Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

shep1978 wrote:

robban wrote:

Should I respond to this? Nah, no use. My goodness. Laughing

Your argument has fallen apart and you're withdrawing, you've made that very clear.

No, I've realised that trying to get my point through to you would be just as useless as trying to prove to a die hard creationist that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

What good are facts if you don't want acknowledge them?

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by robban on Apr 27, 2010 - 02:31 PM; edited 1 time in total

double post

[quote="robban"]

geogen wrote:

robban, count me as a SAAB fanboy in general and Gripen NG fan in particular. But in your example of listed technical specs, etc, I'm curious which exact block of F-16C is used and further, in which year produced? There are just so many differently equipped F-16Cs one must have more specifics in order to better evaluate?

I was referring to the Polish edition. Smile

It has some new fancy systems but it is still a 3rd gen aircraft(4th gen according to the US way of looking at it). Its infrastructure is based on separate digital systems which use computers to achieve functionality. This means that while it is able to upgrade the systems, they are still separate systems. This generation also include the F-15, F-18, MiG-29, Su-27, Viggen, Mirage 2000 etc. The newer generation(Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter, F-22 etc) has a digitally built up infrastructure with fully integrated computerized systems, which use a common database, with a stadardized interface. Sensors, weapons, control surfaces, control organs and displays and so on can be used as information suppliers and information carriers in an almost unlimited amount of combinations, creating the funcctions needed. This is what sets them apart.

So again, maybe in this particular 'DACT' case, POLAF were employing C-7 and -9x and IRST pod, while Gripen were employing C-5 and -9M and no IRST? That's the point I was just making and as well, I actually support a next gen F-16 block incorporating some form of modernized infrastructure, among other modifications Smile

Yet I'd also go as far and support USAF ordering NG Gripens in 2-3 yrs as a fall-back plan B under certain scenarios, if feasible. Cheers-

geogen wrote:

So again, maybe in this particular 'DACT' case, POLAF were employing C-7 and -9x and IRST pod, while Gripen were employing C-5 and -9M and no IRST? That's the point I was just making and as well, I actually support a next gen F-16 block incorporating some form of modernized infrastructure, among other modifications Smile

Yet I'd also go as far and support USAF ordering NG Gripens in 2-3 yrs as a fall-back plan B under certain scenarios, if feasible. Cheers-

I believe that the claim for this particular scenario was that the Polish F-16s supposedly detected the Gripens first and fired first, making me think it was a BVR fight. However, facts does not support an earlier detection ability for the F-16 against a Gripen. Smile

But as Loke says, we lack the very critical ROE info for this scenario.

A Gripen NG in US colours,,, nice! Cool

Regarding the ROE mystery, perhaps hypothetically the Gripen carried twin wing-tanks and the F-16C was clean with only CFT... how would the RCS-detection factor in? Just wondering..

Furthermore, maybe the F-16 had a dedicated Shadow-IRST type pod, or otherwise equipped with some passive geo-loaction capability which the Gripen wasn't employing? Who knows..

And yeah, one could contemplate the Gripen NG as a piece of any interim stopgap scenario imo, perhaps even for ANG, as it could maybe be supported at Naval Air Stations already operating F414 types?

I wouldn't really know but my guess is that since the Gripen was developed tightly in cooperation with the SWAF and their specific needs, fighter capabilities (i.e. defending Swedish airspace against the occasional foreign visitor) was more important than the ability to carry heavy loads for long range missions. Those foreign countries that already have bought Gripen are rather small countries (except for South Africa which is approximately 2,5 times larger than sweden) as well which are easily covered. Sweden, for example, has four air bases evenly distributed over the country which easily covers all of Swedens territory.

In flight refueling was added during development of the more NATO-adapted version (after the first production aircraft was manufactured AFAIK) so I guess that's why it's not as efficient as the F-16 which have had much longer development and operational experience of that particular feature. The intended customers generally don't have their own tanker jets anyhow, the SWAF probably never will, at least not in the foreseeable future.

During a recent training operation together with the Royal Norwegian Air Force, the Gripen won most of the dogfights against the RNoAF F-16s, at least according to official SWAF sources... Rolling Eyes

-edit- the RNoAF F-16s seems to be updated A/B versions only. Update consisted of reinforced airframe, improved engine, night vision capabilites and a few other improvements to electronics and targeting systems.

-edit2- I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere so I'd take it that the Gripen don't have the super-cruise ability of EF2000 and F-22?[/quote]

There is a Gripen NG prototype that has "supercruise"

No, it's Norwegian sources that say that "all things equal" (ie. same weapons) Gripen will beat the Norwegian F-16, my interpretation is that it's WVR they are talking about. They don't talk about BVR; probably because Gripen is superior to the Norwegian F-16 in BVR. In WVR the F-16 can occationaly beat the Gripen however.

http://www.nettavisen.no/side3/article2982856.ece

You can read about the original F-16 MLU here:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article2.html

The Norwegian F-16 keep getting upgrades however -- perhaps some of the experts on this forum can fill us in on where the Norwegian F-16 are today.

Gripen C/D is due to get a major radar upgrade quite soon (next year?) with significant range increase in both a2a and a2g.

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16 versus Saab Gripen