Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

Aces, the Gripen has RWR, but it's designed only to warn the pilot and work in cojunction with the ECM, not to guide ARMs.
Gripen was designed in the 80's foremost for Sweden homeland defense against the Soviets. That meant it had to be a very good air-to-air fighter (both BVR and WWR), advanced anti-ship capability and only limited air-to ground capbility (Mavericks to bust tanks and a gun, dumb iron bombs and unguided rockets). The Swedish doctrine did not include SEAD.
As for the customers (South Africa, Czech Republic and Hungary) none requested ARM capability.

F-16.net Sponsor

Alarm can work independantly of the aircraft ecm/rwr kit mate.

I'm sure it could be easily retrofitted to the aircraft if need-be.

Andy

tomcat1974 wrote:

So getting a F-16 that can do those things(GPS, JDAM,JSOW,WCMD,etc) at same price as Gripen that can't ... is still that a plane for large countries?

Well, yes, what HunterKiller says is that you take for example Kuwait and Iran.

Irani Air Force >>>> Kuwaiti Air Force, so Irani Air Force goes in and bombs all infrastructure. You now have few or no runway, few or no maintenance and no real need to bomb the other since you can't even defend your own airspace ! At that point, a plane which you can launch from the bottom of the lake is what you need. Sure the Viper has 450m takeoff capability, but is that with a good load of A2G ordnance + fuel + ECM pods ? And do what with your leftovers of your already small airforce ? Go out there and loose it by trying to "retaliate" over a bigger enemy ?

As USAFE/NATO doctrine was in the Europe during the Cold War they had mounted rocket on planes to takeoff if the Big Bear stroke suddenly all of the airfields. That's what you do at the above case too - it's a desperate attempt to hold your own rather than have sophisticated strike capabilities. Isn't that why Marines use the Harrier and will use the JSF ? "Take off from everywhere (since tactical army isn't there for you yet), do your mission as good as possible, get back as safely as possible".

In the same way, that's why you won't use F-15s too, why, since half of them (costing 2x of a Viper) will get wiped in their hangars by the attack ? Of course you can get a more capable Viper for the same money as the Gripen, but its value will be shown when you'll need them to hold out until the cavalry (F-15, F-16, F-22 etc.) arrives. Old doctrine of "2 Xs on the air beat 10 Ys in the hangar" applies here too (where X = less capable aircraft than Y).

(Edited for spelling)

HunterKiller wrote:

tomcat1974 wrote:

Why do you thing that Grippen is better for small nations? At the same price with F-16 war proven plane? You must be jocking with small nation...

Proven in war when enemy is powerful enough to hit all your runways in day 1 Question

F-16 is proven in war with signifficantly inferior enemy and that is the main thing to explain high kill/loss ratio. I won't be so sure that Syria, Iraq and serbs were worthy enemies for US airpower.

It is pretty difficult for americana to understand that they are also nations that can not afford air superiority and some have big enemy next border. And think what target is hit first. Radars and airfields.

F-16 cant handle uneven concrete runways that MiG-s are using every day. This aircarft is simply not suited for use in air war where you have lesser aircraft and no runways intact.

Swedish planes are desingned specially for this use. They have to be light, small and simple to operate.

It is not smart to say that F-16 again beats everything. Is has still beaten only ill-equipped and ill-trained airforces, equipped with obsolete soviet junk.
In Yugoslavia and Iraq they beat mostly because of superior situational awareness and training , not airplane.

To stop 30 F-16s is enough to drop some bombs to runway. To stop Gripens, you need to hunt down 30 single hidden planes. Which one is easier?

You are right, HunterKiller. There's one more point to add here: US doesn't sell all the cool weapons for every nation willing their planes. Even if they did, most of them wouldn't afford a good deal of them. Chile, for example, bought some cool Vipers, but didn't manage to get AMRAAMs, JDAMs and the like. So, a Viper overloaded with iron bombs surely needs a good runway, what is not Gripen's problem.
But here comes another problem, at least for Brazil: Gripen's short legs. But Gripen was made for use by small countries, since all Gripen's buyers would easily fit in Brazil, together with all the Viper buyers (excluding US). Brazil needs extreme range and extreme payload, something like the F-111 (retired), A-6 (retired), F-15E/I/K (NEOL, impossible cost, impossible politics), F-22 (impossible cost, impossible politics), F-16 (somewhat short legged for our country, and Brazil won't buy many fighters) and the Sukhoi Flankers.
Brazil has no other logical choice. Sure, I would love we could afford F-22s, F-35s, AWACS and... oh my, we are not the US, so forget it! Given our possibilities, we desperately need the Flankers.
Back to the topic: Viper or Gripen? Hard to know. Viper has already proven itself to be a fantastic aircraft, but is close to retirement right now. Gripen has a lot of room to evolve. Worst problem for Gripen are the short legs, and it is hard to solve. The Hornet has already proven it: if you are born with short legs, you hardly solve it.

In the Red Flag/Alaska exercise this summer some Gripens participated and to my understanding the Gripens were superior to the F-16s. Mainly because of the better avoinics.

Quote:

In the Red Flag/Alaska exercise this summer some Gripens participated and to my understanding the Gripens were superior to the F-16s. Mainly because of the better avoinics.

During such exercises, it all depends on ROEs and tactics - see the Cope India threads.
Side note: The Gripens deployed are top of the line, with the latest updates, while some of the Vipers used were Block 30s, of course there is a technological advantage for the Gripen

RoAF wrote:

Quote:

In the Red Flag/Alaska exercise this summer some Gripens participated and to my understanding the Gripens were superior to the F-16s. Mainly because of the better avoinics.

During such exercises, it all depends on ROEs and tactics - see the Cope India threads.
Side note: The Gripens deployed are top of the line, with the latest updates, while some of the Vipers used were Block 30s, of course there is a technological advantage for the Gripen

You say that some were Block 30, but there was newer Vipers as well? None of the Vipers could keep up with the Gripen!

Any info about JAS 39 Gripen vs F-16 dogfights during the "Cold Response 2007" exercise in northern Norway now in march 2007? Some stunning photos in the Norwegian newspaper "Dagsavisen" http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks2/article2636618.ece

Would be interesting to know how Gripen managed the F-16:s...

A block 52 falcon with aesa radars bvr, no chance for the gripen.... close combat...with a skilled US pilot....the gripen... once again no chance....sweden is where the Gripen is born offcourse...it is good in Sweden....while the f-16 is best in the hands of a US pilot.....coz it was concieved there...Russian planes are best in the hands of Russian....coz they fly for country with a pride that says "hey we built it....we perfect the art of flying the bird". Therefore...again...the latest F-18 SP will take down a Gripen easily....Aero India 2007, in february... i was there at bangalore in India...i got my chance to watch the air show...among the many companies displaying thier latest equipment i got a close look at the block 60 falcon, the Super hornet, the gripen, the Mig-35, SU-30 mki, the jaguar, the Lca, the upgraded mirage 2000. Nothing at the air ahow could beat the super maneuverability of both the migs at slow speeds and nothing could beat the the agility of the super hornet at mach speeds...and the pilot was repeatedly pulling 7-8 g maneuvers at mach 1.2 the f-16 was very impressive and was the longest flight...very agile...it felt like a mix of the Su-30 and the gripen....however....the gripen...was not special...i mean dont get me wrong...after looking at highly skilled test pilots flying these aircraft....the gripen just felt normal...i mean ....it flys well....but its capabilities seemed a little...defecient...as if....it was missing something...however the best surprise of the show...the LCA...hands downs....it beats everyone's expectations...the spectators are shocked at its performance....its a break through in terms of Indian capability...i mean its first super sonic fighter...and they get it right...check out the pics...

ahem, block 50/52 have all APG-68 series radars not AESA. Airshow perfomances are a poor indication of a planes capabilities. It wont tell you wich is the best fighter. BTW the best piloted planes are those with the best trained pilots, not the pilots from where it was made.
Gripen is NOT to be dissed, while smaller than the falcon its smarter, I wouldnt count it out. Any oposition that does will have shards of meteors stickin out their backsters to remind them. Wink

The swedes have the best datalink system out there, Its probbaly betten then anything the NATO has including the F22 (F22 could be better but it still ha sto comply to NATO standard which severly hampers its possibilities).

And since SA is possibly the biggest part of winning or loosing in a war situation this is an advanatge not to be taken lightly

Hello everyone and hello Lajes,

I am new to this site and I'm Iooking forward to many discussions with you all on military planes. I think the F-16 is the better overall multi-role fighter. I love the Gripen; I think the Swedes have done a wonderful job, but correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the Gripen a point defense aircraft for the Swedish nation? Basically to defend the nation from outside aggression?

Lajes,

What are your views on the Falcon (as we still call it here in the U.S.) versus the Gripen? What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of each plane?
And finally, since you said that there is aggressive marketing on the part of Gripen International, what do you personally think of the Gripen and its capabilities and what aircraft would you choose between the two?

The difference in range (internal fuel) is not huge between these two IMO:

F-16 C block 50/52
~18240 lb Empty
~7000 lb Internal fuel
Fuel fraction ~2.8

Gripen C
~14990 lb Empty
~5290 lb Internal fuel
Fuel fraction ~2.6

As a comparison Gripen E will have a fuel fraction of about ~3.2.

Regards C.

Active Member Joined: Mar 14, 2007 - 11:44 PM Posts: 155

Should we calculate trust/weight for gripen E with that extra fuel ? Very Happy

basicly the gripen use the Hornet engine wich burns more fuel than the 229. ( on military power)
did i mention the fact that the dry trust of the 229 is about the same as the trust of the volvo Rm12 on full afterburner ?

Cad wrote:

Should we calculate trust/weight for gripen E with that extra fuel ? Very Happy

Gripen E will have a new engine with better thrust, options are RM12++, F414 or F414(EDE). Not clear yet wich one... only that Gripen E's thrust will be above 22000lb. My bet is the F414(EDE) since it's the most modern and fuel efficient (20% less fuel burn compaired with standard F414).
http://www.aviationnews.us/pdf/F414-Gro ... esting.pdf

Here´s some T/W estimations (50% fuel, 2*IR and 2*Rdr):

Moderate: with RM12++, 22000lb ~1.02
Best case: with F414(EDE), upto 26400lb ~1.23

Cad wrote:

...basicly the gripen use the Hornet engine wich burns more fuel than the 229. ( on military power)

Sounds strange in my ears, if you count the difference in thrust (~12000lb versus ~17000lb) plus that RM12 latest FADEC have some fuel efficient cruising modes.

Regards

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16 versus Saab Gripen