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 post21 Sep 2005, 10:53

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. :)
Offline

Dolby

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2006, 00:56

Unread post10 Jan 2006, 15:06

espenjoh wrote:The F-16 that flew against the Gripen I Norway this year always had 2 370 g tank, while the Gripen had one centerline tank. If the F-16 also flew with one tank, would that change the situasjon?

I also notised that the Gripen always came back first from a mission, some F-16 came 30 min.later, with the same t/o time....



This is true.

The Norwegian jets flew with 2 AMRAAMs, 2 AIM-9s, weapon pylons, wing tanks and sometimes ALQ-131. The Gripens were carrying centerline tanks and AIM-9s only. It is not true that the Gripens won most of the engagements. The outcome was about 50/50. The gripens delta wing gives it an edge up high.

BVR the two fighters are very evenly matched. The Gripen's main drawback being its lack of fuel and range. The Gripen was designed for point defence, and as such is a fine fighter, but for today's scenarios it has too short legs. Avionics wise the Gripen is advanced and the pilot enjoys very good SA. The drawback is that the Swedish Gripens are not yet at the same air to ground capability as the F-16AM.

Dolby
Offline

MoJo

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2006, 22:52

Unread post20 Jan 2006, 23:01

Ola wrote:Ok, a cut and pasted collection of data on the

Saab Gripen (Gryphon)
Low-cost, low maintenance multi-role 4th generation fighter jet
  • Length: 14.1 m
  • Span: 8.4 m
  • Height: 4.5 m
  • Empty weight: 5700 kg
  • Normal take off weight: 8500 kg in fighter configuration
  • Payload: 5300 kg
  • Fuel, internal: 3000 litres approx
  • External: 3800 litres
  • Max take off weight: 14000 kg
  • Range: 3000 km ferry range
  • Max speed: M 1.15 (1400 km/h) at sea level, close to Mach 2 at altitude
  • Acceleration: M 0.5 to M 1.1 at low altitude in 30 s
  • Turn performance: 9 G sustained, G onset rate at least 6 G/s (1-9 G in 1.2 s), min -3 G, 20+ deg/s sustained, 30 deg/s instantaneous
  • Climb rate: <100 s from brake release to 10 km altitude 180 s approx to 14 km
  • Ground turn around: <10 min with a crew of six
Engine: Volvo Aero RM12 (developed from GE F404 with the changes being at least new fan, afterburner flame holder and accessories, partly to make it more suitable to a single engine aircraft)
Max thrust: approx 54 kN, 80.5 kN with reheat, airflow 68 kg/s, compression ratio 27.5:1, mass 1055 kg, overall length 4.04 m, diameter 0.884 m, inlet diameter 0.709 m

Radar: Ericsson PS-05/A pulse doppler radar (can count anchored ships and follow road traffic at at least 90 km and detect typical fighter sized targets at 120 km).

Total mass 156 kg, antenna assembly 25 kg, antenna diameter 0.600 m,
Max power consumption 8.2 kW (114/200V 400Hz AC) and 250 kW 28V.

Predicted MTBF: 170 hours (air operation) Cooling air: 85g/s at 0oC, Cooling liquid: 3.5kW to be absored. Electrical interface: MIL-STD-1553B data bus and fibre optic video output to the display system.

Air to air scanning at 60 (at first 50) deg/s in either 2 120 deg bars, 2 60 deg bars or 4 30 deg bars. Surface mapping and search across 5 x 5 km to 40 x 40 km with GMTI speed adjustable by the pilot.

Four basic air to air modes: Track While Search, Priority Target Tracking gives higher quality tracking for multiple targets, Single Target Track gives highest quality data, Air Combat Mode for short range search and automatic target capture.

Targeting pod: Litening, with FLIR and laser designation.

The Gripen's built-in armament consists of a single Mauser BK-27 27 millimeter cannon, housed in a fairing on the aircraft's belly, offset to left to the rear of the engine intake. Given the aircraft's relatively small size, it generally carries guided weapons to ensure maximum combat effectiveness.

Possible external stores include:
  • Air to air missiles (AAMs). The primary AAM is the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM, and the Gripen's PS-05A radar can guide four of these weapons simultaneously. Sweden is the only nation approved by the US to perform flight tests of AMRAAM, and Swedish AMRAAMs have minor modifications to fit Swedish specifications. Other possible AAM stores include the French Matra Mica; the British Aerospace Sky Flash, built in Sweden as the "Rb-71"; and the Anglo-French MBDA ramjet-powered Meteor BVRAAM or German BGT IRIS-T AAM, now in development. IRIS-T is a short-range heat-seeking AAM with "off-boresight" capability. The Flygvapnet intends to obtain the IRIS-T to replace Swedish-built Sidewinders.
  • Antiship missiles, such as the SAAB RBS-15 turbojet-powered sea-skimming missile. A precision land-attack version of the RBS-15 is now in development.
  • Air to surface missiles, such as the Raytheon AGM-65 Maverick, built in Sweden as the "Rb-75", as well as the "BK (BombKapsel) 90 Mjoelnir" guided gliding submunitions dispenser, also known as "DWS-39". The Mjoelnir was developed by Daimler-Benz Aerospace (now part of EADS), with the Gripen as the first intended flight platform. Of course, dumb bombs and unguided rocket pods have been qualified as well.
The aircraft is controlled by a digital fly-by-wire (FBW) system with triple redundancy and an analog backup. The analog backup system provides a simple, reliable capability, and is automatically activated if two of the three digital FBW systems go down. The pilot can also activate the analog system with the push of a button. The Gripen was designed from the outset to use the FBW system, which was evaluated on a modified Viggen. The FBW system compensates automatically for the degree of instability built into the Gripen to increase its maneuverability. The FBW system also allows the aircraft to adapt to combat damage, for example using differential control of the canards to fly the aircraft if the ailerons are disabled.

The Gripen pilot can switch operational role in flight.

One Gripen can provide radar sensing for four of its colleagues, allowing a single fighter to track a target, while the others use the data for a stealthy attack. TIDLS also permits multiple fighters to quickly and accurately lock onto a target's track through triangulation from several radars; or allows one fighter to jam a target while another tracks it; or allows multiple fighters to use different radar frequencies collaboratively to "burn through" jamming transmissions. TIDLS also gives the Gripen transparent access to the SAAB-Ericsson 340B Erieye "mini-AWACs" aircraft, as well as the overall ground command and control system. This system provides Sweden with an impressive defensive capability at a cost that, though still high, is less than that of comparable systems elsewhere.

The Gripen can take off and land in less than 600 meters (2,000 feet). Once deployed to a road base, the Gripens are serviced by a ground crew of six, including one highly trained specialist and five minimally trained conscripts. A service team can refuel and rearm a Gripen in ten minutes. The Gripen features an auxiliary power unit (APU) to reduce its dependence on ground systems, and the fighter's onboard digital systems include "built-in self-test" capabilities that can download diagnostic data to a tech's laptop computer. Service doors to critical systems are at head level or lower, allowing easy access by technicians. Pilots using the Gripen flight simulators have performed simulated carrier landings, without an arresting hook; it seems a bit unlikely that this will ever be done in practice, however.

The operational cost of Gripen is 50 per cent lower than any other aircraft in its class that is currently, or planned to be, in service. It is twice as reliable and easier to maintain than its competitors.

Features under development for future Gripens include:
  • An electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar based on the PS-05/A, now being developed by Ericsson. An AESA consists of an array of programmable "transmit-receive (TR)" modules that can operate in parallel to perform separate or collaborative functions, performing, for example, jamming and target acquisition at the same time. The AESA will provide enhanced multimode capabilities, as well as extended range for beyond visual range missiles. It is scheduled for introduction in the 2005:2010 timeframe.
  • Improved defensive countermeasures, including new towed decoys and missile and laser warning systems.
  • The "OTIS" infrared search and track (IRST) system now under development by Saab Dynamics and being tested on a Viggen. OTIS will provide multiple modes for both air to air and air to ground combat.
  • The Thales "Guardian" helmet-mounted display (HMT), now being evaluated on the Gripen for cueing the IRIS-T and other smart weapons.
The Gripen's digital architecture makes software upgrades straightforward, at least as such things go. Possible software improvements include new radar and datalink modes; a new terrain-referenced navigation system; and a fully autonomous precision landing-guidance system. In the long term, SAAB is looking at a new engine, such as the General Electric F414 or a thrust-vectoring version of the EJ2000 engine used on the Eurofighter; conformal fuel tanks or a fuselage stretch for greater range; a wide-angle HUD; a binocular helmet-mounted display; a direct voice-command system; and an advanced missions support system.

Currently, only the SWAF has the Gripen in active service but during 2005 South Africa, the Czech Republic and Hungary will take 21, 14 and 14 Gripen into service. Hungary and the Czech Republic will get fully NATO-adapted Gripens.

Image


The swedes are experts with datalink.

Oh, Hi everybody :beer:

MoJo
Offline

wohlstad

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2005, 04:31

Unread post21 Jan 2006, 00:08

Gripen: a nice little plane.

Problems: not enough range, not enough payload, not enough power, not enough radar. And it costs too much for what it offers. For short range air defence it's fine (point defense). Anything else its not enough.
Offline

CheckSix

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 102
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2004, 23:49

Unread post21 Jan 2006, 18:40

wohlstad wrote:Gripen: a nice little plane.

Problems: not enough range, not enough payload, not enough power, not enough radar. And it costs too much for what it offers. For short range air defence it's fine (point defense). Anything else its not enough.


It can operate from makeshift airfields, no US fighter is able to do it. That meens every road, with a straight length of more than 800m is an airbase.

Such a fighter is the optimum for defence, light maneuvrable, deadly.

Built in AESA and the 122kn EUROJET, it will compete with any of the upcomming fighters. Let alone it is cheap enough to deploy it in numbers.
Offline

wohlstad

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2005, 04:31

Unread post25 Jan 2006, 04:29

AESA will be nice, but bigger engine is not the solution for Gripen I'm afraid, as it will just increase the fuel consumption and the range will suffer even more. As it is, Gripen is balanced for the 18K Lb GE404 and any further gains will be hard to come by (otherwise the Swedes would've done it by now). Nor will more power do anything for Gripen's lack of payload or number of stations. The problem is that of the initial design which did not allow room for further growth. IAI's LAVI of similar carbon-fiber delta-canard generation at 42K Lb take-off weight was a much more capable bird
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3143
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post25 Jan 2006, 15:50

I am a huge fan of the Gripen. However for a requirement where you think you will be doing a lot of air to ground, I will take an F-16. It works for us because unfortunately we are always on some dumb expeditionary warfare tasking. Our ops tempo has been nothing but steady since Desert Storm. ( the peace dividend being BS ) So for continuous war, I would take an F-16.

One more thing. While I think logistics, maintenance and supply chain management would be better. .... For the Gripen I would have to have something in writing saying the wings are cheap and easy to replace and refirb. The laws of science don't change for anyone. Start hanging 2000lb class stores on it in routine training and you are going to have wing life issues. I would also hope that with a lot of stores, wing flutter has been thinned out by flight control software updates already.

Other than that. I would take a bunch of Gripens and J-UCAS X-45 and be in pretty good shape for a lot of situations.
- ELP -
Offline

zazor

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2006, 14:29

Unread post22 Feb 2006, 14:34

As a swede Im very proud over our 39 Gripen but as a taxpayer i must say that one of the worst affairs the swedish government has ever done.

Why they **** did Sweden order over 200 39 Gripen? Who would ever want to attack us? (Wes we do have hot babes but come on...) We´re not members of Nato and we are not specially active in anything except the UN.

I thought Sweden should have bought a couple of F-16 and saved a bunch of money. But we Swedes needs to be best on everything. (our confidence isnt that good...) So we need to have the best fighter plane, be best in hockey/football etc...

/Daniel
Offline

RoAF

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 632
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2006, 22:45
  • Location: Romania

Unread post22 Feb 2006, 15:25

This could be said for lots of countries, but it's better to be safe than sorry. Besides by manufactureing 39s you create jobs and you already started selling them abroad. That brings money to your country so if I were you I wouldn't complain...
"It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom" (William Wallace 1272-1305)
Offline

Jussi

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2006, 21:09

Unread post11 Mar 2006, 21:32

robban1975 wrote:Sweden has been participating more and more in international excersises, flying with/against U.S, Norweigan and Finnish airforces. The outcome has proven that the Gripen far exceeds the capabilites of earlier generation fighters such as the F-16A/B/C/D and F/A-18C/D. There has been WVR dogfights aswell as BVR engagements. I've had the great opportunity to meet and talk to several Gripen pilots during the summer and all of them say the same thing(although not in the excact same words). In WVR combat against F-16's the Gripen showed to have no problem in position itself on the tail of the F-16, and the F-16 could not match the superb manouverability of the Gripen, offered by its unstable delta/canard configuration. The Gripen cannot match the T/W ratio of the U.S fightes but the Gripens more modern aerodynamic design allows it to pull tighter turns witout losing momentum. In the words of one of the Gripen pilots: "If the F-16 and Gripen would both excecute a 9G turn, the F-16 would lose alot more airspeed in that turn than the Gripen". In BVR there was no contest at all.
In excersises with Finnish F/A-18's the Gripen won ALL of the WVR and BVR fights. The TIDLS proved to be a superior tool in the BVR fights. The F/A-18's were hit with multiple simulated AMRAAM shots, before they even knew that the Gripen fighters were present. The Gripen pilots said in WVR dogfights the F/A-18 became easier to take out the lower they went, and at 2000m, there was simply no contest.


It depends on so much what these planes was carried, was there extra fuel tank or extra missiles, and so on...rumours in Finland told that these hornet carried extra fuel tank, and thats why they was so easy to find.

There are little simulation odds:

Aircraft Odds vs.
Su-35
Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor 10.1:1
Eurofighter Typhoon 4.5:1
Dassault Rafale C 1.0:1
Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' 1.0:1
McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle 0.8:1
Boeing F/A-18+ 0.4:1
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C 0.3:1
General Dynamics F-16C 0.3:1

By the way, finnish hornet gets soon Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System and new AIM-9X...there are some viedeo clips...

http://artsu.pp.fi/kauhava/kauhava_F-15.rm

http://artsu.pp.fi/kauhava/kauhava_F-16.rm

http://artsu.pp.fi/kauhava/kauhava_F-18.rm
Offline

robban

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post16 Apr 2006, 13:19

zazor wrote:As a swede Im very proud over our 39 Gripen but as a taxpayer i must say that one of the worst affairs the swedish government has ever done.

Why they **** did Sweden order over 200 39 Gripen? Who would ever want to attack us? (Wes we do have hot babes but come on...) We´re not members of Nato and we are not specially active in anything except the UN.

I thought Sweden should have bought a couple of F-16 and saved a bunch of money. But we Swedes needs to be best on everything. (our confidence isnt that good...) So we need to have the best fighter plane, be best in hockey/football etc...

/Daniel


Well, Daniel. Why did we order 200 Gripens? Simple. If we had ordered 90 Gripens, we wouldn't been able to maintain our aeroplane industry. And if we didn't have an aeroplane industry, we wouldn't be able to upgrade the Gripens that we ordered. And why design and build our own fighter jet? Have you ever considered the technological advances and benefits this brings to our country? Why exactly is Sweden one of the world leaders in hi-tech? Is it because we have lots of pizza resturants? The answer is no.
And who would want to attack us? Come on man! Be realistic! Do you really believe in for ever world peace? If yes, that would make you just as naive as most other Swedes. There will be future wars, plenty of future wars.
Offline

robban

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post16 Apr 2006, 13:24

Jussi wrote:
It depends on so much what these planes was carried, was there extra fuel tank or extra missiles, and so on...rumours in Finland told that these hornet carried extra fuel tank, and thats why they was so easy to find.



A Gripen armed with four AMRAAM's and two Sidewinders have an RCS 1/5 of an F/A-18. Usually planes fly with external tanks in excercises. But it happens that they fly without them as well. Gripens fly with external tanks fitted 99% of the time.
Offline

robban

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post16 Apr 2006, 13:33

wohlstad wrote:AESA will be nice, but bigger engine is not the solution for Gripen I'm afraid, as it will just increase the fuel consumption and the range will suffer even more. As it is, Gripen is balanced for the 18K Lb GE404 and any further gains will be hard to come by (otherwise the Swedes would've done it by now). Nor will more power do anything for Gripen's lack of payload or number of stations. The problem is that of the initial design which did not allow room for further growth. IAI's LAVI of similar carbon-fiber delta-canard generation at 42K Lb take-off weight was a much more capable bird


Adding another engine will increase fuel consumption, but adding a stronger engine doesn't automatically mean higher fuel consumption. It can actually mean the opposite. Is the EJ200 more thirsty compared to the RM12? Right now the Gripen can carry over 5 tons of ordnance, which is good for a fighter the size of an F-5. Unlike(for example) the F-16, the Gripen will continue to evolve for another 30-40 years. And as always with fighters, weights will increase, and ordnance carrying ability will increase as well. Good thing the Gripen is so light to begin with.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4544
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post16 Apr 2006, 19:08

Except that the F-16 HAS evolved since it was designed. The YF-16 weighed a whopping 13,595 lbs empty, while the F-16E weighs in at a dainty 22,000 lbs empty. The E is also a VASTLY more capable aircraft all around.

When grippen grows up (figuratvely) it will be a leathal foe to all (even more so). It is still relatively young compared to the Falcon.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

Corous

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 03 May 2006, 19:41

Unread post05 May 2006, 01:23

If what I read way back when is true, the really cool thing about the Gripen in a dogfight is its gun, the onboard computer takes over to fly the plane and aim the gun. Not exactly proven in combat yet, but seem to work wonders on drones.

Anyway, if I remember correctly, the Gripen cannot carry AMRAAMs or other BVR AAMs on its wingtips, right? In that case, I'd say the viper would win.
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest