F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

robban

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2004, 13:13

Unread post27 Apr 2010, 09:52

shep1978 wrote:
robban wrote:
Should I respond to this? Nah, no use. My goodness. :lol:


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?
Offline

robban

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2004, 13:13

Unread post27 Apr 2010, 10:08

double post
Last edited by robban on 27 Apr 2010, 13:31, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

robban

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2004, 13:13

Unread post27 Apr 2010, 10:14

robban wrote:
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. :)

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.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post27 Apr 2010, 10:31

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 :)

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-
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

robban

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2004, 13:13

Unread post27 Apr 2010, 11:32

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 :)

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. :)

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

A Gripen NG in US colours,,, nice! 8)
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post28 Apr 2010, 07:02

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?
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

bhimtu

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2010, 21:54

Unread post27 Sep 2010, 01:55

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... :roll:

-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"
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 763
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post28 Sep 2010, 21:06

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.
Offline

incar956

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013, 04:08
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia

Unread post18 Mar 2013, 04:14

agilefalcon16 wrote:I know that the Jas-39 can outmaneuver the F-16C, but how about the F-16A? Because the F-16A weighs less than the F-16C, is there a possibility that the F-16A can outmaneuver the Gripen?


I'm quite impressed with the Gripen. It makes more sense than all the current aircraft on offer (other than the terrific F16 of course). Its about as close as anyones gotten to a proper F16A-E replacement - F22/F35 make no sense whatsoever. Far too complicated expensive, big etc etc. Thats just me guys. I know a lot of people love the Raptor. All good! I just feel the Europeans have gone down a much more sensible route with their Typhoons/Rafales/Gripens.

It'll never happen - but what I'd love to see is the F16 taken back to YF16 weight and updated with the current 32,000Ib motor - Oh yeah! Smoking!
Offline

incar956

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013, 04:08
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia

Unread post18 Mar 2013, 05:05

Darkwand wrote:Well I'm pro Gripen but don't read to much into defeating norwegian F-16's on excersises they are F-16A's tat have been really misstreated by the Norwegian government and has had very few upgrades for F-16's of that age.

Also the JAS 39 Gripens in that excersise where the A/B versions not the more advanced C/D versions. The Gripen has the future before it but right now it is hampered with getting the armament suit from the JA/AJ37 Viggen.
Anyway if you fly over Sweden and STRIL90 is still alive and up it's a match for any fighter currently flying.


I agree, the Gripen is a good little aircraft. Very similar to the F16 in so many ways - and you can't get much greater praise than that!

However, I'm not so sure all the upgrading to the F16 has been a great move though. Even the key designer of the F16 himself stated that the very best F16 there ever was was the YF-16. The weight increased by 3000 pounds / 25% for the F16A alone, let alone all the extras added since then all the way up to the current F16E model.

True, the engines have grown in power (25,000Ib -to- 32,000Ib), but the wing area hasn't increased since the F16A (From the YF16 to F16A, the wing area went from 280 sq/ft2 to 300 sq/ft2. Since all the addons were happening, the designers really wanted 320 sq/ft2 to save all the agility the aircraft was losing....It wasn't to be)

Weight figure I recall seeing for an early F16 was around the 6 ton mark, the current one is just short of 10 ton! - almost a 4 ton increase! Not a great help for maneuverability.
Offline

incar956

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013, 04:08
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia

Unread post18 Mar 2013, 05:24

robban wrote:
espenjoh wrote:The exersice with the Gripen is over. The sqd leader at 331 backseated the 39, and he says in the local newspaper that having a 39, insted of the F-16, would be a big setback compared to the M3 uppgraded MLU F-16. (M3=link16, Helmet Mounted Cuing System (HMCS) and JDAM capability).
None of the 39 had this capability, and lack of air refuling made the time in air wery short for the 39. He says the Situational Awareness was mutch better in the M3 uppgraded F-16.



It's obvious that this sqd leader is loyal to the F-16. He didn't try out the TIDLS of the Gripen that's for sure. The Gripen's offered for export have A2A refueling capability. And yes a HMS is underway. And should a buyer want it to carry the JDAM, it will be arranged.

But sure, why wouldn't a 30 year old design be better than an all new state of the art 4th gen fighter. :roll:


(re: last sentence) Not necessarily. I'd take an F16 over a F35 JSF any day of the week.
Offline

incar956

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013, 04:08
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia

Unread post18 Mar 2013, 05:31

Superpilot wrote:Hello, I am new! Great site! I read that SAAB has abandoned plans for TVC and CFT developments. I don't think so, unless it is official. By the way Gripen International was offering the Super Gripen to Australia and I belieive the same will happen with Greece (unless the Greek contest will be by invitation, as the previous one in 1999). A EJ200-powered Gripen side-by-side with Typhoon... A geat option for Hellenic Air Force (though expensive)!


Yep, we always pick the wrong aircraft down here. We picked the F18 over the F16 which still amazes me to this day. We have gone for the Super Hornet most recently. It was done mainly as an interim solution while waiting for the JSF. I'm hoping the cost and delays for the F-35 will get so bad that we'll just stick with the F/A-18 E/F, or better yet, the Gripen NG.

Alternatively, a 50/50 force of SuperHornets for ground attack and Gripens for air-to-air.
Offline

incar956

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2013, 04:08
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia

Unread post18 Mar 2013, 05:41

robban wrote:
boff180 wrote:The Gripen is not as manouveurable as the F-16C.


If you define manouverability by turning radius, than the F-16C is able to out manouvre the Gripen. by ~1deg/sec. This of course varies with fuel and weapons load. In terms of instantaneous turnrate, the F-16 cannot compare to the Gripen. If we talk about manouverability beyond turning radius, than the Gripen can do manouvers the F-16 can only dream about. But all in all, in a close in dogfight between the two, both planes have strength that they can use against one another. But as the excercises have shown, a Gripen can no doubt hold its own against an F-16. :)


There wouldn't be much in it, the pilot would make the difference.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2791
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post18 Mar 2013, 13:28

I think JAS Gripen is very capable aircraft, but not the kind of world-beater some claim it to be. The Swiss selection which was leaked to public says that current Gripen was inferior in most ways to Swiss OFP 19 F-18 Hornets. Problems mentioned (compared to Hornet) were endurance, aircraft performances and weapons load.

This is in direct contradiction with the claims that these qualities are superior in Gripen compared to for example F-16 and F/A-18. Of course the Swiss selected the JAS Gripen NG, which has improved everything quite a bit and the Swiss concluded it would be slightly superior to their current F/A-18 in many ways. Of course they will receive the Gripens about 20 years after Hornets, so it should be better.
Previous

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests