Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

Interesting - and valid - theory, except for:

Quote:

Gripens airborne with less avionics

Whay do you mean exactly by "less avionics"? The latest Gripen C/D have avionics just as advanced as a Viper Block50.

Quote:

deep granite tunnels to make a perfect hiding of Gripens.

That trick doesn't work any more when the enemy has PGMs. With 1-2 LGBs you can easily close the entrance to any cave or tunnel for at least 48 hours. You can't destroy the planes inside, but you can "lock them up".
This is exactly what happened to Yugoslav MiG-21bis at Slatina AB (near Pristina, Kosovo) in 1999

F-16.net Sponsor

Of course, any hideout or shelter can be detected and destroyed by some means. Only bad thing is, that if Gripen user is tries some resistance - SAM's, CAP over the hideout area and stuff like this - that would be enormous effort to hunt down single or pair-sized units. You need planes for OCA, SAM surpression and so - the scale of this operation will be close to regular airbase attack - but the best result will be maybe 1-2 planes destroyed and some aviation people killed. To overcome that kind of defence will require big resources. Plus swedes will not use same shelter or runway too long - unlike serbs you mentioned.

If enemy is using dummy planes- this will make that effort more complicated. Plus most of Sweden is covered by heavy forests and the terrain is not flat - that makes takeoff detection and recce missions difficult. If enemy passes overhead, Gripens will take off from nowhere and when it raises over the threetops without warning at your six o'clock and you are heavy with ordinance - you'd be in big sh*t.

It is like powerful and well-equipped guerilla force aganist modern army in deep forrest. Best tanks dont help you, because you dont know where the enemy hits next.

Gripen is killer machine for small folks. Only trouble is that at least on paper, F-16 offers more flexibility, range and allmighty US weapons industry to support all upgrades and fancy stuff swedes can only dream about - they rely on US licences and it is very clear, that americans will not sell newest stuff to competitors.

would you sell newest stuff to your competitors?

so basically at same money you get a better performing machine, that has more range, that can carry more weapons, a greater assortment of weapons, that can perform more mission types, a plane that has a lot of producers of spare parts, a plane that its airframe is stronger....

There is no contest here... winner is the Viper.

Gripen was specially designed for Swedish use. They had also fixed turret tanks for forest ambushes and so. And Viggen.

Gripen was only later tailored for other use - Cold War ended and they expended huge amounts of money on RD - and to get at least some back, when home military did not want more - they started international sales.

And thats it. Range and load is secondary for Swdish use, because they dont undertake any overseas wars. Gripen's primary mission is air defence from makeshift bases and coastal defence with cruise missiles. Anything else is secondary. It is not air superiority fighter or fighter-bomber. It is point defence interceptor with ground capability. Like Mig-21 in today's terms.

Falcon is good only for big military unions (like NATO) and big countries, who have control over airspace. Gripen is for others.

Gripens strongest side is real STOL and off airfield experience. That is real stuff and has been practised for 30 years.

Tomcat, you cant just say that Falcon is better. I would say that it heavily depends on user - for small nations Gripen is anyway better.

Why Falcon has so many users-this plane has been on international market from 1979. Gripen arrived about 1998 for international sales.

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...

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...

More than likely its longetivity. The F-16 is now pretty much at the end of its airframe life in terms of possible upgrades and future versions, with the E showing all what it can do.

The Gripen is at the beginning of its life; with alot of space and potential for large future upgrades.

Andy

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?

Well that with uneven runaway is a myth. F-16 took of and landed safely when they participated in training exercises in Eastern Europe on standard WP concrete tile runaway. And last thing is that F-16 has a short take off distance 450m that qualify it for Improvised runaways like roads. AFAIK Taiwan practiced that with success.
I was not referring at How it was used in war, but at easy maintenance in war condition after participating in various types of missions.

HunterKiller wrote;

Quote:

I won't be so sure that Syria, Iraq and serbs were worthy enemies for US airpower.

You mixed them up. The US never fought with Syria, just the Israelis did in 1982.

I think that from the technical point of view there was little difference between USAF and IAF.

Syrians were almost same inferior like iraquis in Desert Storm. Same tactics, equpment except some Iraqi Mig-29s that virtually made no difference.

So I would say that all Falcons wins were achieved in pretty unequal terms and this is no valid argument to prove its superiority aganist Gripen.

In "big war" it vas expected to fight against numerically superior Mig-29 and Su-27 forces and I dont think that it would ever achieve 80:0 or similar kill ratio.

In reality it was fighting against earlier Flogger E-s, that had even no proper radar, later fishbeds and other crap armed with useless Vietnam-age Atoll rear-aspect missiles. Add invalid tactics and poor training to this.

You just cant say that F-16 is better than Gripen - until they haven't made any fighting with each other. F-16 is plane for bigger force and Gripen suits for smaller force.

I would say that Gripen is remarkable success for small country like Sweden. Israeli's Lavi is not flying, but Gripen is.

USAF is not buying Falcons any more - sure sign that area of this great plane comes to end soon.

What is concerning starting at concrete runways - this is no real off-airfield capability. It takes at least capability to operate from asphalt roads that took less pressure from wheels, especially in hot summer. Plus there is little experience in off-airfield use for Viper.

Somebody should esimate the pressure on the road that both planes fully loaden...that will explain Gripen's short legs and loadout from this point.

Can Gripen hold an anti-radiation missiles?
Is there any possibility that Gripen will fly with JDAM, JSOW, WCMD?
When will Gripen get NORA AESA?

Aces asked:

Quote:

Can Gripen hold an anti-radiation missiles?

It can definatly "hold" them on the pylon and carry them around. Does it have capability to launch them? NO.

Quote:

Is there any possibility that Gripen will fly with JDAM, JSOW, WCMD?

Yes, if a customer wants them and the US aproves the transfer, they can be easy integrated. As of now, no Gripen can launch GPS guided weapons.

Quote:

When will Gripen get NORA AESA?

When they (the Swedes) finish it - around 2010

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?

Umm, surprisingly that Gripen can't use ARM like ALARM or HARM. Is this deu to the lack of sensor (eg. RWR) ability to locate the exact location of radiation or Gripen is not certified to use those weapon or it's just a customer who doesn't require this capability?

About the new AESA, what is an expected detection range of NORA for fighter-size target, should this be around 160km similar to APG-80 in F-16E/F?

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16 versus Saab Gripen