable sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. - BilCat (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, Swedish grammar has nothing to do with this, that was only brought up for your education. Fact is, this article is about an aircraft specifically designed and built for the Swedish airforce, no ifs or buts. Fact is that the name per tradition since the 1950s is in definite singular, and that any and all translations of the name NOT being in such are incorrect and therefore not reliable. BP OMowe (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

But this is the English language Wikipedia and so what becomes important is not the grammatical intent of the Swedish language but how the name is translated and used (by reliable sources) writing in English. Even if the "mis-translation" might be notable, it needs to be covered in a reliable source that has commentated on it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Using a hyperbole, if Jane's translates "Gripen" into meaning "blue meatball", should wikipedia state that the translation indeed is "blue meatball", or go by the proper one? BP OMowe (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to resort to silly hyperbole. All credible English sources, including Jane's and even SAAB do not agree with BP OMowe, so it's time to drop the stick and quit wasting our time with this nonsense. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Roger (Dodger67), do pay attention to the fact I'm talking about how Gripen is TRANSLATED in the summary, where the heck does the Saab-site disagree with me?! BP OMowe (talk • contribs) 13:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth observing that neither the Draken or the Viggen articles here on the Wiki feature a 'the' in their translations of their names. To insert one here would make this article inconsistent with the styling of the other Swedish aircraft name translations. As far as I've seen, the lead translations has been consistently present without any 'the' being present. Kyteto (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It is also worth observing that footnote 4 already contains the explanation of the Swedish grammar that BP OMowe wants and further observing that it really is time to drop the stick. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Good observation, Kyteto. I had only looked at the J29 as that was the first named aircraft, but now I've fixed that.

Roger (Dodger67), don't be a dick. BP OMowe (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

And don't edit war over multiple articles against reliable English language sources to enforce your preference without obtaining consensus.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that it's correct to translate a definite singular in Swedish to an indefinite singular in English, because this is how nicknames (and similar occurrences like this one) are used in the respective languages. For instance, if there were a person nicknamed "Bull" in English ("tjur" in Swedish), his nickname would be translated to "Tjuren" in Swedish, where -en is the definite singular suffix for the common gender. That's just the way things are, and how these languages work. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A clear consensus from this discussion appears to be present against the use of the adoption of the indefinite, which up until they were mass-edited yesterday the majority of Swedish named aircraft articles hadn't used either. I would propose restoring the original versions of those articles without the indefinite. Kyteto (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kyteto I believe you actually mean "without the definite". I agree about reverting the mass edits - those were clearly done in a transparent attempt to influence this discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the definite article should be lost here. Additionally, for the Viggen article, in which "Vigg" is ambiguous, the reference to the tufted duck seems unnecessary. It's obvious, at least to me, that the name refers to "Åskvigg" (lit. "Thunderbolt"), rather than to a swimming bird. The tufted duck reference would possibly belong in a Vigg (disambiguation) article, if there were one. If the Gripen's name were in English, i.e. "Bolt", you wouldn't bother mentioning the alternative meaning of a certain type of fastener in the aircraft article, would you? HandsomeFella (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice catch on the typo, that's what happens when I rush-rearrange sentences! With a six to one consensus, I am going to remove the recent addition until further discussion here determines a different course of action, if it does so. Kyteto (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like I have to clarify a few things here, beginning from the start: the J29. That was the first Swedish type to get an official name, albeit the colloquial "Flygande Tunnan" more or less forced the SAAB adoption of "Tunnan". This seems to have set a precedent, as SAAB (later Saab AB) not only made certain to name the aircraft when presented, but also strictly adhered to the custom of combat aircrafts' names being in definite form, and every source mentioning the Swedish name (saabgroup.com included) also present them in their definite form rather than infinite.

When it comes to the ambiguous names, it should be noted that "gripen" could be translated into "apprehended", but since that wasn't intentional I didn't include that. The J35 actually got its name due to the double-delta wing giving it the reversed kite-like shape. That it happened to also mean "dragon" meant the name was kept. The J37 started out as an attack aircraft, with the main mission -- in case of an invasion -- to sink the attacking transport ships. During this time, the SwAF were still doing extreme low-level flying, and the tufted duck (known as "vigg" in Swedish) had a peak population in the 1960s-70s. Again, the ambiguity of the word meant the name was found suitable. Note that the Swedish word for "thunderbolt" is "åskvigg" and not just "vigg". These things are rather obvious for a native Swede, but since they are not so for those limited to English I included them. BP OMowe (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anybody here has claimed that "vigg" means "thunderbolt". For my part, I clearly said that "åskvigg" means "thunderbolt", and that "vigg" is ambiguous. But you could have a point in that the ambiguity could be intentional, given the canard design. Another possibility is that they simply found "åskvigg" – or the definite form "åskviggen" – to be too long.

By the way, by low-level flying, do you mean low-altitude flying?

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

HandsomeFella, have a look at Viggen article again...makes sense for the translation though.

The main point is that the naming convention of the combat aircraft differs in a very specific manner (compare for instance with the Ö 1 Tummelisa and Saab Safir also used by the military, or the civilian Saab Scandia, where neither have the definite form), and that the translations should reflect this.

As in lack of altitude, below the treetops low. Literally. BP OMowe (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

279 Gripens

FT.com claims that 279 Gripens have been built. Can anybody break this down? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If I had to guess, they've done a mix between the rebuilding of A/Bs as C/Ds, and counting aircraft ordered but not built. I can't formally break it down though. Kyteto (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the title on the article? Registration for the site isn't working a.t.m. as I used up the 8 free articles getting registered(!). In general terms, it depends a bit on how the production numbers are calculated. For instance, taking two JAS 39A to make one JAS 39D can be counted as either two or three aeroplanes produced and ft.com seem to have done the latter to reach the number 279. BP OMowe (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Just as an aside, you could log onto another computer/tablet/phone, or clear your computer's cookie, to get more "free views" on such sites. It may not work if you have to register, as with FT, but it might. - BilCat (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

"Saab chief says low price tag makes Gripen jets stand out from rivals". --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference does not support text

The first reference under Saab JAS 39 Gripen#South Africa does not support the text it is attached to. I guess it would be better to move it under the 39C variant, where it is actually relevant.

— 189.61.0.190 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Gripen backdoor spying

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140330/DEFREG01/303300010 Solid enough to add in? Hcobb (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If it can be verified, without a doubt important. BP OMowe (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Doubt it is important just press speculation and mostly made up (clue: "could potentially build a “backdoor”") scare stuff, best ignored. MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newssaab-commences-fabrication-of-first-pre-production-gripen-e-aircraft
Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://web.archive.org/web/20131606222500/http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newssaab-commences-fabrication-of-first-pre-production-gripen-e-aircraft
Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems it's scraped from www.gripenblogs.com/. BP OMowe (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Lightweight / heavyweight

Gripen was designed under the premise to be lighter - and thus cheaper to purchase and operate - than the previous Viggen-system while maintaining least the same performance. As it managed to break the trend of constantly heavier and more expensive aircraft I see no problem having a weight reference in the summary. BP OMowe (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Failed Bids

Australia could probably be listed here. SAAB were definitely going to bid for the AIR6000 contract but it was actually cancelled the day it was due to start. Then-Prime Minister John Howard signed Australia up for the JSF/F-35 project. Trying to find some credible references. Flanker235 (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There have been a lot of competitions which the Gripen was mentioned as a potential candidate or even actively bid for. It was decided on this talk page that it was undue weight to cover them all - we don't do it with the dozens of times the F-16 or MiG-29 have missed a contract they were bid for, why here? We compromised here that if the bid was particularly significant in terms of scale (India), political intrigue (Norway), or was a very near-miss (Poland), things that would distinguish those bids as significant, it'd be covered. The Australian background just probably isn't notable, but I can't say I've looked into it to be sure. Kyteto (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Austria and Oman entries are unremarkable and should be removed. There's no political or technical interest or controvery involved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Half American

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08STOCKHOLM494_a.html The Gripen contains 50 percent U.S. content, including engines, avionics and weapon systems; sales of the Gripen are good for U.S. industry.

RS enough to include? Hcobb (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This information contradicts what is already said in the article currently; which puts 67% of the content as being from European sources and 33% from the US. The U.S. Cable may have had a vested interest in drumming up the numbers, as it is a political piece it is inherently crafted with a motive and not necessarily objectivity in mind. I don't doubt the cable itself being legitimate, but the facts it states may be exaggerated or skewed - the reason that very fact was spat out then is potentially suspect. But all this is over-analysis, but we should be careful of putting our faith in these reports made within a political context that weren't meant to stand up to public scrutiny or be applied as evidence. Kyteto (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

UK veto

Also is the UK veto on sales to Argentina notable?

http://www.c4isrnet.com/article/M5/20141108/DEFREG05/311080014

Hcobb (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really, and it is not really a veto just the fact you cant export British military stuff to Argentina which is hardly suprising. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

So delete the failed Argentinan bid as non-notable? Hcobb (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Gripen cockpit picture with pilot in it "File:CAF PICT0015 (4609287703).jpg" / "A pilot seated in the open cockpit of a Gripen, 2006"

This picture shows a Czech L-159 and not a Gripen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.248.156.205 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I have removed the image. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Operational history - CZ

I reccomend to add information about czech deployment to Iceland in 2014. I hope somebody experienced cad do it. There are some sources in the article about Icelandic air policing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Air_Policing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.68.216.5 (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Few items

Thanks everyone for making huge improvements to the article during the last two weeks. There are several outstanding items that would need to be addressed.

All semi-colons (;) should be removed to improve prose,
"Sweden" under "Operational history" should be expanded. It is currently lacking considering Sweden is the primary customer of the aircraft. I'll take care of this,
"Aircraft on display" needs to be referenced,
All dead links should be addressed,
All references should be filled out and standardised. For example, Signal under "Bibliography" is not complete. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree on the semi-colon. Writing with semi-colons can prevent extra wording with separate sentences. That should be Signal Publishing, right? -Fnlayson (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's actually counter-productive because it discourages succinctness in the way we write. Having semi-colons tend to make sentences really choppy and hard for the reader to piece together a paragraph as a whole. Just because a semi-colon is taken out doesn't mean that separate sentences and extra wording are created. It's often the opposite in my experience. I think they should only be used for words like however when it is most appropriate. With Signal, I believe that's a magazine publication. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I must admit, I am fond of using the semi-colon bringing together two highly linked otherwise-sentences together. I am loathed to see them all go. That's just my opinion though. Kyteto (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I was too, until I stumbled upon several articles that advise against their generous use. Having 37 of them is way too many. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing the semi-colons for the sake of removing them seem rather pointless, regardless of what fad calls for their banishment. From my point of view, where ever semi-colons serve purpose they should be kept. BP OMowe (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Image change

I have changed the main image from a low quality photo that is fuzzy to a high quality image. Changes do not have to be discussed and BilCat you must specify a grounds for reverting–lack of discussion is not one. So far you have presented no argument why the the low quality image is better–see policy, among others WP:BRD, WP:Preserve. CFCF 💌 📧 10:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:Aircraft practice has been to discuss changing the main image to prevent changes without solid justification. Project guidelines request discussion before deleting existing images. For the Infobox, an image with a good view of the whole aircraft is more important than a higher res image that does not, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At last, you deign to discuss! Sorry, but nothing in BRD (a guideline) or Preserve (an irrelevant policy) states that lack of previous discussion is not a reason for reverting. Lead images in aircraft articles are often subject to random image changes, especially those to feature a user's favorite/home nation, often to the point of removing an image related to a nation they don't like. Examples of the latter are India/Pakistan, and Israel/Arab nations, with offenders from both sides. To deal with this, editors of aircraft articles (WP:AIR) will often revert undiscussed image changes, especially, but not limited to, changing of a ground or low-to-the-ground image for an in-flight image. Such was the case here, and it was reverted with a request for discussion. By your own stated advice, at that point you ought to have come to the talk page first, but you chose to revert first, without even bothering to ask an experienced editor why else he might have chosen to revert the image besides not having been discussed. I can't speak for him, but I found the ground clutter to be worse than any perceived fuzziness, which isn't really apparent at 300px anyway, and would have been happy to have explained on the talk page had you asked here first. On that basis I have again restored the previous image that was in the article for months, and shouldn't have been changed in the first place. I'll stand by a consensus of other editors here to restore the new images, but further changes by you will treated as edit warring. Good day. - BilCat (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Finally a rationale–BilCat it is not I who deign to discuss–I added a rationale to each edit summary (use of talk-page is seldom necessary for minor edits) and it is you who reverted three times with no rationale whatsoever.
I don't agree with your interpretation and the image is verifyably out of focus, but really I don't care very much. The issue with the edits was the clear lack of rationale, which must be provided as grounds for a revert (WP:REVERT/WP:PRESERVE). CFCF 💌 📧 06:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I gave a rationale each time I reverted - that you chose to reject it isn't my problem. - BilCat (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No you said it had not been discussed, that is no rationale. It most certainly is your problem. CFCF 💌 📧 16:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not, in your opinion, an editor provided sufficient grounds for a revert is not itself grounds for reverting that editor. - BilCat (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care about which one you choose to leave in the infobox, but would like to make it clear that the image File:Saab-JAS-39 at ILA 2010 05.jpg looks just awful. It is out of focus and just dull with the all-grey colour scheme. The image File:Saab JAS-39C Gripen, Sweden - Air Force AN2279593.jpg in the Design section gives a good enough sense of aircraft's planform and is an image of much higher quality. I would suggest using one of these images in the infobox as they are both in focus and don't have ground clutter: File:Gripen - RIAT 2009 (3743462918).jpg, File:Gripen - RIAT 2009 (4170278140).jpg --Msaynevirta (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Swedish Air Power Package

http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/this-fighter-might-replace-indonesias-aging-f-5-fighters-hint-not-the-su-35/

Does that go here or under the SAAB page as the Gripen is only part of the package? Hcobb (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

All a bit speculative probably not worth noting here or at the SAAB page, this sort of thing goes on all the time. MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Projected rollout date notable?

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-02-22/bullish-saab-sets-rollout-date-gripen-e

Or do we wait for first flight? Hcobb (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

A roll-out is not that notable for a new variant. MilborneOne (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree. A rollout tells you when the variant first entered service. ANd in most acses, including with the Gripen-E is treated with much fanfare. Any way I added info on the rollout of the first Gripen-E. Jagaer meister (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Rollout is not directly tied to entering operational service. Rollout is closer tied to the next major event, first flight. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

New Hungarian Gripen

A new JAS39D has arrived to Hungary with the number 44 in July. http://www.honvedelem.hu/cikk/58043_megerkezett_a_44es_oldalszamu_gripen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.81.111 (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Refuelling probe on port side

I read the section 'Testing, production and improvements' where it said that the new refuelling probe was on the Starboard side. I remembered the Gripen I saw at RIAT 2016 had it on the port side (see also YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXM33HEWc5Y&feature=youtu.be). Maybe different versions have it on different sides? Someone more knowledgeable than me may want to correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.167.170 (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Wrong statement to Switzerland

No its written:"the Gripen is again considered the favourite.". This is not right, The process of evaluation stards again , ther is not yet an offical list of the candidats, so the JAS39. Also the siuation is now differend because the new aircraft will be a replacement of the F-5 AND F/A-18 and not only the F-5. FFA P-16 (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That's not what it means. - BilCat (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

But why is then writen " the favourite" ? And not..One of the possible candidates? FFA P-16 (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you don't already understand it, I don't know how explain it to you. Perhaps someone who speaks German can. - BilCat (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Being considered the "favourite" does not mean the other fighter candidates have no chance. The selection process still has to go through the required steps. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I speak a bit of German, maybe I can help. Jurryaany (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Danke Jurryaany, ich verstehe "the Gripen is again considered the favourite" das der Gripen in der neuen evaluation der Favorit ist, der Kandidat mit den besten Chanchen. Wenn dem so ist, ist das nicht korrekt. Es wurden noch gar keine Kandidaten für diese neue beschaffung offiziell genannt (obwohl absehbar ist das es sich dabei um Rafale, Eurofighter, Jas-39E/F, F/A-18 E/F und F-35 wohl zur Auswahl stehen werden). auch ging es vorher darum "nur" die F-5 Tiger zu ersetzen. Jetzt geht es darum die F-5 und F/A-18C/D zu ersetze daher ist die Ausgangslage anderst und die Jas-39 nur einer der möglicher Kandidaten.FFA P-16 (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with user FFA P-16, The process of evaluation stards again.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Saab JAS 39 Gripen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Saab JAS 39 Gripen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Introduction date

I saw the "Introduction 1 November 1997" and i wonder what that date is supposed be? There's no source or anything else, the link i posted was originally from FMV "Försvarets MaterielVerk" in english it's "The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration". The first serial production plane was delivered 8 June 1993 (39.102 which is the same plane that crashed at Långholmen 8 August 1993 only 2 months after delivery) and JAS-39 Gripen was taken into service 9 june 1996 by Skaraborgs flygflottilj F7. Mars 1995 FMV commences airplane operations with a serial plane on the Malmen Base outside Linköping. https://web.archive.org/web/20100821122933/https://www.fmv.se/WmTemplates/Page.aspx?id=802 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.136.145 (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Article text in the Lead says that "the Gripen entered service with the Swedish Air Force in 1997." Text in the Sweden section under Operational history says something similar. These mean that the aircraft was introduced into service (or fielded). -Finlayson (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I will translate the text from "The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration" from swedish to english.

"1996 June, The gripen is officially introduced to the Air Force in conjunction with the opening of an Gripen training facility at Skaraborg's Flyflottilj (Wing, military aviation unit) on the 9th of June."

The correct date is 1996-06-09 and not 1997-11-01 as in the current article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.136.145 (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

~~OK, but a full citation for this needs to be added in the article to support the date.~~ Thanks for update. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Specifications for 39C/D

Would it be better to display the specifications for the 39C/D instead of the 39E/F since most of the article is discussing the current generation of Gripens? We can place the specs (in paragraph form) for the Gripen NG under its respective sub-section. Right now it seems a bit like putting the specs for the Super Hornet on the page for the older F/A-18A/B/C/D Hornet. Is it too early to split off Gripen NG to its own page like on the Swedish Wikipedia? Any thoughts? --Edward Sandstig (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

We normally try to use the more common variant depending on sources available so I would agree it may be better to show the C/D as more representative. MilborneOne (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The E/F specs were added along with the C/D specs a few months ago with no discussion. The C/D specs were subsequently removed in July. I just restored the C/D specs. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)