F-16 versus Saab Gripen

robban · by **robban** » 10 Apr 2005, 18:57

I have spoken to six Gripen pilots on different occasions, and they all said basically the same thing. The F-16 didn't stand much of a chance in close in combat. The Gripen had all the cards in the deck.

The outcome of these exercises has shown that Norway has started to show a serious interest in the Gripen to replace their F-16's.

Darkwand · by **Darkwand** » 25 Apr 2005, 17:45

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.

mor10 · by **mor10** » 25 Apr 2005, 18:02

It is very rare to hear a pilot say that he/she was shot down. Is there any Viper pilots on this board that has flown against the Gripen and can share their experience with the rest of us?

Pyth_4 · by **Pyth_4** » 03 May 2005, 01:26

I like a lot the "swedish wave" in the Gripen design... pretty good model!!

LebaneseAce · by **LebaneseAce** » 07 May 2005, 10:49

There was an exercise in the US when one JAS-39 Gripen faced 6 F-18/A Hornet. And the Gripen remained victorious.

Why?
Gripen is the only aircraft in the world with 100% digital cockpit. No analog instruments.

But since our little Gripen has a bit of problem with armament, it will hold less weaponry than the F-16.

When I was watching an air show named "Swedish Air Power", or what-its-name in Uppsala, 20 miles from my hometown, where I was born etc. (Eskilstuna). I saw the Gripen fly and it was like an acrobat in the skies.

Conclusion : If ONE Gripen can handle SIX, I MEAN SIX FOLKS!, F-18/A Hornets, one Falcon won´t be a problem.

parrothead · by **parrothead** » 07 May 2005, 15:35

Why? Gripen is the only aircraft in the world with 100% digital cockpit. No analog instruments.

Sorry, but I've got to call BS on that one :wtf:

Ever seen the JSF and the Raptor? All fighting data is presented on easily understood MFDs. Also, does this mean that I can put a glass cockpit in a Cessna and beat up on some Drakens and Viggens?

Conclusion : If ONE Gripen can handle SIX, I MEAN SIX FOLKS!, F-18/A Hornets, one Falcon won´t be a problem.

That assumes you think the F/A-18 is that good :wink:

Could you please provide rules of engagement and sources for your information? Thanks!

agilefalcon16 · by **agilefalcon16** » 07 May 2005, 15:47

parrothead wrote:
Conclusion : If ONE Gripen can handle SIX, I MEAN SIX FOLKS!, F-18/A Hornets, one Falcon won´t be a problem.

That assumes you think the F/A-18 is that good Could you please provide rules of engagement and sources for your information? Thanks!

Yeah, I would also like to know where that info came from. Because I seriously doubt that the Gripen can even take on half of those Hornets at one time.

espenjoh · by **espenjoh** » 12 May 2005, 22:19

And now they are "competing" again! Saw an impressive airshow yesterday by one "39".

picktures at: http://www.flightsim.no/forum/showflat. ... =1&fpart=1

EJ

LazyTed · by **LazyTed** » 13 May 2005, 09:38

I heard as well that the Gripen performed outstandingly against F/A-18, but the F/A-18 is not that good, why they are bringing in the Super Hornet in replacement of the F-14D's and proposed Super Cat is beyond me.

toan · by **toan** » 13 May 2005, 10:39

1. The cost for the maintenance of F/A-18E/F is less than half of the cost for the maintenace of F-14D.

2. The maintenance time for F-14 is 50 man-hour per flight hour, while The maintenance time for F/A-18E/F is 15 man-hour per flight hour.

LazyTed · by **LazyTed** » 14 May 2005, 16:54

Check the link out below.... Some interesting info toan.

<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/595147/posts" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/595147/posts</a>

Viperalltheway · by **Viperalltheway** » 14 May 2005, 18:09

I find that so funny, the argument that the F-18E is cheaper to operate.

Do people realize how much it costs to buy and operate a battle group? What in the world does it change that your 10-12 F-14s are more expensive to maintain? At least your 15 billion $ battle group can reach the target! Duh!

Bwadwey · by **Bwadwey** » 19 May 2005, 00:07

Correct me if i'm wrong cause i don't have much information on this. But the F-14 is outdated and it was meant to be a interceptor not a F/A plane. And the swing wing design is very costly to maintain and the airframe is getting old, therefore, the plane can't sustain as much G's in a dogfight than the super hornet or hornet. The Super hornet is kinda newer in avionics but mb not so much on the airframe. And isn't it true that the RCS level on the Super hornet has reduced to a fairly descent number considering its size, i htink i've heard from somewhere that the RCS on the Super bug is about the same as the Rafale.

P.S. I'm sure the U.S knows what they're are doing

Bwadwey · by **Bwadwey** » 19 May 2005, 00:11

"they're are" sorry it's "they're "

And out of curiosity, how does your stats change. Mine right now is active member, but i was a newbie just a few months ago, i don't get it :wtf:

[/quote]

Viperalltheway · by **Viperalltheway** » 19 May 2005, 16:43

Bwadwey wrote:Correct me if i'm wrong cause i don't have much information on this. But the F-14 is outdated and it was meant to be a interceptor not a F/A plane. And the swing wing design is very costly to maintain and the airframe is getting old, therefore, the plane can't sustain as much G's in a dogfight than the super hornet or hornet. The Super hornet is kinda newer in avionics but mb not so much on the airframe. And isn't it true that the RCS level on the Super hornet has reduced to a fairly descent number considering its size, i htink i've heard from somewhere that the RCS on the Super bug is about the same as the Rafale.

P.S. I'm sure the U.S knows what they're are doing

The F-14 is a fine strike aircraft. Look at the strike Eagle.. they took the Eagle and turned it into probably the best strike aircraft in the world.

The F-14 is a swing wing aircraft, which makes it better for low altitude penetration - ie F-111, tornado, su-24.. -.

The Super Hornet is a fine aircraft, but its range is a still a bit short. To replace an F-18A/C, it's fine, but to replace a tomcat, I'm not so convinced that it makes sense.

They should have invested in the JSF instead of the super-hornet.. The F-14/F-18 combo could have lasted a few more years.. imho..