Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

If what I read way back when is true, the really cool thing about the Gripen in a dogfight is its gun, the onboard computer takes over to fly the plane and aim the gun. Not exactly proven in combat yet, but seem to work wonders on drones.

Anyway, if I remember correctly, the Gripen cannot carry AMRAAMs or other BVR AAMs on its wingtips, right? In that case, I'd say the viper would win.

F-16.net Sponsor

doesn't really need it, typical combat load out is 2x WVR, 4x BVR and a fuel tank! With Sweden signed up to IRIS-T and Meteor, that is a seriously potent combo if you ask me. Which on the missile side of things would match a F-16 mixed air-air load anyway, I can't see it being realistic just to fly a true CAP mission without WVR missiles loaded.

Oh and not only does the computer "fly" the aircraft in a guns battle but unless the pilot squeezes the trigger.... if there is a greater than 95% chance thata bullet will strike the radar target at any given moment; the computer fires the gun automatically.

Andy

boff180 wrote:

doesn't really need it, typical combat load out is 2x WVR, 4x BVR and a fuel tank! With Sweden signed up to IRIS-T and Meteor, that is a seriously potent combo if you ask me. Which on the missile side of things would match a F-16 mixed air-air load anyway, I can't see it being realistic just to fly a true CAP mission without WVR missiles loaded.

Oh and not only does the computer "fly" the aircraft in a guns battle but unless the pilot squeezes the trigger.... if there is a greater than 95% chance thata bullet will strike the radar target at any given moment; the computer fires the gun automatically.

Andy

Thank you for the info on the auto-fire system Very Happy

Hmmm.... some valid points you made 'bout the engagement. The Meteor's not yet operational, so I was assuming both are armed with AMRAAMs. I still think the side with more AMRAAMs would win, since you can afford to fire before you get into the NEZ and force the other guy into manuvering / losing his energy / giving you his six.

I just wanted to add that the auto aim system was also used on the JA37 Viggen, and it worked perfectly. The system proved to be excellent even in clouds and at night. Smile

robban wrote:

I just wanted to add that the auto aim system was also used on the JA37 Viggen, and it worked perfectly. The system proved to be excellent even in clouds and at night. Smile

But the Viggen is kinda ugly... Sad

New proposed Gripen for Norway:

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/na24/polit ... 637169.ece

This one has larger internal fuel stores than the original and obviously room for external tanks as they show off here. The large AS missiles you see are Kongsberg NSMs, anti-ship.

I have no idea about fighter jets. What do you guys think of this?

Lasse wrote:

New proposed Gripen for Norway:

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/na24/polit ... 637169.ece

This one has larger internal fuel stores than the original and obviously room for external tanks as they show off here. The large AS missiles you see are Kongsberg NSMs, anti-ship.

I have no idea about fighter jets. What do you guys think of this?

Ahhhhh, who can read Swedish or Norweigin or whatever language is on that page. I love them crazy Scandonavians, it's so cool to see them put the TSC idea to such good use. Now, only if they do the same for the BVRAAMs. "What? You don't envision sending up a flight of Grippens against two squadrons of Russian Blackjacks?"

The article doesn't talk about specifics, it's an economy website and so it only mentions what it will cost and the politics involved, compared to the JSF and the eurofighter. It only says that 'it will be adapted for Norwegian needs', which basically means extended range. I don't know what else they've done to it, other than allowing it to carry norwegian NSMs of course.

By the way, what is TSC? Embarassed

Looks,,,, heavy! Shocked

That's a computer render image made by someone who doesn't know a thing about the Grippen. Those 2 tanks are mounted right on the main gear doors.

They have probably mistaken the fact that Gripen may be getting CFT's.

It may look heavy but they are also proposing re-engining it with an EJ-200.

Andy

Possible re-positioning of the main landing gear.

CFT's on the Gripen.

CFTs are fine, I guess, but how much would a redesigning of the whole central fuselage (for adding a second belly tank) impact the price tag?
The Gripen is already just as expensive as an F-16 (37 mil USD), more advanced but with less of a punch than the Viper.

Re: CFT'd Gripen is known as the "Improved Gripen Concept"

The only image I could find:

Last edited by HunterKiller on May 28, 2006 - 07:04 PM; edited 1 time in total

Gripen has one thing that Falcon does not have - real off-airfield capability, special tactics on changing locations and all this mobile maintenance and supply stuff.

Gipen can use every highway strip that is at least 9 metres wide and 800 metres long. This means that virtually every major road can be his base and after reavealing its location (after takeoff) they will never come back there. it means that in war they will come out from different directions, from unknown places and you never know where they will hit you next.

When Falcons landed first on Lithuanian Siaulai airfield (former USSR Flogger base), all pilots and ground crews were yelling abouth rough runway and taxyways, that was accused for breaking tires and so on. Most of ex USSR runways were similar. So that F-16 cant even handle concrete runways that vere everyday routine for Floggers and so.

So that 30 F-16s have virtually no value when you hit their runway. But 30 Gripens will be far avay from their home base when war is imminent. They will be hidden everywhere and you just cant bomb all the highways to eliminate their "airstrips" and all barns and highway tunnels to destroy their hangars.

So what is better - to have 30 Gripens airborne with less avionics and short legs or 30 Falcons with all fancy stuff sitting down 2 days until you fix your runway - but if enemy pops some thousand delay mines, your falcons will be out of action for several days.

When two smaller countries make a war (both cant have overwhelming superiority in air only by air combat) - who will have the upper hand? Talking about avionics and fancy stuff feels like bad joke, when 2 aircaft with concrete penetrators will quickly end your operations.

Off course, this is not real against USAF because of its sensoring and recovering capacity - but just think about those 2 smaller countries.

Please remind, that Swedish air force has practiced off-airfield operations for 30 years, but what about falcon's off-airfield capability? Plus Sweden has lot and lot of roads, thick forests and many of deep granite tunnels to make a perfect hiding of Gripens.

Just remind NVAF Mig-21 rice-field operations that USAF could not win- because they dont have enough bombs to destroy every rice paddy.

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16 versus Saab Gripen