F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2004, 00:18
by lamoey
How would the Viper do against a Gripen?

Would the Viper win a sale where it competes with the Gripen without any US added benefits like the odd C-130 and cheep financing (or threat) :?:

I honestly don?t know, but would like to :wink:

F-16 versus Gripen

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2004, 13:39
by Wildcat
Well, the Gripen is lighter and cheaper to operate, while the F-16 can carry a heavier load and more different weapons. The avionics seem to be comparable, as well as their A2A abilities.

So I think that, in a world with strictly equal market conditions (never to occur :D ), the Gripen is the best choice if you just need a A2A fighter with good A2G capabilities to defend your airspace, but if you need a truly multirole fighter with good range and good load, the F-16 keeps being the best available.

In my opinion, choosing the Gripen in the real world may only be a political choice, because the Viper would be better for most of countries (but, actually, there are too many US-made parts in the gripen to prevent any United States influence over the deal).

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2004, 00:59
by Ola
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.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2004, 09:30
by elp
Gripen is a great jet.

The only thing I see hard to compare vs an F-16 is A2G. Start hanging 2000lb weapons on it routinely and you are going to get an education in wing life over time.

Other- Hose drogue refueling is slow. An equal number of F-16s would spend less time "on the tanker"

Also range vs drag. Ferry range doesn't mean squat when you start hanging drop tanks and large draggy weps on the jet. The larger engines in the newer F-16s make carrying all that junk easier. Consider the industry experience in offensive air work and I would prefer an F-16 for large offensive work.

Otherwise I would prefer the Gripen for all the other reasons you mention.

I would seriously like to see a UCAV version of the Gripen.

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2004, 14:58
by Ola
elp wrote:The only thing I see hard to compare vs an F-16 is A2G. Start hanging 2000lb weapons on it routinely and you are going to get an education in wing life over time.

Other- Hose drogue refueling is slow. An equal number of F-16s would spend less time "on the tanker"


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?

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2004, 18:49
by elp
A number of jets will "supercruise". The T-38 comes to mind.

Part of the help with the F-22 is that it can carry weapons and have nothing on the exterior.

I would assume that supercruise with the Gripen is dependant on what draggy stores you hang on it. Example with Maverick and an anti-ship missile, I doubt it. A couple of a2a missiles and no drop tanks, would seem reasonable, but I don't know.

Unread postPosted: 01 Aug 2004, 21:55
by Pumpkin
The potential stores look good! The "Guardian" HMD looks cool. The Israeli weapons (LITENING, SPICE, Python) look menacing. And not forgetting the R-Darter.

With the Erieye and the Gripen, SWAF is quite an impressive fighting force. Would be nice to see the South African operating the Gripen. :wink:

Ola wrote:During a recent training operation together with the Royal Norwegian Air Force, the Gripen won most of the dogfights against the RNAF F-16s, at least according to official SWAF sources... :roll:


Hi Ola, any reference to the above mentioned?

Thanks,

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2004, 00:13
by Ola
Pumpkin wrote:
Ola wrote:During a recent training operation together with the Royal Norwegian Air Force, the Gripen won most of the dogfights against the RNAF F-16s, at least according to official SWAF sources... :roll:


Hi Ola, any reference to the above mentioned?

Thanks,


Nothing I've found on the internet but there was an article about that particular training operation (mission, maneuvre or whatever it's called) in the last or second last issue of a newsletter style magazine from the swedish armed forces that I seem to receive every once in a while. One of the coordinating swedish officers was quoted as saying that most people thought that the Gripen wasn't competetive to the F-16 but that they (the gripen pilots) had won "most of the dogfights" against RNoAF F-16s. I've throwed the magazine away already, unfortunately.

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2004, 16:09
by Darkwand
According to the book "Jas 39 Gripen" the aircraft does have supercruise ability but as previously mentioned that's probably not with too big a warload. Regarding Swedish aircraft's they can't carry as many bombs or as heavy loads as most foreign aircrafts, the swedish airforce always want as short a runway as possible and if you don't have the runway carrying huge loads is pretty meaninglewss in the Swedish doctrine. But the aircraft have one impressive ASM load though the Rb15F Anti-Ship missile it is the successor of the Rb04E used on the AJ37 Viggen and RB04C used on the A32 Lansen. The main cold war threat to sweden was a Warsaw invasion fleet coming over the baltic in responce to this the Swedish Air Force deployed Anti-Ship missiles as early as the 1960's. In regards to that the Gripen is mainly built as an Interceptor to contend the airspace over Sweden with Warsaw pact fighters although not numerous enough to gain Superiority it's concept is based on not being wiped from the skies and being very hard to kill on the ground.
If the Gripen carried as much bombs as the F-16 at full load it would need a 1.6km runway the swedish road bases simply don't allow for that also an F-16 with that bombload will have serious problems in operation in a contested airspace and would itself probably carry a load closer to the Gripens in those circumstances. However in an airforce as the US where other fighters can sweep the skies the F-16 is probably a better choise then the Gripen.

Also don't give the Norvegians too hard a time that was F-16A's the norwegian politicians have seriously neglected the Air defence role of the Norwegian Airforce (in the 80's the F-16's only carried sidewinders). I would be more concerned about Finland with their new F18's.

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2004, 11:59
by robban1975
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.

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2004, 17:57
by espenjoh
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....



ej

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2004, 11:13
by robban1975
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....



ej


I'd reckon that an F-16 with 2X 370 gallon tanks would have a longer airborn time than a Gripen with 1X 310 gallon tank.

As for the dogfighting encounters with U.S and Norweigan F-16's, no external tanks were carried AFAIK, at least not full ones. A twoseater Gripen with a full external tank is limited to 5-6 G's IIRC.

It's no coincidence that the Norweigans have started to show an interest in the Gripen. It has really showed what it's capable of during these excersices, and these were only the A/B versions. The JAS 39C/D which are offered for export are much more capable machines.

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2004, 11:28
by robban1975
Darkwand wrote:If the Gripen carried as much bombs as the F-16 at full load it would need a 1.6km runway the swedish road bases simply don't allow for that


Imagine that the Gripen is the size of an F-5 Tiger II, and that it's still capable of carrying a 5,5-6 ton warload(it can carry the KEPD 350). With this warload the Gripen must still be able to operate from an 800m X 9m runway, even in a winter environment.

Also don't give the Norvegians too hard a time that was F-16A's the norwegian politicians have seriously neglected the Air defence role of the Norwegian Airforce (in the 80's the F-16's only carried sidewinders). I would be more concerned about Finland with their new F18's.


See above. The F/A-18's met their match in any form of engagement.

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2004, 19:30
by Lajes
HI,

I'm an insider from the Hungarian Gripen program, and I can tell you that most of the public infos on the Gripen are fuelled by the agressive marketing of Gripen International. A great deal of lunches and dinners can influence the press, mainly the English one! Someone above for example pasted sentences from Gripen News, the official newletter of GI. My God...

If you have questions, just go ahead!

Sincerely,

Lajes

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2004, 19:43
by elp
Hi Lajes ! Good seeing you around. How goes it?

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2004, 15:12
by Ola
Lajes wrote:HI,

I'm an insider from the Hungarian Gripen program, and I can tell you that most of the public infos on the Gripen are fuelled by the agressive marketing of Gripen International. A great deal of lunches and dinners can influence the press, mainly the English one! Someone above for example pasted sentences from Gripen News, the official newletter of GI. My God...

If you have questions, just go ahead!

Sincerely,

Lajes


I believe you are referring to me as the one who posted Gripen PR-material. The reason for that is the distinct lack of credible third party sources for Gripen info.

What i'd like to ask you, though, is how the Gripen fits in a NATO-enviroment. Do you feel that a an F-16 would have been better suited with respect to communications with other NATO-units (target data etc etc) or is the Gripen fully adequate?

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2004, 06:57
by DerLoos
Hey, what about Gripen's capability to cruise supersonically. I've taken a look into my books and found the following ifo there: Gripen is capable to fly M=1.05 WITHOUT any external armament and WITHOUT pylons attached.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2004, 09:12
by phil
Four F-16s from the 349 sqn BAF flew against Gripens in october during a 3-day exercise. The purpose was to compare both fighter's air-to-air capabilities. Does anyone know the results this training?

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2005, 01:33
by marsu
DerLoos wrote:Hey, what about Gripen's capability to cruise supersonically. I've taken a look into my books and found the following ifo there: Gripen is capable to fly M=1.05 WITHOUT any external armament and WITHOUT pylons attached.


Seems like one hell of a fast taxi... seriously, supercruise capability in a clean configuration is a pretty useless trick in combat. Sure, you'll get there really fast, but what are you gonna do once you get there ? ;-)

g.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2005, 17:08
by CheckSix
Some time ago it was mentioned that the Gripen may be re-engined. Doeas anybody know something about it? I also heared they were considering thrust vectoring nozzles.

Wouldn't i make sense to equip the Jas-39 with the EJ-220 (78KN dry, 122aug).
The dimensions would fit and it would boost ACs performance...

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2005, 18:30
by toan

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2005, 18:39
by toan
According to the information I know, the SAAB has given up the plans of TVC and CFT for the future upgrading of JAS-39.

As for re-engine, I think it will be more reasonable for SAAB to keep adopting F-404/F-414 series. The F-414-GE-400 has the thrust of 22,000 Ib class, which can be increased 20~25% in the future according to the declaration of the GE's engineer.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2005, 22:00
by agilefalcon16
I thought that only the F/A-22 could supercruise, but the Jas-39 can too! I guess that it would make sense, considering its high thrust to weight ratio.
Man, I wish the viper could do that also.

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2005, 18:48
by Hookturn
1.05M is not supersonic. It's transsonic. So no supercruise for Gripen, only "transcruise".

A true nolife comment :)

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2005, 20:54
by agilefalcon16
Oops, my bad. Okay, so that means that the F/-22 is still the only current aircraft with the super cruise ability.

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2005, 05:36
by toan
The T/W ratio of Gripen is significantly less than Viper when they have the same payload.

Empty weight:
*F-16C: 8,272 kg
*JAS-39C: 6,800 kg

Internal fuel:
*F-16C: 3,160 kg
*JAS-39C: 2,270 kg

Standard weight for air-combat (50% internal fuel, AIM-120*4, AIM-9*2)
*F-16C: 10,900 kg
*JAS-39C: 8,950 kg

Engine and thrust:
*F-16C: F-110-GE-129, 28,984 Ib / 17,155 Ib *1 (Afterburner / Maximal military thrust)
*JAS-39C: RM-12, 18,100 Ib / 12,140 Ib *1 (Afterburner / Maximal military thrust)

# T/W ratio at sea-level, low speed condition:
*F-16C: 1.206 / 0.714 (Afterburner / Maximal military thrust)
*JAS-39C: 0.917 / 0.615 (Afterburner / Maximal military thrust)

The main reason for the Gripen's exceptional performance of its acceleration and climbing ability should be its excellent design of the low drag and high Lift/Drag performance.

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2005, 05:47
by toan
agilefalcon16 wrote:Oops, my bad. Okay, so that means that the F/-22 is still the only current aircraft with the super cruise ability.


Another fighter that has declared the capability of certain amount (although less than F/A-22) of supercruise is EF-2000.

The EADs and Eurojet said that it can supercruise with the speed of Mach 1.2~1.3 at the height of 36,000 fts (Standard air-combat configuration with 4 BVRAAM and 2 WVRAAM), and may be increased to Mach 1.5 after the plan of engine's upgrade in the future (post-2010~2015 perhaps), while the F/A-22 can supercruise with the speed of Mach 1.68~1.72 at the height of 40,000 fts under the standard air-combat configuration now.

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2005, 08:31
by Thunderbird
Agree with WIldcat. We here in South Africa bought the Grippen at the end. Although the Viper was never part of the package that was considered, I personally think that the wrong plane was bought for us.

How beautifull would have a Viper looked with the Castle and Springbok on it, but that was also changed in the meantime. We got a nine point star with an Eagle (Fish Eagle, SAAF Badge) on it now, but still a Viper down here would have been very nice.

A better deal for us (for our situation) would have been the Mirage 2000 (9). We are old Mirage customers, our aerospace industry was geared up for Mirage etc.

Viper Regards.

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2005, 04:28
by kacman
So what's wrong with the Gripen after all Thunder? Not many people heard about how it performs in the air against real aircraft say.. Viper or Hornet.

Heard so many good things about her but just a rumours. Mind to share with us Thunder?

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2005, 09:04
by Thunderbird
Nothing wrong with it. Think it an excellent plane but for what we need down here South, I personally think we are over killing. For the price what we are paying I'm sure we could have bought more Mirage 2000's and if we do not need more we could have spend the rest of the money on fine tuning the 2000's or spend more on the rest of the Air Force. And as I mentioned before our industry (aerospace) was geared for Mirage's and the Cheetah C's got Mirage 2000 parts.

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2005, 16:59
by kacman
I see your point. It's like the KAI (korean) as it can design its own fighter based on their Viper assembly experiences. continuity will bring some sort of stability I guess. You guys didn't get the same package (Gripen) as the Mirage's?

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2005, 10:39
by toan
kacman wrote:So what's wrong with the Gripen after all Thunder? Not many people heard about how it performs in the air against real aircraft say.. Viper or Hornet.

Heard so many good things about her but just a rumours. Mind to share with us Thunder?


A few years ago, SWAF made an interesting comparison among JAS-39A, F-16C/D Block40/42, F/A-18C/D, and M2000-5:

  1. Gripen's acceleration in sub-sonic and trans-sonic domains: faster than F/A-18C/D and M2000-5, but slower than F-16C.
  2. Gripen's instaneous turn rate: significantly better than F-16C, F/A-18C/D, and M2000-5.
  3. Gripenss sustaneous turn rate: worse than F-16C, F/A-18C/D, but better than M2000-5.
  4. The Gripen achieved the AoA of more than 100 degrees during the flight test, but due to the reason for flight safety, the normal setting of the upper limit of the AoA for the Gripen?s FCS is 50 degrees now.
  5. Gripen's frontal RCS: about 1/5 of F/A-18C/D's, 1/3 of F-16C/D Block40/42's, and 1/2 of Mirage-2000-5's.
  6. Detective range of PS-05A radar (JAS-39): a little shorter than AN/APG-65/73 (F/A-18C/D), but 20% longer than RDY (M2000-5), and 40% longer than the AN/APG-68 for F-16C/D Block40/42.
  7. While combating with the basic type of MIG-29 (MIG-29G??) in BVR engagement:
    • JAS-39A: the effective range for Gripen to detect MIG-29 is 60 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Gripen.
    • M2000-5: the effective range for Mirage to detect MIG-29 is 32 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Mirage.
    • F/A-18C/D: the effective range for Hornet to detect MIG-29 is 25 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Hornet.
    • F-16C/D: the effective range for Falcon to detect MIG-29 is 5 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Falcon.
  8. Maintenance of GRIPEN:
    • The MTBF for JAS-39A is 7.6 flight hours, and the SAAB declared that the MTBF for the USAF?s frontline fighters (except F/A-22 perhaps) is no more than 4.1 flight hours.
    • The man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour: 12 man-hours initially, than reduced to 10 man-hours (F/A-18 E/F: 15 man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour).
    • The charge for each flight-hour: 2,500 USD initially, than reduced to 2,000 USD.

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2005, 12:59
by kacman
Thanks toan, that's pretty neat but I hope it's really true, not just another marketing gonzo by the swedish company. it is quite intriguing if it is really true the ps-05 can detect mig type further than any other radar type (especially the apg family)...

Im quite sceptical.. anybody? Those aircraft comparison, was it from a real flight or just comparing on the paper (based on EM chart)?

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2005, 14:27
by toan
As a light radar (156 kg only) for a light fighter that is less than 7 tonne-class, the detective range and the performance of PS-05A is quiet impressive. It can detect a target with 5m2 RCS 120 km, TWS 14 targets and engaging four of them with AIM-120 at the same time.

However, another main reason for JAS-39 to have the best performance in "first look" among other western fighters that are mentioned is the small frontal RCS of Gripen. Take F/A-18C/D for example, although AN/APG-65/73's detective range is a little longer than PS-05A, the frontal RCS of F/A-18C/D is five times more than JAS-39. According the basic formula of RCS, the detective range for MIG-29 to detect Gripen will be about 2/3 of the detective range for MIG-29 to detect F/A-18C/D. That is the reason why although F/A-18 has the radar with longer range, the Gripen still has the better performance in "first look".

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2005, 15:30
by agilefalcon16
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?

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2005, 02:42
by kacman
I don't think so, no doubt the A is lighter, but it is also less powerful. Its speed bleeds of very very fast after the first break.

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2005, 14:37
by kubam4a1
Hi, I am new here.

I think that the newest F-16C Block 50/52+ with AN-APG-68V9X(M) radar beats the Gripen.

Simple comparison: The F-16's radar's range is about 160 km while Gripen has "only" 120 km. Secondly, F-16C50+ can use AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles while JAS-39 cannot. It is also important, that Viper can carry wide number of Air-To-Ground weapons (Maverick, Paneway, JDAM, JSOW, HARM, AGM-88 and much more...). Gripen can only have Maverick, Paneway and Swedish anti-ship missile RBS-15, which is, however, significantly better than AGM-130. On the other hand Gripen can land on most of railways. But F-16C50+ has more advantages That's why our goverment has selected F-16C/D Block50/52+

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2005, 16:14
by toan
kubam4a1 wrote:Hi, I am new here.

I think that the newest F-16C Block 50/52+ with AN-APG-68V9X(M) radar beats the Gripen

Simple comparison: The F-16's radar's range is about 160 km while Gripen has "only" 120 km. Secondly, F-16C50+ can use AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles while JAS-39 cannot. It is also important, that Viper can carry wide number of Air-To-Ground weapons (Maverick, Paneway, JDAM, JSOW, HARM, AGM-88 and much more...). Gripen can only have Maverick, Paneway and Swedish anti-ship missile RBS-15, which is, however, significantly better than AGM-130. On the other hand Gripen can land on most of railways. But F-16C50+ has more advantages That's why our goverment has selected F-16C/D Block50/52+


1. The newest member for Falcon's family is F-16E/F Block 60/62. The UAE government spent 6.4 billion USD to LM to design, develop, and produce 80 fighters for its air-force. Actually, comparing with the previous fighters of the Falcon's family, the F-16E/F Block 60/62 is almost a brand-new fighter. More than 70% of its structure and 100% of its software, FCS, radar, EW, and engine are different from the F-16C/D.

2. According to the data I have collected, the radar that can detect the target of standard fighter (RCS = 5m2) 160 km away should be AN/APG-80 AESA radar for F-16 E/F. The designer declared this radar's detective range is two times of the detective range of AN/APG-68V7. The MTBF of AN/APG-80 is more than 500 hours, and it can TWS 20 targets at the same time (Which may be increrased to 50 targets in the future).

3. As for the AN/APG-68V9XM, according to the information I remembered, this radar's detective range should be 30% longer than the detective range of AN/APG-68V7. I think the difference of the detective range for AN/APG-68V9XM and PS-05A is not very significant, and since the Gripen has a smaller frontal RCS than F-16C/D as I mentioned before, I think Gripen still has a slight advantage in "First Look" comparing with F-16C Block 50/52+ in BVR engagement. Although this advantage may be too slight to effect the result of BVR combat.

4. Although Gripen can't use AIM-9X, it will begin to incorporate IRIS-T, a off-board and highly agile AAM that is the same class as AIM-9X, to its weapon-list since this year.

5. The Viper can choose and carry wide number of air-to-ground weapons that are much more than the Gripen can should be the most significant advantage for Viper over the Gripen. Take JDAM for example, the Gripen will not be able to use it until 2008 at least. I think this difference should be the main reason and factor for the result of the Polish air-force's evaluation of its F-X fighter: the score of F-16C Block 50/52+ is about 3% higher than the score of JAS-39.

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2005, 17:27
by kubam4a1
1. I understand - it's my mistake. There were also F-16 Block 60 bought by United Arab Emirates. I wanted to say "The best from F-16C/D family, bought by Greece and Poland".

2 & 3. In polish "Nowa technika wojskowa" (PL: "Recent military technics") magazine there was comparison of: F-16C/D Block 50/52+, Gripen, Mirage 2000-5 Mk.2. They wrote that range of Viper's radar is 160 km (APG-68V9XM) or 80-100 km. If the range is 30 percent more, we've got no more than 130 km - similar to Gripen's. So I've got a problem.

4. As I remember, IRIS-T weren't offered to Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary also won't have them. It's why I knew only about AIM-9M - which is significantly worse than AIM-9MX.

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2005, 09:20
by Jaydin
Quote: 4. Although Gripen can't use AIM-9X, it will begin to incorporate IRIS-T, a off-board and highly agile AAM that is the same class as AIM-9X, to its weapon-list since this year.

IRS-T Isn't a missile, it's simply an Infa Red Scan and Track pod, meaning you do not need radar to fire Sidewinders, flip on the IRS-T make sure it's pointed at the enemy, wait for tone..fire..missile locked, and tracking.

Mistake between IRIS-T and IRST

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2005, 11:15
by Wildcat
Errr, Jaydin, you actually male a mistake: an IRST (InfraRed Search and Track) is a IR system used to find targets, but the IRIS-T (Infra-Red Imagery Sidewinder Tail-Controlled) is a very modern short-range missile developed for Germany, Italy, Sweden, Greece, Canada and Norway.
Try:http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/common/AA/irist.html

RE: Mistake between IRIS-T and IRST

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2005, 04:53
by Jaydin
Mmmmm..I didn't realize what he was talking about, I was going on about the IRS-T pod LOL my bad

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2005, 20:35
by toan
2005 Combat Aircraft, Vol. 6, No.5, Page 37:

An Norwegian pilot of F-16 declared: "During the winter exercise last year, we learned some interesting things when flying against the Swedish Gripens. With the F-16, we can out-maneuver the Gripen, thanks to our more powerful engine."

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2005, 17:37
by renatohm
Well, well... people may begin calling me boring, but I will go for my 2 cents (probably less)...

Gripen is a brand new fighter, and it still has years to evolve as the Viper. Weapons are what make the fighter (an F-16.net member uses the very cool signature "Without weapons it's just another airliner"), and the Viper is, no doubt, the 3rd best plane in this regard (1st is F-15E, 2nd is F/A-18E/F, since both carry almost all the operational weapons the Viper does, and some more).

About the aircrafts themselves, the Gripen has some very good features, like the smaller RCS - altough the Viper can use LO (Low Observable) coatings - and better aerodynamics, plus a really impressive STOL (Short TakeOff;Landing) capability.

The potential client for any of them must consider the pack. Poland, for example, is now part of NATO, so it can buy most weapons accesible to NATO members, like the AIM-9X, AMRAAM, JDAM, etc., so they chose the Viper.

For Brazil, unfortunately, Uncle Sam won't sell AMRAAMS, JDAM or any of them class. :( So I go for the Flanker. Both Gripen and Viper are very good, but their range is too short. Gripen can refuel, but it does not solve the problem.

Viper for Brazil would be fine, except by the weapons restrictions. The newest versions (F-16I, block 60) have almost as good a range as the Flanker without CFT and/or external tanks.. Someone mentioned early that the refueling system of the Viper is better. For USAF surely is, but for the rest of the world, it isn't, for 2 reasons:

1) Only the USAF has the 'boom' refueler - all the others use the 'probe and drogue'.
2) The 'boom' cannot be used for buddy-buddy refueling, 'probe and drogue' can.

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2005, 04:47
by parrothead
Viper for Brazil would be fine, except by the weapons restrictions. The newest versions (F-16I, block 60) have almost as good a range as the Flanker without CFT and/or external tanks.. Someone mentioned early that the refueling system of the Viper is better. For USAF surely is, but for the rest of the world, it isn't, for 2 reasons:

1) Only the USAF has the 'boom' refueler - all the others use the 'probe and drogue'.
2) The 'boom' cannot be used for buddy-buddy refueling, 'probe and drogue' can.


There were some interesting discussions on ways to refuel the Viper inflight including a probe and drogue system with the probe on an external wing tank in a discussion on IDF/AF modifications. That option seems like it would work very well for smaller countries that wouldn't want to have to operate a traditional boom refueler.

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2005, 14:55
by renatohm
Yes, I have seen pics of this system (in IAI Lahav website, if I'm not mistaken), but it would just end up like the Gripen: 4 Flankers can carry a great deal of payload AND have high range, the Viper has to chosoe. If you use that cool tanks you loose hardpoints for bombs. Remember that Brazil, unfortunately, has no $$ for lots of PGMs, so it's more of a Brazilian problem than Viper's problem.

Someone mentioned that South Africa is large. For a Swedish maybe is, but for a Brazilian surely isn't. The state of Pará (1,253,164 sq km) is larger than South Africa (1,221,037 sq km). Brazil has a 8,544,415 sq km surface, way larger than the USA (excluding Alaska). That's why we need a fighter with very large range.

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2005, 05:56
by halman
I know one feature of the Gripen radar that should really make it stand out...
It can render stealth technology useless, let me explain, stealth works as to absorb/scatter the radar signals in any and all directions except back to the radar emitting the signals.
The gripen can have I believe upp to five(?) aircraft radars linked (this array should also be able to look way beyond 160km btw) and have those additional radars (located at different points in space) listening after the reflected pulses witch otherwise would get lost.. Some math and datatransfers and everbody know where to aim... ;o)

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2005, 15:16
by agilefalcon16
So, you're saying that the Gripen's rader can detect aircraft like the F-117 and B-2? :?

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2005, 16:27
by toan
The thing Mr.halman mentioned about is the importance of modern data-link for the NG fighters. According to the Ericsson's paper suggestion:
  1. The PS-05/A can operate in passive mode, as a sensitive receiver with high directional accuracy (due to its large antenna). Two PS-05/As can exchange information by datalink and locate the target by triangulation.
  2. The datalink results in better tracking. Usually, three plots need to track a target in track-while-scan mode. The datalink allows the radars to share plots, not just tracks, so even if none of the aircraft in a formation gets enough plots on its own to track the target, they may do so collectively.
  3. Each radar plot includes Doppler velocity, which provides the individual aircraft with range-rate data. However, this data on its own does not yield the velocity of the target. Using the TIDLS, two fighters can take simultaneous range-rate readings and thereby determine the targets track instantly, reducing the need for radar transmission.
  4. In ECM applications, one fighter can search, while the wingman simultaneously focuses jamming on the same target, using the radar. This makes it very difficult for the target to intercept or jam the radar that is tracking him. Another anti-jamming technique is for all four radars to illuminate the same target simultaneously at different frequencies.
The Swedish AF is the pioneer of fighter-to-fighter data-link, and the JAS-39 is the first fighter with the NG fighter-to-fighter data-link. However, almost every NG fighter in the world (F/A-22, F/A-18E/F, F-35, EF-2000, Rafale, Su-30MKK/MKI, Su-27SM, Su-35/37, MIG-31) has equipped or will equip soon the same class of NG fighter-to-fighter data-link since then. The Gripen was the first fighter with this kind of revolutional innovation, but it is not unique now.

Will the NG fighter-to-fighter data-link help the fighters like JAS-39 catch the stealthy target at longer distance??? I think the answer is "Yes", since even the stealthy fighter can't make its RCS in every direction as small as its frontal RCS. If you combine the data from the different fighters, AWACS, ground-based air-defense radar and so on in different location with the help of NG data-link, you may catch out the stealthy target earlier then just use the radar of your fighter's own, as an old saying goes: "The unite is the force".

However, when the main point you talk about is to use this kind of system to aqainst the F/A-22 of USAFs, don't forget:
  • F/A-22s have this kind of NG data-link and capability, too. In addition, the AN/APG-77 AESA radar is ten times at least more powerful and much, much more capable then PS-05A, and F/A-22's frontal RCS is 200 to 1000 times smaller than the other NG fighters in the world such as F/A-18E/F, F-16E/F, EF-2000, Rafale, JAS-39 and so on now. If JAS-39s can detect F/A-22s a little longer with the help of PS-05As + NG data-link, there is no reason for F/A-22s can't detect JAS-39 much, much, much, much, much... more longer with the help of AN/APG-77s + NG data-link. Even Raptor just use its radar to detect JAS-39, according to the detective capability of AN/APG-77 and the frontal RCS of JAS-39, the Raptor could detect JAS-39 at the distance of 120 to 170 km away theoretically.
  • The power of F/A-22's radar make it not only the most powerful detector in the world now, but also a formidble EW warfare/weapon. USAF has planned to make a minor upgrade for AN/APG-77s in 2010, and it will make AN/APG-77s to become a "Microwave weapon" that can "burn through and destroy" the enemy's radars of air-borne or ground-base which direct their antenae toward the Raptor.
  • Which air-force on earth has the most AESA radars, data-links, AWACSs, EW systems, C4ISR capability, and CPU processing capability??? Ans: USAF...

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2005, 23:52
by Pumpkin
:shock: .........toan, you mean to say Gripen's PS-05/A is an airborne bistatic radar functioning as Fire Control Radar?!

Last check, the Chinese and the Russian were not able to overcome the technical and operational difficulties, to have such a FCR on their fighter to effectively counter stealth.

I appreciate if you can provide link to the mentioned Ericsson's paper.

toan wrote:Will the NG fighter-to-fighter data-link help the fighters like JAS-39 catch the stealthy target at longer distance??? I think the answer is "Yes", since even the stealthy fighter can't make its RCS in every direction as small as its frontal RCS. If you combine the data from the different fighters, AWACS, ground-based air-defense radar and so on in different location with the help of NG data-link, you may catch out the stealthy target earlier then just use the radar of your fighter's own, as an old saying goes: "The unite is the force".


I stand to be corrected. But I think Data Fusion with Data Link alone are not sufficient to counter stealth as you have mentioned. Unless you were referring to bistatic/multistatic radar or PCL techniques.

cheers,

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2005, 00:41
by toan
The data and the capability about the data-link of GRIPEN can be found in JEDONLINE 2002, April.

http://www.jedonline.com/default.asp?fu ... er%20story

However, it seems that this web-site has not been charge-free anymore since one years ago.

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2005, 20:09
by halman
What is the approximate detection range of the F/A 22 ? Since we already are off topic The erieye wich also use AESA based hardware have a claimed detection range of >350Km granted not when it comes to stealthy targets but still.

btw. I believe viggen used fighter to fighter data links from the mid eighties.

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2005, 22:43
by toan
The Erieye is an AWACS with the size of E-2C class, therefore, although its AWACS radar's technology is more advancing, its detection range, flight endurance, and the capacity of command and control are still inferior to the E-3C AWACS.

In USA, the USAF had played several times of such combat simulation: Two F/A-22s v.s four F-15Cs or F-16Cs + one E-3C. And F/A-22s was the winner and "killed" every F-15, F-16, and E-3C in each game.

The Swedish AF has installed data-link to their fighters since 1960s. But of course, the speed and capability of the data-links for Dragon and Viggen are not comparable to the data-link for Gripen.

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2005, 23:07
by toan
The frontal RCS of F/A-22 is about 1/10,000 ~ 1/20,000 of the RCS of F-15C, which means that the maximal effective detection range of a radar for F/A-22 should be only 1/10 ~ 1/15 of the maximal effective detection range of the same radar for F-15C.

The best non-USA fighter's radar in the world today may detect F-15C 200 ~ 250 km away, and the best non-USA AWACS's radar in the world today may detect F-15C 350 ~ 400 km away.

# 200 ~ 250 / 10 ~ 15 = 13 ~ 25 km (The maximal theoretically effective detection range of the best non-USA fighter's radar in the world today for F/A-22 in head-to-head engagement).

# 350 ~ 400 / 10 ~ 15 = 23 ~ 40 km (The maximal theoretically effective detection range of the best non-USA AWACS's radar in the world today for F/A-22 in head-to-head engagement).

While F/A-22 with AN/APG-77 can detect any other fighter or AWACS in the world today at the range from 80 ~ 100 (target with RCS of 0.05 m2 class, the best estimation I've heard for the frontal RCS of EF-2000 and Rafale) to 230 km+ (target with huge RCS) away theoretically.

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2005, 20:31
by lamoey
Just read a story in the magazine "Combat AIRCRAFT", March 2005, where a RNoAF Viper pilot say they were able to outmaneuver the Gripen thanks to its more powerful engine. He also states that the Swedish pilots do not call the JAS39 Gripen, but just “39”.

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2005, 21:17
by agilefalcon16
:shock: I can't believe it, today I was going to post a similar reply regarding that exact story I also saw in that issue! What are the chances of that!!!!! :shock:

This is a quote from the Viper pilot in the same article:"We also found out that you should not say Gripen, but just '39'. The Swedish AF guys all refer to the JAS39 as the '39'. Apparently only drunks and babies call it Gripen"

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2005, 21:27
by lamoey
Great minds think alike... 8)

I was based at Bodoe (Bodø) 82-85, so I read the article very carefully.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2005, 20:36
by robban
Excerpt from Gripen news.

"During past international exercises, Gripen has been very competetive during close in combat against foreign aircraft such as the F-16 and F/A-18. I don't want ot make snap judgements because it was a limited number of contacts and I don't have all the exercise parameters. However, during BVR engagements we can definitely say that the radar, datalink, electronic, warfare suit and MMI of the Gripen gave its pilots a clear upper-hand. Their information advantage and SI meant they could employ Gripen's weapon systems in a more optimal way than their foregin counterparts.

Although some aircraft flown in these exercises may have had a slightly better thrust-to-weight ratio than our aircraft, Gripens still managed to get behind the F-16's to make use of the IR-missiles and guns. The small visual signature and excellent agility of the Gripen proved to be a considerable advantage in a dogfight."

Another excerpt.

"We flew several of the Norweigan pilots in our dual seat and they were very impressed with the cockpit displays - especially the tactical screen with the map - and the level of situational awareness that it gives you in combat. I think they understood that we could get so much more out of our jets. It's a different generation.

They thought that a Gripen was pretty similar to an F-16, said an SwAF officer, they thought they were about the same size, they both have one engine-but they were wrong. In combat we out-turned them in many engagements.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2005, 22:11
by lamoey
Who wrote the Gripen News? The article quoted from above was written by an independent (it seamed) journalist, so may be more objective. The article included material from Norwegian, Swedish and Finish air forces operating in arctic conditions, so was not centered around the Viper, but actually talked the most about the Gripen.

I think you can forget about any information displays mounted below the Pilots neck, as far as advantages in the dogfight is concerned. I'm obviously not the expert here, so would like to know what our pilots in here think about the value of nice displays and their location, while in a dogfight.

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2005, 14:53
by agilefalcon16
robban wrote:They thought that a Gripen was pretty similar to an F-16, said an SwAF officer, they thought they were about the same size, they both have one engine-but they were wrong. In combat we out-turned them in many engagements.


I don't know, that article I read in " Combat Aircraft" has pretty much convinced me that the Viper is more agile than the Gripen.

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2005, 18:57
by robban
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.

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2005, 17:45
by Darkwand
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.

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2005, 18:02
by lamoey
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?

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2005, 01:26
by Pyth_4
I like a lot the "swedish wave" in the Gripen design... pretty good model!!

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2005, 10:49
by LebaneseAce
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.

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2005, 15:35
by parrothead
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!

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2005, 15:47
by agilefalcon16
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 :wink: 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.

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2005, 22:19
by espenjoh
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

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2005, 09:38
by LazyTed
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.

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2005, 10:39
by toan
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.

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2005, 16:54
by LazyTed
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>

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2005, 18:09
by Viperalltheway
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!

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2005, 00:07
by Bwadwey
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

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2005, 00:11
by Bwadwey
"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]

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2005, 16:43
by Viperalltheway
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..

Exersice over..

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2005, 17:45
by espenjoh
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.

Put one more hardpoint under eatch wing on the 39, and you have a significant better fighter! (hardpoint that can carry JDAM or fuel)

Air refuel, JDAM, HMCS capability for the 39, i quess is comming on newer versjons?

related links: (all in norwegian!)

http://www.mil.no/luft/start/nyheter/ak ... leID=72227

http://www.mil.no/luft/start/nyheter/ak ... leID=81447

http://www.mil.no/1905/start/article.jh ... eID=100618

http://www.mil.no/luft/start/article.jh ... leID=85945

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

ej

RE: Exersice over..

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2005, 23:19
by silentnoise
I think Gripen is more better than F-16 with regards to avionics and sensor suite system. Gripen is design to defeat high performance aircraft in a small platform.

Re: Exersice over..

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2005, 20:24
by robban
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:

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2005, 10:44
by Darkwand
It has no air to air refueling capability because it was one of the first 120 aircrafts built of the A/B versions. Also Link 16 is crap compared to what the Swedish air force use, the C/D versions of the aircraft that are in service are much more capable and NATO adapted.
The helmet mounted sight is a problem but we are currently aquiring one.

Indian Air Force

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2005, 16:46
by IndianAirForce
The Indian Air Force has a 128 aircraft order coming up. India needs a multirole fighter which can maintain air superiority. Both can do the job but which one would do betteer.These aircraft will be staying in the IAF inventory for a long time and will compete with the new generation of fighters.

RE: Indian Air Force

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2005, 22:51
by Superpilot
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)!

RE: Indian Air Force

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2005, 10:12
by Superpilot
I have searced throughout the Web and I did not find any official TVC and CFT cancelation news. Thus, the Super Gripen programme still goes on!

RE: Indian Air Force

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2005, 13:55
by Superpilot
These is an interesting e-mail by EuroJet Turbo GmbH:

Dear Mr. Ioannidis,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Saab has years ago already investigated the technical and operational
feasibility for re-engineering JAS 39 Gripen with the EJ200 engine.
Both Saab and EUROJET Turbo GmbH concluded that a re-engineering only
shall be considered if there is a customer demand available. From a
technical point of view, the EJ200 engine would fit into the engine bay
of JAS39 Gripen with minor changes applied to the interface connections.
The commercial feasibility of re-engineering JAS39 Gripen would be
supported, if required, by individual business case calculations.

The Thrust vectoring nozzle is offered as an optional item for any of
the EJ200 engine standards.

I hope this answer can help.

Yours sincerely,
Katarina Elbogen

Katarina Elbogen
Executive PR and Political Affairs
EUROJET Turbo GmbH
Lilienthalstr. 2b
85339 Hallbergmoos
E-Mail: k.elbogen@eurojet.de

RE: Indian Air Force

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2005, 15:37
by agilefalcon16
But does the Gripen really need a thrust-vectoring nozzel? Most engagements would likely be BVR fights, and if the enemy does find some way to enter a WVR fight, JHMCS, used with advanced short-range missles (Like the AIM-9X) which have a very high off-boresight capability (Up to 90 degrees), and have over a 99% chance of blowing a target out of the sky. NO manned TVC jet can outmaneuver such a missile.

Besides, if the Gripen were to eventually have thrust-vectored engines in the future, it would hurt each aircraft's airframe life, because the Jas-39 airframe wasn't originally designed to use those nozzels. Take the Su-30MKI for example (which, because it's a variant of the Su-27, also wasn't originally designed to use TV nozzels), it's airframe is only suitable for flying up to 3000 hours, while an F-16C's airframe can last well beyond 6000 hours in the air. So the Gripen would probably be better off without the TV nozzels in my opinion...

RE: Indian Air Force

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2005, 17:49
by Superpilot
ITP of S[ain has made a custom design for the Gripen airframe. I suppose SAAB has studied any further enhancements for the airframe.

RE: Indian Air Force

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2005, 19:12
by agilefalcon16
You mean something like what's on this link?:http://www.hitechweb.szm.sk/stealth4f.htm (Scroll to near the bottom of the link for the TVC, CFT Gripen concept photo)

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2005, 21:32
by Superpilot
The airframe enhancement means use of new material, such as metallic foams

http://www.sae.org/aeromag/toptech/12-2002/

and in the future, if the NEURON proceeds well, a tailless Gripen.
The ITP design is already available from 2001.

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2005, 00:20
by wohlstad
I really can't get excited about the Grippen. Basically it's a toy airplane with puny 18K Lb thrust engine, very short range, non-existant payload (weak engine+tiny wings), scarse weapons package - not anything I'd want to take into heavy combat. Yes, it can defend your airfield perimeter, but not much else, at the cost of an F-16/52+, which is why the latter outsold it by 25+:1.

Personally, I'd prefer to see the Lavi - roughly same canard-delta/composite technology but much more capable plane overall (compare 42K Lb take-off vs. 28K for the Jas-39). The Lavi with the Saturn AL-31F engine @28K Lb thrust would've been quite a beast - even compared to the Rafale. Too bad it never made it into service - GD/LocMart knew what they were doing when they squashed it.

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2005, 16:30
by robban
May I suggest you build up some more knowledge about the Gripen before you post your opinion here.

First it's Gripen, NOT Grippen. But don't worry, you're not the only one to make this mistake, it's actually suprisingly common.
18.000lb's of thrust is perhaps puny if you have to push an Su-27 around the skies. But the lightweight Gripen really does quite well with it. Combat range is AFAIK still classified, but ferry range is said to be 3000km. The Gripen can also carry almost 5500kg of weapons on its 8 pylons. For a plane the size of an F-5 this is quite impressive. The Gripen can carry pretty much anything you would want it to. And then there's the world leading TIDLS, a truly modern design, absolutely superior turnaround times, ease of maintenance, short field performance and its MMI and overall operational cost. Beat that! :mrgreen:


wohlstad wrote:I really can't get excited about the Grippen. Basically it's
a toy airplane with puny 18K Lb thrust engine, very short range, non-existant payload (weak engine+tiny wings), scarse weapons package - not anything I'd want to take into heavy combat. Yes, it can defend your airfield perimeter, but not much else, at the cost of an F-16/52+, which is why the latter outsold it by 25+:1.

Personally, I'd prefer to see the Lavi - roughly same canard-delta/composite technology but much more capable plane overall (compare 42K Lb take-off vs. 28K for the Jas-39). The Lavi with the Saturn AL-31F engine @28K Lb thrust would've been quite a beast - even compared to the Rafale. Too bad it never made it into service - GD/LocMart knew what they were doing when they squashed it.

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2005, 17:54
by boff180
I have to agree on the engine power.... I've seen a Gripen, F-16, Su-27, F-15, Typhoon, M2000 ... pretty much every fighter except Rafale and F-22 display in the same airspace and on the Gripen it showed one thing....

The Gripen is not as manouveurable as the F-16C (all of the above performing min-radius turns, Typhoon being by far the tightest followed by the F-16) however, it has faster acceloration... its a little nippy bugger :)

Andy

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2005, 10:53
by robban
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. :)

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2006, 15:06
by Dolby
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

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2006, 23:01
by MoJo
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

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2006, 00:08
by wohlstad
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.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2006, 18:40
by CheckSix
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.

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2006, 04:29
by wohlstad
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

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2006, 15:50
by elp
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.

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2006, 14:34
by zazor
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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2006, 15:25
by RoAF
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...

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2006, 21:32
by Jussi
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

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2006, 13:19
by robban
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.

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2006, 13:24
by robban
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.

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2006, 13:33
by robban
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.

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2006, 19:08
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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.

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2006, 01:23
by Corous
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.

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2006, 01:28
by Corous
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.

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2006, 06:34
by boff180
doesn't really need it, typical combat load out is 2x WVR, 4x BVR and a fuel tank! With Sweden signed up to IRIS-T and Meteor, that is a seriously potent combo if you ask me. Which on the missile side of things would match a F-16 mixed air-air load anyway, I can't see it being realistic just to fly a true CAP mission without WVR missiles loaded.

Oh and not only does the computer "fly" the aircraft in a guns battle but unless the pilot squeezes the trigger.... if there is a greater than 95% chance thata bullet will strike the radar target at any given moment; the computer fires the gun automatically.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2006, 22:20
by Corous
boff180 wrote:doesn't really need it, typical combat load out is 2x WVR, 4x BVR and a fuel tank! With Sweden signed up to IRIS-T and Meteor, that is a seriously potent combo if you ask me. Which on the missile side of things would match a F-16 mixed air-air load anyway, I can't see it being realistic just to fly a true CAP mission without WVR missiles loaded.

Oh and not only does the computer "fly" the aircraft in a guns battle but unless the pilot squeezes the trigger.... if there is a greater than 95% chance thata bullet will strike the radar target at any given moment; the computer fires the gun automatically.

Andy


Thank you for the info on the auto-fire system :D

Hmmm.... some valid points you made 'bout the engagement. The Meteor's not yet operational, so I was assuming both are armed with AMRAAMs. I still think the side with more AMRAAMs would win, since you can afford to fire before you get into the NEZ and force the other guy into manuvering / losing his energy / giving you his six.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2006, 20:42
by robban
I just wanted to add that the auto aim system was also used on the JA37 Viggen, and it worked perfectly. The system proved to be excellent even in clouds and at night. :)

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2006, 02:05
by Corous
robban wrote:I just wanted to add that the auto aim system was also used on the JA37 Viggen, and it worked perfectly. The system proved to be excellent even in clouds and at night. :)


But the Viggen is kinda ugly... :(

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2006, 15:56
by Lasse
New proposed Gripen for Norway:

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/na24/polit ... 637169.ece

This one has larger internal fuel stores than the original and obviously room for external tanks as they show off here. The large AS missiles you see are Kongsberg NSMs, anti-ship.

I have no idea about fighter jets. What do you guys think of this?

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2006, 17:21
by Corous
Lasse wrote:New proposed Gripen for Norway:

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/na24/polit ... 637169.ece

This one has larger internal fuel stores than the original and obviously room for external tanks as they show off here. The large AS missiles you see are Kongsberg NSMs, anti-ship.

I have no idea about fighter jets. What do you guys think of this?


Ahhhhh, who can read Swedish or Norweigin or whatever language is on that page. I love them crazy Scandonavians, it's so cool to see them put the TSC idea to such good use. Now, only if they do the same for the BVRAAMs. "What? You don't envision sending up a flight of Grippens against two squadrons of Russian Blackjacks?"

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2006, 18:03
by Lasse
The article doesn't talk about specifics, it's an economy website and so it only mentions what it will cost and the politics involved, compared to the JSF and the eurofighter. It only says that 'it will be adapted for Norwegian needs', which basically means extended range. I don't know what else they've done to it, other than allowing it to carry norwegian NSMs of course.

By the way, what is TSC? :oops:

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2006, 19:18
by robban
Looks,,,, heavy! :shock:

Image

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2006, 19:32
by RoAF
That's a computer render image made by someone who doesn't know a thing about the Grippen. Those 2 tanks are mounted right on the main gear doors.

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2006, 20:04
by boff180
They have probably mistaken the fact that Gripen may be getting CFT's.

It may look heavy but they are also proposing re-engining it with an EJ-200.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2006, 21:05
by robban
Possible re-positioning of the main landing gear.

Image

CFT's on the Gripen.

Image

Image

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2006, 21:16
by RoAF
CFTs are fine, I guess, but how much would a redesigning of the whole central fuselage (for adding a second belly tank) impact the price tag?
The Gripen is already just as expensive as an F-16 (37 mil USD), more advanced but with less of a punch than the Viper.

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2006, 21:56
by boff180
Re: CFT'd Gripen is known as the "Improved Gripen Concept"

The only image I could find:
Image

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2006, 14:54
by HunterKiller
Gripen has one thing that Falcon does not have - real off-airfield capability, special tactics on changing locations and all this mobile maintenance and supply stuff.

Gipen can use every highway strip that is at least 9 metres wide and 800 metres long. This means that virtually every major road can be his base and after reavealing its location (after takeoff) they will never come back there. it means that in war they will come out from different directions, from unknown places and you never know where they will hit you next.

When Falcons landed first on Lithuanian Siaulai airfield (former USSR Flogger base), all pilots and ground crews were yelling abouth rough runway and taxyways, that was accused for breaking tires and so on. Most of ex USSR runways were similar. So that F-16 cant even handle concrete runways that vere everyday routine for Floggers and so.

So that 30 F-16s have virtually no value when you hit their runway. But 30 Gripens will be far avay from their home base when war is imminent. They will be hidden everywhere and you just cant bomb all the highways to eliminate their "airstrips" and all barns and highway tunnels to destroy their hangars.

So what is better - to have 30 Gripens airborne with less avionics and short legs or 30 Falcons with all fancy stuff sitting down 2 days until you fix your runway - but if enemy pops some thousand delay mines, your falcons will be out of action for several days.

When two smaller countries make a war (both cant have overwhelming superiority in air only by air combat) - who will have the upper hand? Talking about avionics and fancy stuff feels like bad joke, when 2 aircaft with concrete penetrators will quickly end your operations.

Off course, this is not real against USAF because of its sensoring and recovering capacity - but just think about those 2 smaller countries.

Please remind, that Swedish air force has practiced off-airfield operations for 30 years, but what about falcon's off-airfield capability? Plus Sweden has lot and lot of roads, thick forests and many of deep granite tunnels to make a perfect hiding of Gripens.

Just remind NVAF Mig-21 rice-field operations that USAF could not win- because they dont have enough bombs to destroy every rice paddy.

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2006, 16:23
by RoAF
Interesting - and valid - theory, except for:
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2006, 18:18
by HunterKiller
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.

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2006, 18:59
by clown_shoes
would you sell newest stuff to your competitors?

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 12:35
by tomcat1974
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.

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2006, 16:00
by HunterKiller
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.

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 08:42
by tomcat1974
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...

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 08:51
by boff180
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

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 10:58
by HunterKiller
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 :?:

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?

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 12:08
by tomcat1974
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.

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 13:00
by RoAF
HunterKiller wrote;
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.

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2006, 14:21
by HunterKiller
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.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2006, 10:57
by Aces
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?

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2006, 13:18
by RoAF
Aces asked:
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.
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.
When will Gripen get NORA AESA?

When they (the Swedes) finish it - around 2010

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2006, 08:21
by tomcat1974
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?

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2006, 10:08
by Aces
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?

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2006, 11:24
by RoAF
Aces, the Gripen has RWR, but it's designed only to warn the pilot and work in cojunction with the ECM, not to guide ARMs.
Gripen was designed in the 80's foremost for Sweden homeland defense against the Soviets. That meant it had to be a very good air-to-air fighter (both BVR and WWR), advanced anti-ship capability and only limited air-to ground capbility (Mavericks to bust tanks and a gun, dumb iron bombs and unguided rockets). The Swedish doctrine did not include SEAD.
As for the customers (South Africa, Czech Republic and Hungary) none requested ARM capability.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2006, 20:32
by boff180
Alarm can work independantly of the aircraft ecm/rwr kit mate.

I'm sure it could be easily retrofitted to the aircraft if need-be.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2006, 00:11
by seat_dreamer
tomcat1974 wrote: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?


Well, yes, what HunterKiller says is that you take for example Kuwait and Iran.

Irani Air Force >>>> Kuwaiti Air Force, so Irani Air Force goes in and bombs all infrastructure. You now have few or no runway, few or no maintenance and no real need to bomb the other since you can't even defend your own airspace ! At that point, a plane which you can launch from the bottom of the lake is what you need. Sure the Viper has 450m takeoff capability, but is that with a good load of A2G ordnance + fuel + ECM pods ? And do what with your leftovers of your already small airforce ? Go out there and loose it by trying to "retaliate" over a bigger enemy ?

As USAFE/NATO doctrine was in the Europe during the Cold War they had mounted rocket on planes to takeoff if the Big Bear stroke suddenly all of the airfields. That's what you do at the above case too - it's a desperate attempt to hold your own rather than have sophisticated strike capabilities. Isn't that why Marines use the Harrier and will use the JSF ? "Take off from everywhere (since tactical army isn't there for you yet), do your mission as good as possible, get back as safely as possible".

In the same way, that's why you won't use F-15s too, why, since half of them (costing 2x of a Viper) will get wiped in their hangars by the attack ? Of course you can get a more capable Viper for the same money as the Gripen, but its value will be shown when you'll need them to hold out until the cavalry (F-15, F-16, F-22 etc.) arrives. Old doctrine of "2 Xs on the air beat 10 Ys in the hangar" applies here too (where X = less capable aircraft than Y).

(Edited for spelling)

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2006, 18:41
by renatohm
HunterKiller wrote:
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 :?:

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?


You are right, HunterKiller. There's one more point to add here: US doesn't sell all the cool weapons for every nation willing their planes. Even if they did, most of them wouldn't afford a good deal of them. Chile, for example, bought some cool Vipers, but didn't manage to get AMRAAMs, JDAMs and the like. So, a Viper overloaded with iron bombs surely needs a good runway, what is not Gripen's problem.
But here comes another problem, at least for Brazil: Gripen's short legs. But Gripen was made for use by small countries, since all Gripen's buyers would easily fit in Brazil, together with all the Viper buyers (excluding US). Brazil needs extreme range and extreme payload, something like the F-111 (retired), A-6 (retired), F-15E/I/K (NEOL, impossible cost, impossible politics), F-22 (impossible cost, impossible politics), F-16 (somewhat short legged for our country, and Brazil won't buy many fighters) and the Sukhoi Flankers.
Brazil has no other logical choice. Sure, I would love we could afford F-22s, F-35s, AWACS and... oh my, we are not the US, so forget it! Given our possibilities, we desperately need the Flankers.
Back to the topic: Viper or Gripen? Hard to know. Viper has already proven itself to be a fantastic aircraft, but is close to retirement right now. Gripen has a lot of room to evolve. Worst problem for Gripen are the short legs, and it is hard to solve. The Hornet has already proven it: if you are born with short legs, you hardly solve it.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2006, 19:08
by Apan76
In the Red Flag/Alaska exercise this summer some Gripens participated and to my understanding the Gripens were superior to the F-16s. Mainly because of the better avoinics.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2006, 21:01
by RoAF
In the Red Flag/Alaska exercise this summer some Gripens participated and to my understanding the Gripens were superior to the F-16s. Mainly because of the better avoinics.


During such exercises, it all depends on ROEs and tactics - see the Cope India threads.
Side note: The Gripens deployed are top of the line, with the latest updates, while some of the Vipers used were Block 30s, of course there is a technological advantage for the Gripen

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2006, 07:23
by Apan76
RoAF wrote:
In the Red Flag/Alaska exercise this summer some Gripens participated and to my understanding the Gripens were superior to the F-16s. Mainly because of the better avoinics.


During such exercises, it all depends on ROEs and tactics - see the Cope India threads.
Side note: The Gripens deployed are top of the line, with the latest updates, while some of the Vipers used were Block 30s, of course there is a technological advantage for the Gripen


You say that some were Block 30, but there was newer Vipers as well? None of the Vipers could keep up with the Gripen!

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2007, 20:52
by DrT
Any info about JAS 39 Gripen vs F-16 dogfights during the "Cold Response 2007" exercise in northern Norway now in march 2007? Some stunning photos in the Norwegian newspaper "Dagsavisen" http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks2/article2636618.ece

Would be interesting to know how Gripen managed the F-16:s...

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2007, 22:20
by keizer
A block 52 falcon with aesa radars bvr, no chance for the gripen.... close combat...with a skilled US pilot....the gripen... once again no chance....sweden is where the Gripen is born offcourse...it is good in Sweden....while the f-16 is best in the hands of a US pilot.....coz it was concieved there...Russian planes are best in the hands of Russian....coz they fly for country with a pride that says "hey we built it....we perfect the art of flying the bird". Therefore...again...the latest F-18 SP will take down a Gripen easily....Aero India 2007, in february... i was there at bangalore in India...i got my chance to watch the air show...among the many companies displaying thier latest equipment i got a close look at the block 60 falcon, the Super hornet, the gripen, the Mig-35, SU-30 mki, the jaguar, the Lca, the upgraded mirage 2000. Nothing at the air ahow could beat the super maneuverability of both the migs at slow speeds and nothing could beat the the agility of the super hornet at mach speeds...and the pilot was repeatedly pulling 7-8 g maneuvers at mach 1.2 the f-16 was very impressive and was the longest flight...very agile...it felt like a mix of the Su-30 and the gripen....however....the gripen...was not special...i mean dont get me wrong...after looking at highly skilled test pilots flying these aircraft....the gripen just felt normal...i mean ....it flys well....but its capabilities seemed a little...defecient...as if....it was missing something...however the best surprise of the show...the LCA...hands downs....it beats everyone's expectations...the spectators are shocked at its performance....its a break through in terms of Indian capability...i mean its first super sonic fighter...and they get it right...check out the pics...

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2007, 12:05
by Pilotasso
ahem, block 50/52 have all APG-68 series radars not AESA. Airshow perfomances are a poor indication of a planes capabilities. It wont tell you wich is the best fighter. BTW the best piloted planes are those with the best trained pilots, not the pilots from where it was made.
Gripen is NOT to be dissed, while smaller than the falcon its smarter, I wouldnt count it out. Any oposition that does will have shards of meteors stickin out their backsters to remind them. ;)

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2007, 16:23
by hansundfranz
The swedes have the best datalink system out there, Its probbaly betten then anything the NATO has including the F22 (F22 could be better but it still ha sto comply to NATO standard which severly hampers its possibilities).

And since SA is possibly the biggest part of winning or loosing in a war situation this is an advanatge not to be taken lightly

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2007, 02:33
by Warthog
Hello everyone and hello Lajes,

I am new to this site and I'm Iooking forward to many discussions with you all on military planes. I think the F-16 is the better overall multi-role fighter. I love the Gripen; I think the Swedes have done a wonderful job, but correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the Gripen a point defense aircraft for the Swedish nation? Basically to defend the nation from outside aggression?

Lajes,

What are your views on the Falcon (as we still call it here in the U.S.) versus the Gripen? What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of each plane?
And finally, since you said that there is aggressive marketing on the part of Gripen International, what do you personally think of the Gripen and its capabilities and what aircraft would you choose between the two?

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2007, 11:40
by Caprice
The difference in range (internal fuel) is not huge between these two IMO:

F-16 C block 50/52
~18240 lb Empty
~7000 lb Internal fuel
Fuel fraction ~2.8


Gripen C
~14990 lb Empty
~5290 lb Internal fuel
Fuel fraction ~2.6

As a comparison Gripen E will have a fuel fraction of about ~3.2.

Regards C.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2007, 07:54
by Cad
Should we calculate trust/weight for gripen E with that extra fuel ? :D
basicly the gripen use the Hornet engine wich burns more fuel than the 229. ( on military power)
did i mention the fact that the dry trust of the 229 is about the same as the trust of the volvo Rm12 on full afterburner ?

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2007, 10:43
by Caprice
Cad wrote:Should we calculate trust/weight for gripen E with that extra fuel ? :D

Gripen E will have a new engine with better thrust, options are RM12++, F414 or F414(EDE). Not clear yet wich one... only that Gripen E's thrust will be above 22000lb. My bet is the F414(EDE) since it's the most modern and fuel efficient (20% less fuel burn compaired with standard F414).
http://www.aviationnews.us/pdf/F414-Gro ... esting.pdf

Here´s some T/W estimations (50% fuel, 2*IR and 2*Rdr):

Moderate: with RM12++, 22000lb ~1.02
Best case: with F414(EDE), upto 26400lb ~1.23

Cad wrote:...basicly the gripen use the Hornet engine wich burns more fuel than the 229. ( on military power)

Sounds strange in my ears, if you count the difference in thrust (~12000lb versus ~17000lb) plus that RM12 latest FADEC have some fuel efficient cruising modes.

Regards

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2007, 12:03
by Cad
i love those 50% fuel and unrealistic missile loads....( with 50% fuel is time to head home)
Pratt & Whitney F100 fuel consumption:
Military thrust: 0.76 lb/(lbf·h) 0.76 lb/(lbf·h)
GE 404 Military thrust: 0.81 lb/(lbf·h) (82.6 kg/(kN·h))
yeah i should have sayd burns more fuel to produce the same trust ... but it cant produce the same trust, does it.... :D
gripen best case Scenario is today f-16 reality

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2007, 10:12
by Caprice
50% fuel etc. is just a way to compare aircraft, nothing else.
Point is: Gripen E will have better range than F-16 on internal fuel but there´s no need for a pissing contest. Both are fine aircraft.

Regards C.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2007, 15:37
by Cad
50% fuel for gripen means 2645 lb
50% fuel for falcon means 3500 lb
even with less fuel gripen t/w is worse than the f-16
if u hang 4 amraams on f-16 u can still cary 12 mk-82 bombs
hang 4 amraams on gripen what it`s left ?
maybe in 2010 the gripen would be a FINE aircraft but sweden, hungary,south africa, Czech republic did not have jas_39E
a lot of people compare the f-16 Mlu that norway and denmark have with the gripen.
these jets have serviced for 25 years and gripen still cant beat them.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2007, 17:57
by Caprice
A good T/W ratio is nice to have but not the only factor in aircombat as exercise between F-16 and Gripen has shown.

I doubt you will se 12 bombs on a F-16 in real missions. Longetivity of the the wing is a factor you have to count with. In Afghanistan two GBU's is the usual load if I´m not mistaken.

Regards C.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2007, 19:45
by Cad
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item43895.html
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item43913.html


the Iraq osirak reactor was hit with mark-84 bombs after flying some 1000 km below radar coverage by Israeli f-16.

gripen would not get that far in the first place

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2007, 23:08
by robban
Some range numbers for JAS39A.

Combat radius interception 900km with typical loadout and external fuel.

Combat radius for attack missions or air-to-surface 1200 km in hi-lo-hi mission with with typical stores load and external fuel. (Compared to 1250km for an F-16C med 2X 905kg bombs, 2X AIM-9 + 3940 liters of fuel in external tanks)

750 km at low altitude with typical stores load and external fuel.

When carrying 3X 1000lbs GBU-16 on a lo-lo-lo strike profile, the Gripen has a mission radius of 648km.

With 2X GBU-16's and extra fuel tanks radius increases to 833km.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2007, 01:55
by SnakeHandler
Don't buy delta wings. The europeans haven't figured this out yet. We learned our lesson in the seventies and eightys.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2007, 10:26
by Pilotasso
Deltas were bad back then because they would loose too much speed and there was a range of AOA where it would become hard to controll. But things have changed much since then, with FBW those problems have been overcome, further more the nature of the delta in the turn has been changed where now you have active canards adding lift instead of large ailerons subtracting it.

Comparing a mirage III delta with that of a rafale or Typhoon is a monumental and deadly mistake.

For example the gripen wich is a delta with canard bleeds less speed in a turn despite having less T/W ratio than the F-16.

And the Eurofighter will outmanuever anything in the sky that doesnt have thrust vectoring, even then that is debatable because its canards placement were meant to make TVC not needed.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2007, 20:06
by Ali_Griffin
Now, I don't know how well they would do against each other. I am a JAS-39C pilot in the Swedish Air Force (I recently graduated from Luftstridsskolan in Uppsala, I am one of the few Muslim pilots in the Swedish Air Force), and the Gripen is an extremely maneuverable fighter. I haven't had the pleasure of acquainting myself with the F-16, but what my squadron leader and experienced colleagues had said, the Gripen would kick F-16 afterburners all the way from Stockholm to Albuquerque in a dogfight.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2007, 21:30
by ChrisLyme
Hello, this is my first post here. It is an interesting thread, although there is a lot of posturing and national pride involved.

I am old enough to remember when the Gripen project was started. The F-16 was the overall benchmark for the Gripen and the intention was to create a Falcon-beater that would surpass the F-16 on all specs. The rationale for this must have been that the F-16 had a very good combat record against Soviet fighters and interceptors.

Soon Saab realised that beating the Falcon on all specs would be ridiculously expensive and, ultimately, unnessesary. Rather the project adopted a good-enough philosophy and also focused on achieving small advantages in various fields such as clever EW while maintaining the tactical cornerstones of the Viggen system.

Some two decades later it has turned out that Gripen in some respects has become a F-16-beater after all, mainly by virtue of the things it does differently. To me there is no doubt that Gripen is the more long term solution which provides a cheap, reliable and very effective air force which can give the heffa planes a run for their money.

The difficulty in comparing the planes on paper is of course that the Gripen is designed to outwit the opposition rather than outgun them. That's why it's performing so well when training against other allied planes.

In the end, any nation which could fill the skies with fast, agile, reliable, hard-to-spot, clever Gripens would have very little to worry about.

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2007, 10:19
by KeyTronic
From what I´ve heard and read the Gripen surpasses the F-16 in every field except that the latter has one extra hardpoint and a stronger engine. The F-16´s longer ferryrange is mainly due to larger droptanks.

Sorry for not reading every post in this 11 pages thread.

What would be interesting to know is which fighter wins from 0-10000m alt in seconds? Clean config and from 0 km/h from the runway.

Performance for the JA37 Viggen should have been: Time to 32,810 feet (10,000 m) 1.4 minutes (at max afterburner)
From http://www.temporal.com.au/Viggen_Final.Pdf

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2007, 09:54
by toan
Eurofighter Typhoon

* Clean configuration, from brake-off to 40,000 fts: 60 to 70 seconds.

* QRA configuration (six to eight AAMs + two 1,000L tanks), from brake-off to 40,000 fts: 90 seconds.


Rafale M F1

* QRA configuration (four AAMs + one 1,250L tanks), from brake-off to 40,000 fts: in 2 mins.


F-16C Block50

* Clean configuration, from brake-off to 40,000 fts: around 2 mins.


JAS-39C Gripen

* Clean (?) configuration, from brake-off to 31,800 fts: 1 min 40 secs.

* Clean (?) configuration, from brake-off to 45,900 fts: 3 mins.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2007, 17:28
by KeyTronic
What is your source on this?

It´s interesting, because I´ve never heard anyone boast about Gripens climbperformance to 10000m, but they boast about almost everything else.

With the JA37 Viggen it was often used as an argument that it could go from brakeoff to 10000m in less than 90 seconds, and I´ve always wondered if the Gripen beats or equals its predecessor in this field?

On the other hand I haven´t heard anything about this performance from the other planemanufacturers either. Maybe it was a typical coldwar profile for Sweden? Then again, its still important numbers since every airforce work in the interceptrole.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2007, 08:31
by toan

Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2008, 00:36
by DrT
Gripen will kick a$$, upgrades include new engine GE-F414 with 98-110kN. Weightgain total ca 300kg, gives thrust/weight ratio ca 1.14-1.23, thats superb! Combine that with new state of the art AESA radar, METEOR BWR (much better than AMRAAM), and short range air to air IRIS-T (much better than Sidewinders). Data -link superiro to any other, good avionics. Small plane with small radarprofile. Increased payload. This is a tasty little piece of a$$. Look out all Typhoon/Rafale/F-22 Raptor. David is about to give Goliat i serious upprecut... Peace. We will all together defeat the real threat, i.e militant islam. Peace brothers, Dr T

RE: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2008, 16:57
by Pilotasso
Yeah I agree. The F-16 is my fav aircraft but the gripen is a very nice piece of kit. Even more with the upgrades. I would love falcons in my country to be replaced by these one day.

RE: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2008, 12:42
by viper1234
Replace a Viper with an aircraft designed in 1981? I think the Gripen is a fantastic aircraft, but an Air Force already flying F-16's would be making a colossal mistake by "upgrading" to the Gripen. If a country isn't going to go with the F-35, you'd actually be better of going with an upgraded F-16. There are several reasons IMHO. First, the Gripen offers marginal increases in turning ability but falls short in several other areas (total payload, payload diversity, range). The assertion that a better BFM machine is a better fighter is incorrect. Tactics and pilot proficiency make a much greater difference. With the purchase of an F-16, nations are provided with access to fighter training in the U.S. as well as follow on support. The Swedes are fine aviators, but I doubt they can offer the same level of operational support. Countries that already operate F-16s take advantage of a robust logistics program supporting F-16s around the globe. I doubt Gripen logistics is nearly as robust. There just aren't enough Gripens out there to justify a large parts "pool". Furthermore, you already have all a majority of the support equipment and procedures needed for advanced F-16s. This is an often overlooked, but exceedingly important aspect of the buy.

Dollar for dollar, you just can't beat the F-16 in terms of bang for the buck.

Cheers!

RE: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2008, 16:01
by Pilotasso
You are right in many ways, but consider that the year when studies beggin is NOT the year when it was put to service. After all 1986 was also the year they started thinking in the raptor right?

Now for the operational aspect of the plane, I beleive you are also right about the support, however the Grippen also needs less manpower to maintain it. We dont usualy load up the falcon to the max, in fact the typical loads we have been carrying on falcons can also be taken by the grippen. IF you look at the photos in the galery you see 4 missiles 2 tanks, and often 2 missiles and 2 AG stores. Same as a Gripen would take. For a country like mine it would make sense to buy a cheaper plane to buy and maintain that can beat the F-16 in both BVR and WVR.

BTW the MLU program looks increasingly like a mistake, We simply dont have the manpower to do it under the deadline. We would be better off buying grippens by the time we finish the MLU's. wich is estimated to complete 2015 now.

F35 is more in the class of F-18. Its heavily lobied over here but I doubt we actualy will ever have the manpower to maintain it or pay the premium for the extra fuel it drinks up. Thats not talking about their intitial aquisition price tag!

RE: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2008, 17:19
by viper1234
You're right if it turns out that Gripen's are actually cheaper to buy AND maintain... but the word on the street is that actual performance has been far less than advertised with respect to maintenance and supportability. Additionally, any claim that the Gripen is superior in BVR engagement is categorically false. People are counting their chickens before they've hatched when it comes to the Meteor and without it the Gripen enjoys no real advantage (and probably no advantage at all over any future AMRAAM development) There seems to be a lot of exaggeration with respect to many of the products and capabilities that are marketed today (I include the F-16 in this). I think many opinions are based on these exaggerations especially since so few Gripens are operated abroad. It would be nice if someone from Czech Rep could weigh in on this. Until this happens, I guess we'll all be wondering

She is one sexy machine... (although a distant second to the curvaceous lines of the Viper)

Cheers!

Re: RE: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2008, 09:01
by robban
viper1234 wrote:You're right if it turns out that Gripen's are actually cheaper to buy AND maintain... but the word on the street is that actual performance has been far less than advertised with respect to maintenance and supportability. Additionally, any claim that the Gripen is superior in BVR engagement is categorically false.


I'm guessing the word on the street is made up and spread by LM? It's amazing how far they can go to besmirch the competition. For example, in LM's world the Gripen is not NATO compatible, nor does it have IFR capability. Luckily, the countries that flies the Gripen today knew better.

Some Gripen info.

A hot engine change can be made in 45 minutes by a team of three.

10 maintenance hours per flight hour, includes all depot level maintenance.

Twice as reliable as its competitors.

Twice as easy to repair.

Enough ground equipment to support four Gripens can be carried by a single C-130 Hercules.

The Gripen can be refuled and rearmed in less than 10 minutes.

An airborn time of 60 seconds is possible when on high alert with the APU running, all systems fully avaliable 10 seconds after take off. The F-16 needs 3-4 minutes, and its INS and radar will not be fully avaliable.

Gripen mean time between failures(MTBF) is proven to be 7.6 hours. USAF best MTBF is 4.1 hours.

The Gripen costs less than 2000$ per flight hour.

Airframe life is 8000 hours.

On a CAP 385km from base, a Gripen can stay on station for two hours carrying 2X AMRAAM, 2X AIM-9 and 2X droptanks.

When carrying 3X 1000lbs GBU-16 on a LO-LO-LO strike profile, the Gripen has a mission radius of 648km. With 2X GBU-16's and extra fuel tanks radius increases to 833km.

Ferry range is 3500km according to Col Jan Jonsson of the Swedish Air Warfare Center.

The Gripen can accelerate from M 0,5 to M 1,1 in 30 seconds.

The Gripen can sustain M 1,1 using dry thrust, while carrying a droptank and AAM's.

The Gripen can operate from 800m long and 9m wide roadstrips. Take off and landing distances can be down to 400-350 meters

Image

And a few words from the Hungarians, how they experienced the exercise Spring Flag in Italy 2007.

"The Gripens flew as part of the hostile ‘Red Force’, largely conducting beyond visual range air battles with the ‘Blue Force’. Colonel Kilian recalls, “We flew 24 sorties over the two-week exercise, and we launched every day with our two planned Gripen Ds. We were the only participants to have a 100% operational record with the scheduled aircraft.”

“In Hungary we just don’t have large numbers of aircraft to train with, but in Spring Flag we faced COMAO (combined air operations) packages of 20, 25 or 30 aircraft. The training value for us was to work with that many aircraft on our radar – and even with our limited experience we could see that the Gripen radar is fantastic. We would see the others at long ranges, we could discriminate all the individual aircraft even in tight formations and using extended modes. The jamming had almost no effect on us – and that surprised a lot of people.”

“Other aircraft couldn’t see us – not on radar, not visually – and we had no jammers of our own with us. We got one Fox 2 kill on a F-16 who turned in between our two jets but never saw the second guy and it was a perfect shot.”

“Our weapons and tactics were limited by Red Force rules, and in an exercise like this the Red Force is always supposed to die, but even without our AMRAAMs and data links we got eight or 10 kills, including a Typhoon. Often we had no AWACS or radar support of any kind, just our regular onboard sensors – but flying like that, ‘free hunting’, we got three kills in one afternoon. It was a pretty good experience for our first time out.”

RE: Re: RE: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2008, 13:52
by Pilotasso
Very interesting robban. Makes me wonder why were sticking to MLU upgrades that are going to be as late as 2015.

RE: Re: RE: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2008, 17:27
by viper1234
A few minor points-

"Word on the street" did not originate from LM, but rather individuals who had received information directly from Gripen pilots... of course that still makes it heresay and I qualified it as such.

"Twice as reliable" and "Twice as easy to repair"

This must come from all those maintainers who have worked both aircraft. Again, exaggerations abound in fighter marketing... you don't believe EVERYTHING SAAB says do you?

"Gripen mean time between failures(MTBF) is proven to be 7.6 hours. USAF best MTBF is 4.1 hours"

Interesting data. I've personally witness an F-16 squadron fly an 8 turn 8 for two weeks without a single code 3 write up. I'd say your MTBF numbers are dubious at best.

Additionally, your operational accounts are complete unremarkable. Two aircraft were able to get only 8-10 kills in two weeks of flying vs. packages of 20+??? Assuming standard regen rules, I'd be embarassed. That's certainly nothing to write home about and does NOTHING to support your claim of the Gripen's superior capability.

I think the Gripen is a fine aircraft... I just think everyone needs to do a serious reality check when reading claims for ALL fighter products out there (F-16 included)

Cheers

Re: RE: Re: RE: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2008, 22:05
by robban
viper1234 wrote:A few minor points-

"Word on the street" did not originate from LM, but rather individuals who had received information directly from Gripen pilots... of course that still makes it heresay and I qualified it as such.


Well, most of them flew the Viggen prior to flying the Gripen. The Viggen was a more reliable aircraft according to the people I've spoken to, but it's only natural as the Viggen was less advanced and a much more mature aircraft that relied less on computers. The A and B version Gripen are also more reliable compared to the C and D version. Give it some time and they will mature as well. Still they have proven to have a superior operational record when compared to any of the other aircraft systems during exercises, 98-100% being the norm. During Red Flag Alaska the Gripens would have had a 100% operational record had it not been for a faulty Litening pod.

This must come from all those maintainers who have worked both aircraft. Again, exaggerations abound in fighter marketing... you don't believe EVERYTHING SAAB says do you?


Certainly not. But I'd rather listen to what SAAB has to say than LM.

"Gripen mean time between failures(MTBF) is proven to be 7.6 hours. USAF best MTBF is 4.1 hours"

Interesting data. I've personally witness an F-16 squadron fly an 8 turn 8 for two weeks without a single code 3 write up. I'd say your MTBF numbers are dubious at best.


For two weeks huh? What was their average MTBF after 20000 operative hours?

Additionally, your operational accounts are complete unremarkable. Two aircraft were able to get only 8-10 kills in two weeks of flying vs. packages of 20+??? Assuming standard regen rules, I'd be embarassed. That's certainly nothing to write home about and does NOTHING to support your claim of the Gripen's superior capability.


Well, this was their first international exercise, and they have just started flying the Gripen. Perhaps it doesn't prove much. Fun read though.

I think the Gripen is a fine aircraft... I just think everyone needs to do a serious reality check when reading claims for ALL fighter products out there (F-16 included)


You're absolutely right. As I'm not a Gripen pilot myself (although I have good contacts), I can not guarantee my information to be correct. But as everyone I have spoken pretty much tells the same story, the Gripen has proven to be completely superior in BVR and WVR fights against F-15's, F-16's and F-18's. What's interesting is that the pilots claim the Mirage 2000 to be tougher to beat in WVR than any of the teen's. 8)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2008, 01:17
by viper1234
"Certainly not. But I'd rather listen to what SAAB has to say than LM."

Unfounded bias. Have you worked with both companies? Do you have any expertise in this field other than being a fan of fighter aviation? More countries have chosen to work with LM than Saab over the past 10-15 years. Do you really think politics counts for the ENTIRE difference in success. Maybe their decision makers are equipped with more reliable information than you.

" ..two weeks huh? What was their average MTBF after 20000 operative hours?"

You cast doubt over my personal experience and then turn around and use Red Flag (a two week exercise) to fortify you point. How many sorties do you think the Gripens flew at Red Flag? I seriously doubt it was even close to an 8x8. You're right though- two weeks isn't enough time. Come to think of it, neither is 20,000. What will the MTBF of the Gripen be when they have the Gripen equivalent of over 6,000,000 hours (the current Viper total)? The point is that advertised MTBF is highly inaccurate for a low ops tempo airframe like the Gripen. Ratchet it up for 17 years of conflict and see how it does.

".. the Gripen has proven to be completely superior in BVR and WVR fights against F-15's, F-16's and F-18's. What's interesting is that the pilots claim the Mirage 2000 to be tougher to beat in WVR than any of the teen's."

I have some ocean front property I'd like to sell you. ;)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2008, 08:50
by robban
viper1234 wrote:"Certainly not. But I'd rather listen to what SAAB has to say than LM."

Unfounded bias. Have you worked with both companies? Do you have any expertise in this field other than being a fan of fighter aviation? More countries have chosen to work with LM than Saab over the past 10-15 years. Do you really think politics counts for the ENTIRE difference in success. Maybe their decision makers are equipped with more reliable information than you.


Not really. Just two companies from different countries that differs from each other, alot. A debate for another forum, and a debate I wouldn't want to participate in.

You cast doubt over my personal experience and then turn around and use Red Flag (a two week exercise) to fortify you point. How many sorties do you think the Gripens flew at Red Flag? I seriously doubt it was even close to an 8x8. You're right though- two weeks isn't enough time. Come to think of it, neither is 20,000. What will the MTBF of the Gripen be when they have the Gripen equivalent of over 6,000,000 hours (the current Viper total)? The point is that advertised MTBF is highly inaccurate for a low ops tempo airframe like the Gripen. Ratchet it up for 17 years of conflict and see how it does.


Your personal experience? You're just a guy on the internet like me. You do seem to think that I'm full of sh-t though, and that's ok. This is the internet after all. And this site is a place for F-16 worship. :notworthy: :wink: However, during Red Flag Alaska the seven Gripens that participated logged 346 hours during 225 missions, with 99% avaliability. Gripen's will never fly 6,000,000 hours, as there will never be built in as many numbers as the F-16. Current total is some 200 airframes and 100,000 flight hours. Average MTBF for this is 7.6 hours. What's the average MTBF for the F-16?

I have some ocean front property I'd like to sell you. ;)


I realise it might be uncomfortable to read such information. But I'm sure you can find and ask some US, Norwegian, or Danish F-16 pilot who's been up against a Gripen. My information comes from pilot's who has fought the F-16(as well as F-15 and F-18 ). Sure, perhaps they have been bull sh-tting me, but that would be some well rehearsed bull sh-t, as they all(from different wings) describe the same outcome.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2008, 12:02
by viper1234
From http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... ard-02401/

Nov 16/06: Saab's release discusses the Gripen's performance at Red Flag Alaska. During the 11-day exercise, the 4 aircraft each flew 2 sorties per day, accumulating 340 flight hours (150 'on mission') with a staff of 12 pilots and 35 maintenance technicians.

You almost got the hours right. 4 aircraft x 2 sorties per aircraft per day = 8 sorties per day. That means 88 sorties in 11 days. Day one flying is an orientation/airspace fam flight so that means there most likely only 80 total sorties during actual Red Flag missions. Either way, hours divided by sorties gives an ASD of just less than 2.0 (which is actually pretty good- it would be interesting to know if they tanked pre-mission). The rest of the hours probably stem from the flights to and from Alaska (a really long haul)

I'm curious where the MTBF came from. Can you provide a source OTHER than Saab Gripen promos? I wouldn't be surprised if the Gripen does have a slightly better MTBF.. it is a newer design after all. I wonder what it will be in 10 years though. How would it compare to new Block 50's that doesn't have its MTBF diluted by aging airframes? Points to ponder I think.

200 Airframes accumulated 100,000 hours. My question is how many years did that take? That's only 500 hours per plane. Sounds like an extremely low ops tempo to me.

Again, I don't doubt that the Gripen is a fine aircraft. Categorically superior? I doubt it. You just can trust the advertised numbers. They always seem to have a "downhill and wind at your back, both ways" quality.

Cheers

Re: RE: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2008, 14:28
by Atle
viper1234 wrote:You're right if it turns out that Gripen's are actually cheaper to buy AND maintain... but the word on the street is that actual performance has been far less than advertised with respect to maintenance and supportability. Additionally, any claim that the Gripen is superior in BVR engagement is categorically false. People are counting their chickens before they've hatched when it comes to the Meteor and without it the Gripen enjoys no real advantage (and probably no advantage at all over any future AMRAAM development) There seems to be a lot of exaggeration with respect to many of the products and capabilities that are marketed today (I include the F-16 in this). I think many opinions are based on these exaggerations especially since so few Gripens are operated abroad. It would be nice if someone from Czech Rep could weigh in on this. Until this happens, I guess we'll all be wondering

She is one sexy machine... (although a distant second to the curvaceous lines of the Viper)

Cheers!


Offisersbladet which is a publication for Norwegian military officers had a couple of articles on Gripen in Czechia and Hungary. This is what the Czechs had to say:

En av
tingene som har imponert Oblt Mikulenka
under treningen, er den høye graden av
serviceability Gripen viser.
– Det viktigste er ikke hvor mange fly
du har på rampen på begynnelsen av
dagen, men hvor mange som fortsatt k
fly når dagen er over. Min gruppe start
med 10 fly om morgenen, og avslutter
med 10 hver gang. Serviceability var e
nøkkelfaktor for oss når vi skulle velge
jagerfly, forteller Mikulenka.


http://bfo.no/images/uploads/dokumenter ... t_3_06.pdf

A rough translation:
"One of the things that impressed over lieutenant Mikulenka most was the high degree of servicability Gripen can show.
-The most important is not how many planes you have on the ramp at the beginning of the day, but how many that still can fly when the day is over. My group started with 10 planes in the morning, and finish with 10 every time. Servicability was a key factor for us when we should choose fighter planes, says Mikulenka."

RE: Re: RE: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2008, 03:43
by toan
The main problems for Gripen's future upgrading is: Sweden's armed forces are mulling extensive cutbacks as a deepening economic crisis looms in 2008.

http://www.thelocal.se/9635/20080112/

The cost of running the Armed Forces is expected to exceed the military budget by between 1 and 1.5 billion kronor, Svenska Dagbladet reports.

Lietenant General Jan Salestrand confirmed that the military was experiencing considerable financial problems.

"I want to underline the fact that we are sticking to our allocation and looking after our finances - but this also means that we have to put measures in place to reduce our ambitions and operations," he told Svenska Dagbladet.

The military is weighing up drastic action in its bid to balance the books, with new directives scheduled to be sent out to its various units next week.

Measures under consideration include: terminating the contracts of soldiers in the Nordic Battlegroup in August; grounding 40 percent of fighter plane pilots; mothballing half of all JAS Gripen planes; reducing the size of military units; introducing shorter training periods for new recruits.

"We underestimated the costs of developing the Armed Forces into a mission-based force," said Jan Salestrand in a statement.

Re: RE: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2008, 19:12
by nic_tester
Atle wrote:A rough translation:
"One of the things that impressed over lieutenant Mikulenka most was the high degree of servicability Gripen can show.
-The most important is not how many planes you have on the ramp at the beginning of the day, but how many that still can fly when the day is over. My group started with 10 planes in the morning, and finish with 10 every time. Servicability was a key factor for us when we should choose fighter planes, says Mikulenka."


Well, gotta remember that the Czech's perspective might be somewhat warped by operating older russian designs prior to the gripen.

Re: RE: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2008, 20:49
by Atle
nic_tester wrote:
Well, gotta remember that the Czech's perspective might be somewhat warped by operating older russian designs prior to the gripen.


Yes, that's correct, but Poland had the exact same background when they purchased their F-16's. It would be interesting to hear what their experiance is regarding servicability. What I've heard is that it didn't start so good at the deliveries.

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2008, 11:32
by dukey172
the saab came to eielson for red flag one summer and the pilots said they could out turn the saab everytime. i don't know if thats the pilots talking or if it was true

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2008, 13:23
by Apan76
dukey172 wrote:the saab came to eielson for red flag one summer and the pilots said they could out turn the saab everytime. i don't know if thats the pilots talking or if it was true


the Gripenpilots said the same about the F-16s: that Gripen could outturn the F-16 every time...

C of G factors really matters...

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2008, 11:47
by stryker
A quite amusing and interesting reading on this discussion, thank you all...

One significant factor that, as far as I can tell, is missing in your comments, is the “by design” unusual balance (center of gravity) that SAAB engineered into it's Gripen (Griffin or "Gryphon").

To my knowledge it's the first and perhaps only modern jet fighter that is built to be unstable in flight - she is very rear heavy...

They (SAAB) once illustrated this with a funny comical little drawing of a three wheeler bike, the pilot was sitting over the front wheel, facing backwards with the two rear wheels in front of him and going 500 m/h in that (backwards) direction...

Anyone who has playing with radio controlled aircraft's (it hurts and cost less) and ignored or forgot to balance at the correct CG-point can verify what this means in terms of control issues that typically leads to a very sudden death after an uncontrolled and very short flight mostly resembling a crazy wild horse or riding a smoking crazy bull...

So SAAB managed to solve this "dilemma" through developing of its computer controlled canard wing (this was before the time of thrust vectoring I must assume)

Well, just a little piece of information that I thought you guys might be interested in...

So no wonder the Gripen would -"kick F-16 afterburners all the way from Stockholm to Albuquerque in a dogfight.” (kind of fun comment huhh...)

Not to bad for an aircraft from a country with a population of only 9 million people, and if I understand this correctly - it's a very cost effective and “cheap” airplane as well...

Simply a personal reflection - for whatever it might be worth...

Thanks

Stryker_Viking
.........:whistle:

RE: C of G factors really matters...

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2008, 09:57
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Um, actually the F-16 was the first aircraft designed with relaxed stability and the F-22 is extreamely unstable, so the SAABs lack of neutral stability is nothing new or unique. And a Viper can still beat a Grippen in a dogfight, jsut like a Grippen can beat a Viper in a dogfight, anything can beat anything.

Re: RE: C of G factors really matters...

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2008, 10:40
by Ozzy_Blizzard
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Um, actually the F-16 was the first aircraft designed with relaxed stability and the F-22 is extreamely unstable, so the SAABs lack of neutral stability is nothing new or unique. And a Viper can still beat a Grippen in a dogfight, jsut like a Grippen can beat a Viper in a dogfight, anything can beat anything.


In a HOBS heater environment who cares wether who wins in a dogfight? What matters is BVR performance, not "Biggles" stuff.

Re: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2008, 14:53
by KeyTronic
DrT, could you elaborate a bit more about the weightgain? Do you mean the aircraft actually becomes lighter after the upgrades?


DrT wrote:Gripen will kick a$$, upgrades include new engine GE-F414 with 98-110kN. Weightgain total ca 300kg, gives thrust/weight ratio ca 1.14-1.23, thats superb! Combine that with new state of the art AESA radar, METEOR BWR (much better than AMRAAM), and short range air to air IRIS-T (much better than Sidewinders). Data -link superiro to any other, good avionics. Small plane with small radarprofile. Increased payload. This is a tasty little piece of a$$. Look out all Typhoon/Rafale/F-22 Raptor. David is about to give Goliat i serious upprecut... Peace. We will all together defeat the real threat, i.e militant islam. Peace brothers, Dr T

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2008, 15:01
by KeyTronic
You mean there are actually fighterpilots out there more addicted to egotripped boasting than coming as close as possible to the objective truth? :wink:


Apan76 wrote:
dukey172 wrote:the saab came to eielson for red flag one summer and the pilots said they could out turn the saab everytime. i don't know if thats the pilots talking or if it was true


the Gripenpilots said the same about the F-16s: that Gripen could outturn the F-16 every time...

Re: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2008, 01:47
by Bengt
KeyTronic wrote:DrT, could you elaborate a bit more about the weightgain? Do you mean the aircraft actually becomes lighter after the upgrades?

I think he is referring to this presentation: http://www.ntva.no/seminarer/manus/eddy-270207.pdf

On page 62 it states that Gripen E/F will have an empty weight of 7100kg, compared to C/D at 6800kg. My T/W napkin-calculation:
C/D: 8200kp / (6800 + ~2400kg) = 0.89
E/F: 10000kp / (7100 + ~3350kg) = 0.96

Enough to offset the added drag from the new MLG fairings, and give some added performance.

/Bengt

RE: Re: Gripen upgrade 2008-

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2008, 05:38
by geogen
Dr. T, yes, the upgraded Gripen 2010, will finally be the light fighter it was meant to be! And all can finally respect the capabilities. Heck, even India might go for it?!? I wouldn't judge against. But your final statement raises flags, I'm sorry. The advanced Gripen, Rafale, Raptor, EF, etc, are not some conjoined tool to combat one 'true' pre-meditated adversary, as you note. That is a militarily flawed suggestion, from the very intention, I'm sorry.

Advanced Gripen though, will truly be a modern deterrent to any threatening aggressor/bully, for whomever will eventually procure and deploy it.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2008, 21:21
by mariosti
wiki wrote:Gripen NG

A two-seat "New Technology Demonstrator" has been built, and was presented on 23 April 2008. It has increased fuel capacity, more powerful powerplant, higher payload, upgraded avionics and other improvements. The new aircraft is also referred to as the "Gripen Demo".

The new Gripen NG (Next Generation) will have many new parts and will be powered by the GE/Volvo Aero F414G, a development of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's engine. The engine will have 20% more thrust at 98 kN (22,000 lb), enabling a supercruise speed of Mach 1.1 with air-to-air missiles.

Compared to the Gripen D, the Gripen NG's max takeoff weight has increased from 14,000 to 16,000 kg (30,900-35,300 lb) with an increase in empty weight of 200 kg (440 lb). Due to relocated main landing gear, the internal fuel capacity has increased by 40%, which will increase ferry range to 4,070 km (2,200 nmi). The new undercarriage configuration also allows for the addition of two heavy stores pylons to the fuselage. Its PS-05/A sensor adds a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) antenna for flight testing beginning in mid-2009.
Gripen Demo's maiden flight was conducted on 27 May 2008. The test flight took about 30 minutes and reached a maximum altitude of about 6,400 meters.


F16 is a very good plane, but how long can you modernize...
btw. the new polish f16's block 52+ already broke down multiple times, and they were only 1,5 year in use...

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2008, 21:36
by mariosti
mariosti wrote:
wiki wrote:Gripen NG

A two-seat "New Technology Demonstrator" has been built, and was presented on 23 April 2008. It has increased fuel capacity, more powerful powerplant, higher payload, upgraded avionics and other improvements. The new aircraft is also referred to as the "Gripen Demo".

The new Gripen NG (Next Generation) will have many new parts and will be powered by the GE/Volvo Aero F414G, a development of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet's engine. The engine will have 20% more thrust at 98 kN (22,000 lb), enabling a supercruise speed of Mach 1.1 with air-to-air missiles.

Compared to the Gripen D, the Gripen NG's max takeoff weight has increased from 14,000 to 16,000 kg (30,900-35,300 lb) with an increase in empty weight of 200 kg (440 lb). Due to relocated main landing gear, the internal fuel capacity has increased by 40%, which will increase ferry range to 4,070 km (2,200 nmi). The new undercarriage configuration also allows for the addition of two heavy stores pylons to the fuselage. Its PS-05/A sensor adds a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) antenna for flight testing beginning in mid-2009.
Gripen Demo's maiden flight was conducted on 27 May 2008. The test flight took about 30 minutes and reached a maximum altitude of about 6,400 meters.


F16 is a very good plane, but how long can you modernize...
btw. the new polish f16's block 52+ already broke down multiple times, and they were less than 1,5 year in use...

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2008, 13:05
by yoron
I've been reading you all and it has been a pleasure.

Except that is that I found it very strange with this guy announcing he was a Gripen pilot over the Internet.
Don't think that's proper procedure in Sweden.
seems like bad security to me.

And then I'm questioning the comparing of those aircrafts.
Don't they have different roles.
One is primary a defense construct (Gripen)
The other is for attack/defense?

If you are going to buy something for defense purposes then I think Gripen is good.
If you are a country involved in primary 'defending' yourself away from your own country ( ah, no names here :)
Then perhaps you will need a different solution.

As for which country buy which plane :)
Heck we all know that is not the plane anymore that creates the buy.
Well perhaps if the country is very very rich and steered by a en or un-lighted dictator ( The former shah :)

But otherwise money talks and BS walks.

Which mean that there will be a lot of 'secret negotiations' around any arms deal before its made, including 'under the table' talks too.
As well as export restrictions plays a major role etc etc.

I think the guy that wrote that Gripen tries to 'outwit' its competitors got it right though :)
A lot like our submarine HMS Gotland who while on loan to the USA outwitted and sunk a hangar ship in one of those war games.
They extended the lease one more year after that :)
Lucky for them that we are allies ::))

As the mosquito said to the elephant...

This is what I am talking about...

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2008, 11:14
by stryker
This is what I am talking about...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlQ54GS--Rg
http://tubearoo.com/articles/82425/Grip ... atics.html

Looks pretty sexy huhhh...
:crazypilot:

RE: This is what I am talking about...

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2008, 11:44
by Apan76
At Red Flag 08-3 seven Gripens participated, has anyone the final verdict on how they performed against the vipers?

Re: RE: This is what I am talking about...

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2008, 23:30
by stryker
Apan76 wrote:At Red Flag 08-3 seven Gripens participated, has anyone the final verdict on how they performed against the vipers?


The official Swedish military website recently had an article about Red Flag 08-3 :

(h)ttp://www2.mil.se/sv/Nyheter/Nyheter-milse/Internationella-flygovningen-Red-Flag-genomford/

Quote:
Gripen measure up
Red Flag (Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada in the United States) is considered to be the most complex aerial excercise that exist in the world.

"-- The most important result is that we have shown that we measure up in this context and in the toughest exercise there is" says head of the swedish contingent Lars Helmrich.

The Swedish contingent is back at home again, and a lot of good knowledge and experience has been drawn from their participation.

"-- All operational flight has been implemented at a very high threat level where hostile ground units and aircraft:s have interacted. In addition, we have had the opportunity to practice together with a number of different countries and aircraft types which we never have come in contact with before.
Among other things, the American bomber B 52 Stratofortress, command and air surveillance AWACS and EA-6B Prowler" says contingent commander Lars Helmrich.

During the two week exercise support for ground units with Close Air Support (CAS), and Air interdict (AI: the fight against preplanned land targets) were carried out.

During the second week two of the Swedish pilots attended a desert survival training in which they trained to survive in hostile conditions after a simulated ejection over enemy territory.

In total, the Swedish unit flew 65 sorties and dropped six laser guided bombs (GBU 12) of which two were live. Approximately 900 shots of cannon rounds were fired at ground targets and to deceive heat seeking missiles a 1000 flares were spent.

"-- The most important result is that we have shown that we measure up in this context and in the toughest exercise that exist. We've also received confirmation that we have a very good aircraft, both in terms of survivability, and mission execution during high threat levels. We now know that we have a very competent staff throughout all functions. With that, we have confirmed that Flygvapnet is ready to participate on international missions with the JAS 39 Gripen" says Lars Helmrich.

The next step is, according to Helmrich, a further development of the Gripen-units. He looks for better endurance through aerial refuelling, night vision capabilities and increased interoperability training with NATO's command functions.

"-- We have drawn valuable experiences, both positive and some areas where there is room for improvement. The main challenge in the exercise has certainly been the desert heat in Nevada, which was a new experience for us" concludes Helmrich.
End Quote.

:lol:

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2008, 21:56
by yoron
I like this plane.
I mean, sure for example the F22 Raptor is extremly cool.
And expensive too :)

But the Gripen is more like a evil little mosquito.
Tailor made for inflecting some serious mosquito bites.
It even looks like one.

Here is some film footage from Red Flag -08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZo00mYL-Kw

Did they take the way over Island to Alaska traveling.
This I think is from Red Flag 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr3WROD9 ... re=related

And here is "SAAB Gripen STOL Capabilities"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJQKCUjc ... re=related

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2009, 06:40
by skyhigh
I liked the JAS 39 Gripen, mainly due to its small size, multi-role capability and operation from road airbases.

The canard delta wing layout makes it very maneuverable in a dogfight against any capable 4th / 4.5 Gen adversary.

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2009, 09:50
by tomcat21
According to Polish military press, Swedish Gripen were beaten by Polish F-16's Block 52 Advanced during the Bold Avenger exercise in September. The result in A-A combat was 4:0 for Poles (even they were from 10 ELT, which is the last flight equipped with F-16's and have least experience - while Swedish pilots have Gripens over a decade). The engagement was BVR, the reaon for winning was: F-16's detected Gripen first, fired first.

The same result Polish pilots achieved against Finnish Hornets.

Any comments? :)

F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2009, 21:08
by koton
Well, Sweden didn't even participate in Bold Avenger 2009, so this looks like BS. I think Bold Avenger is usually NATO only.

The Czech where there but I don't think they brought any Gripens (only an An-26 transport).

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2009, 13:12
by winston
tomcat21 :nono:

No information is found that at least one Saab Gripen took part in Bold Avenger 2009.
There is no information that any Saab Gripen has ever have participated in some Bold Avenger.

Before published misleading information, check the same forum:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12950.html

Any comments?

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2009, 14:23
by smoker1
koton wrote:Well, Sweden didn't even participate in Bold Avenger 2009, so this looks like BS.

He's made mistake. I think he was referring to "Loyal Arrow 2009". This exercises took place in Sweden and involved Swedish Gripens and Finish F-18's as well as Polish F-16's.
tomcat21 wrote:The engagement was BVR, the reaon for winning was: F-16's detected Gripen first, fired first.

The same result Polish pilots achieved against Finnish Hornets.

Any comments? Smile

We don't know any details such as ROE but I think we can safely assume that APG-68(v)9 radar mounted in Polish F-16 is superior to PS-05/A Gripen's radar and F-18's APG-73 radar - at least their earlier versions.

RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2009, 11:02
by loke
Poland is flying "block 52+" I believe?

Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2009, 12:24
by Scorpion82
loke wrote:Poland is flying "block 52+" I believe?


They do, though the model is designated block 52M.

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2009, 14:04
by tomcat21
Ok, it was probably Loyal Arrow.
But no doubt that Polish F-16's kicked Swedish Gripens butts. :D

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2009, 00:12
by robban
smoker1 wrote:We don't know any details such as ROE but I think we can safely assume that APG-68(v)9 radar mounted in Polish F-16 is superior to PS-05/A Gripen's radar and F-18's APG-73 radar - at least their earlier versions.


The detection range for the APG-68(v)9 is 90~105 km for RCS 5m2 target. The PS-05 detection range against similar sized target is >120km.

Take into consideration the 0.1m2 (average) RCS of the Gripen(F-16C 1.2m2), its superior maneuverability and agility, its TIDLS, and its much superior MMI, SA, EWS39 and much more modern infrastrucure, the Polish F-16's would never know what hit them.

The Gripen is far and away the more deadly aircraft.

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2009, 17:15
by loke
robban wrote:The detection range for the APG-68(v)9 is 90~105 km for RCS 5m2 target. The PS-05 detection range against similar sized target is >120km.


Are you sure that the latest APG-68 does not have a longer detection range?

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/apg68/index.html

The AN/APG-68(V)9 offers a 33% increase in air-to-air detection range over earlier versions of the radar.

I may be wrong but I suspect the detection range you qoute is for the older APG-68, and if that's the case then a 33% increase in range would give it the roughly the same range as the PS-05.

Let's wait for the Gripen 1000-element AESA :)

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2009, 17:33
by robban
Are you sure that the latest APG-68 does not have a longer detection range?


That's the number i have. Here are the numbers for earlier versions of the APG-68.

APG-68 - 70 km
APG-68(V)7 - 80 km
APG-80 - 130 km

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2009, 18:34
by loke
robban wrote:
Are you sure that the latest APG-68 does not have a longer detection range?


That's the number i have. Here are the numbers for earlier versions of the APG-68.

APG-68 - 70 km
APG-68(V)7 - 80 km
APG-80 - 130 km

OK, sorry it seems I was wrong. The PS-05 is indeed impressive!


So most likely the reported results were down to ROE -- or perhaps the report was incorrect...?

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2009, 20:31
by exec
Hello everybody, it's my first post here.

robban wrote:The detection range for the APG-68(v)9 is 90~105 km for RCS 5m2 target. The PS-05 detection range against similar sized target is >120km.

Well, this is 'paper data' as we call it. It's like APG-77 with its 'greater than 100 mile (185km) range and Irbis-E with its 400 range (lol). But everybody knows that Irbis-E is NOT superior to APG-77 in terms of detection or tracking range.

robban wrote:Take into consideration the 0.1m2 (average) RCS of the Gripen

This is no more than a wishful thinking. :roll:
robban wrote: the Polish F-16's would never know what hit them.

In real life exercise Gripens never knew what hit them. :wink:

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2009, 21:33
by loke
exec wrote:Hello everybody, it's my first post here.

robban wrote:The detection range for the APG-68(v)9 is 90~105 km for RCS 5m2 target. The PS-05 detection range against similar sized target is >120km.

Well, this is 'paper data' as we call it. It's like APG-77 with its 'greater than 100 mile (185km) range and Irbis-E with its 400 range (lol). But everybody knows that Irbis-E is NOT superior to APG-77 in terms of detection or tracking range.

Are you claiming that the APG has a longer range than what Robban claimed, or are you claiming that the Gripen radar has a shorter range than what Robban claimed?
robban wrote:Take into consideration the 0.1m2 (average) RCS of the Gripen

This is no more than a wishful thinking. :roll:
I have actually seen that figure from a Swedish FMV document -- obviously it's a clean bird, so I don't know how relevant it is?

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2009, 22:34
by robban
exec wrote:Hello everybody, it's my first post here.


Welcome!

Well, this is 'paper data' as we call it. It's like APG-77 with its 'greater than 100 mile (185km) range and Irbis-E with its 400 range (lol). But everybody knows that Irbis-E is NOT superior to APG-77 in terms of detection or tracking range.


I'm pretty confident that the PS-05 wipes the floor with any version of the APG-68. There is nothing that suggests otherwise.

Besides the numbers you quoted are not comparable. The size of the target is important. The APG-77 can track a fighter at 230km distance and a bomber at 490km. The Irbis-E is said to be able to track a fighter at 350-400km using its long-range detection mode within a limited sector. Who's to say the APG-77 can't do this as well? Don't let every secret out in the open.

Take into consideration the 0.1m2 (average) RCS of the Gripen

This is no more than a wishful thinking. :roll:


Image

And this is for an A version. C version is even smaller, and the NG smaller yet.

In real life exercise Gripens never knew what hit them. :wink:


Now THAT's wishful thinking! :lol:

In real life exercises, Gripens have owned Hornets and Falcons from the start. It's only natural, the Gripen is a new generation fighter after all. Even with new gadgets the F-16 is still hampered by its infrastructure.

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2009, 22:43
by robban
loke wrote:

So most likely the reported results were down to ROE -- or perhaps the report was incorrect...?


tomcat21 who made the claim isn't even sure which exercise it was, or even when it took place. Was there even a report? And who wrote it? And what is its credibility? It's probably just bogus.

Otherwise the ROE must have forbidden the Gripens to use their radars and fly blind.

During Spring Flag 2007 when the Hungarians participated in their first international exercise with their Gripens they flew for the red team, meaning their job was to die. They rarely had AWACS or radar support of any kind and they weren't allowed to use AMRAAM's. Yet they made 10 kills in a day. Including a Typhoon. The Hungarian pilots commented that other aircraft couldn't see them on radar, not even visually, and they had no jammers of their own with them. They got a Fox 2 kill on an F-16 who turned in between the two Gripens but never saw the other guy and it was a perfect shot.

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 09:23
by exec
robban wrote:The Irbis-E is said to be able to track a fighter at 350-400km using its long-range detection mode within a limited sector. Who's to say the APG-77 can't do this as well?

Interesting. I didn't know that.

robban wrote:
Image


Ok, it seems that your source is better than mine. :wink:

robban wrote:
In real life exercise Gripens never knew what hit them. :wink:


Now THAT's wishful thinking! :lol:

No, that is what happend in November in Sweeden.

robban wrote:Was there even a report? And who wrote it? And what is its credibility? It's probably just bogus.

That is NOT true. This information appeard in Polish magazine Lotnictwo (Aviation). Who wrote it? Major M. Fiszer - one of the most respected military aviation expert.

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 10:38
by robban
No, that is what happend in November in Sweeden


There hasn't been any exercises in Sweden in November. Bold Avenger(were Sweden didn't participate) took place in Denmark 13-25 September 09. And Loyal Arrow was 8-18 June 09.

That is NOT true. This information appeard in Polish magazine Lotnictwo (Aviation). Who wrote it? Major M. Fiszer - one of the most respected military aviation expert.


My guess is that Major M. Fiszner simply made a mistake and said that it was Gripens when it was some other fighter type that was "killed" by their F-16's. After all there were no Gripens present in the Bold Avenger exercise.

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 11:28
by exec
robban wrote:
There hasn't been any exercises in November. Bold Avenger(were Sweden didn't participate) took place 13-25 September 09. And Loyal Arrow was 8-18 June 09.

My mistake.

robban wrote:Then I guess he left out that the ROE didn't allow the Gripens to use their radars. Most likely they flew for the red(dead) team. That's the only logical answer.

You guess! And maybe they were unarmed, and had their engines turned off?
Come on... :wink: you just think that no matter what it's impossible to beat Gripen with F-16 B52+. But I think they are comparable aircrafts, just this time Gripens got owned. :wink:

RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 12:36
by yakuza
Gripen better than B52+ :shock: :lol:
so why is it always the first kicked out in all bids?Gripen always lost,without the Erieye AEW it´s a blind jet..

as to the APG-68-9,you should read some docs :idea:

APG68 doc

you must ask yourself,why the blk50/52+ had(still has) a big succes this decade?what we can not assume for crappy gripen.

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 13:10
by robban
exec wrote:You guess! And maybe they were unarmed, and had their engines turned off?
Come on... :wink: you just think that no matter what it's impossible to beat Gripen with F-16 B52+. But I think they are comparable aircrafts, just this time Gripens got owned. :wink:


Contrary to popular belief the F-16 and Gripen are not comparable aircraft. People look at the two aircrafts and assume they are comparable. Size and range wise maybe, but their configurations and the demands on their designs are not comparable. Not to mention they are a generation apart. The Gripen was designed to take on and beat the Su-27 and future derivatives of its design. It's not a machine that needs to be complemented by a larger more capable fighter(F-15-F-16). It's not a more modern F-16 like so many people seems to think.

So no, they are not comparable. And frankly an F-16 will not be able to handle a Gripen in BVR at all, and not in WVR either for that matter.

Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 17:20
by loke
yakuza wrote:Gripen better than B52+ :shock: :lol:
so why is it always the first kicked out in all bids?Gripen always lost,without the Erieye AEW it´s a blind jet..

as to the APG-68-9,you should read some docs :idea:

APG68 doc

you must ask yourself,why the blk50/52+ had(still has) a big succes this decade?what we can not assume for crappy gripen.

I remember now; I have seen the results of the Polish evaluation. They calculated an aggregate score, looking at a long list of different criteria. The scores for Gripen and F-16 were comparable -- Given the differences between the two, that would imply that whereas in some areas F-16 is better the Gripen would be better in others. Since it seems to me that perhaps F-16 has some advantages over the Gripen in a2g (in part due to bigger payload and longer range), it could be that Gripen could enjoy some advantages in a2a, since the scores were quite comparable. But again, the differences may have been small, I don't know. One thing that seems clear though is that neither fighter was markedly superior to the other (if that was the case I would not expect the aggregate score to be similar).

Poland chose F-16 for political reasons.


Anyway, I am eagerly waiting for the Gripen NG, now that will be a very interesting little bird... Dramatic improvement over the current Gripen.

Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 19:17
by robban
loke wrote:I remember now; I have seen the results of the Polish evaluation. They calculated an aggregate score, looking at a long list of different criteria. The scores for Gripen and F-16 were comparable -- Given the differences between the two, that would imply that whereas in some areas F-16 is better the Gripen would be better in others.


Well, the selection process is a muddy subject. There was a rather complicated points award system with 45 points for best price and only 20 points for tactical and technical requirements. In the end the ratings for the participating aircraft does not tell the whole story why Poland chose the F-16. But it had very little to do with actual performance figures.

The politicians wanted the F-16 and a stronger relationship with the US, and that's basically all there was to it. But this thread is not the place to discuss this.

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 19:37
by exec
robban wrote:
exec wrote:So no, they are not comparable. And frankly an F-16 will not be able to handle a Gripen in BVR at all, and not in WVR either for that matter.

In my opinion in BVR they are comparable (similar radar capabilities, similar weapons) but here Gripen have an advantage due to lower RCS (however with weapons hanging under wings not that much lower).

WVR F-16 B52+ is superior - MUCH better TW ratio, ability to fire HOBS missiles.

As for ground attack capabilities - Gripen can't drop JDAM or fire any weapon that is programmed during flight (GPS bombs) becouse Gripen doesn't have MilStd-1760.

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 21:40
by robban
exec wrote:In my opinion in BVR they are comparable (similar radar capabilities, similar weapons) but here Gripen have an advantage due to lower RCS (however with weapons hanging under wings not that much lower).


Hanging weapons on the F-16 will affects its RCS too right?

In the end the Gripen has better radar range than the F-16 and a much smaller RCS. How are they comparable? Not to mention Gripens world leading TIDLS and sensor fusion.

WVR F-16 B52+ is superior - MUCH better TW ratio, ability to fire HOBS missiles.


Yeah the F-16 has a higher TWR, but have you ever considered drag or wing loading at all? The Gripen has much lower drag. And far lower wing loading. It can reach supersonic speeds on dry thrust while carrying a full armament of four AMRAAM's two Sidewinders and an external fuel tank. Even though the Gripen lacks the TWR of the F-16 it can nearly match it in climb rate thanks to low drag. The Gripen has positive lift on all control surfaces at all times. The F-16 needs to kill lift in order to turn by forcing the tail down. The Gripen just adds lift in front of the CG with the canards and the aircraft turns by itself. The canards then stabilize the turn rate, creating minimal drag. The IRIS-T is now being integrated for the Gripen. And with its modern infrastructure it can make much better use of it than the F-16.

The Gripens ITR is much better than the F-16's and will therefore get its weapons on the F-16 first. The Mirage 2000 for example wins 9 times out of 10 against the F-16 in WVR, and nearly always kills the F-16 during the first turn. This is thanks to its higher ITR. And the Gripen has a higher ITR than the Mirage 2000.


As for ground attack capabilities - Gripen can't drop JDAM or fire any weapon that is programmed during flight (GPS bombs) becouse Gripen doesn't have MilStd-1760.


The F-16 has more avaliable ATG weapons than the Gripen that's true. But with Gripens lower RCS and IR signature its TIDLS as well as its EWS39 it will have a better chance of actually reaching the target and get home alive.

The F-16 is a good jet but it's still a generation older than the Gripen. No matter how many new gadgets you put on it can't make full use of them as the new generation can.

Here's a good read on the Gripen aerodynamics. http://www.mach-flyg.com/utg80/80jas_uc.html

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 21:54
by wjtk
robban wrote:
exec wrote:In my opinion in BVR they are comparable (similar radar capabilities, similar weapons) but here Gripen have an advantage due to lower RCS (however with weapons hanging under wings not that much lower).


Hanging weapons on the F-16 will affects its RCS too right?

In the end the Gripen has better radar range than the F-16 and a much smaller RCS. How are they comparable? Not to mention Gripens world leading TIDLS and sensor fusion.


Sorry my friend but facts says somethnig else - info from Polish aviation magazine is trustworth and it shows something completly diffrent about detection range. Maybe just JAS-39C radar as well as it RCS are simply overrated? Theory is nice but still...its only theory.

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 22:05
by Atle
exec wrote:As for ground attack capabilities - Gripen can't drop JDAM or fire any weapon that is programmed during flight (GPS bombs) becouse Gripen doesn't have MilStd-1760.


Gripen does have MIL-STD 1760 and Edit: GBU-49 (sorry) is being integrated. Test firings has been carried out, I think a few months ago.

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 22:09
by robban
Sorry my friend but facts says somethnig else - info from Polish aviation magazine is trustworth and it shows something completly diffrent about detection range. Maybe just JAS-39C radar as well as it RCS are simply overrated? Theory is nice but still...its only theory.


Why would the Gripens RCS and radar range be overrated? Because a polish magazine says so? I just use official information on radar range and RCS. You saw the document didn't you? Please show us this article that give different ranges than the official data.

All the exercises have shown that the Gripen is very very difficult to detect on radar, and even visually. During Red Flag the Gripens didn't even need to use their EWS39. They remained undetected anyway. And that while being loaded with external fuel tanks, LGB's and a LANTIRN pod.

RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 22:19
by wjtk
Article was about Polish squadron not about F-16 vs JAS-39. Author mentioned this episode only in few words like "Pilots from 10th squadron took part in Loyal Arrow exercies 2009 where they met with Swedish JAS-39. Score was 4:0 on our pilots favour. Main reason of succes was higher detection of our planes. Similar score was achieved against Finnish F-18".
Thats it.
I want to notice that i'm not judging about completly F-16 superiority. I just want to show that air fight is much more complicated thing than tables, numbers, theory etc. This time Poles were lucky - other day lucky were JAS-39 pilots. Many depends from pilots, tactics etc.

Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2009, 23:10
by robban
wjtk wrote:Main reason of succes was higher detection of our planes. Similar score was achieved against Finnish F-18".
Thats it..


Sure, air combat is never black and white. There are many variables. But I still find it strange that the Gripens were unaware of the F-16's presence, if they were to use their TIDLS, EWS39 and PS-05. They should have been given ample warning if this was the case. The report was very vague, but I'm guessing(again) that the ROE played a part here. Perhaps a similar scenario as the Hungarians in Spring Flag. They were the Red force with no BVR missiles, support or radars.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2009, 22:37
by loke
Czech pilot "Woody" writes about a normal day during Nato Tiger Meet.

Such as how he successfully finds a target in a jammed environment and later when a Swiss F-18 is knocked down by one of his AMRAAM's...


Thanks to Signatory at mp.net.

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.211squadron.cz%2Fletka%2Fntm09.html&sl=auto&tl=en

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2010, 15:02
by shep1978
Well this thread was a good way to pass an hour or so!
Some interesting comments and facts banded about but I still am of the opinion that in terms of energy, weapons, radar and general A-A ability the F-16 still comes out on top. Gripen seems to have some nice gimmicks such as the much vaunted road take offs but i do wonder just how badly the sortie rate would suffer and just how easy it would be to keep these road bases from being attacked when considering how advanced A-G radars are these days. In other words i don't think any road base would go unnoticed for long.
The whole "world leading TIDLS" that the Gripen has seems to be based more on marketing and one does wonder why no-one else is clamouring to buy it. Must say on the maintenence front it appears good, but as others have pointed out the aircraft are still very fresh so how it will look 10 years down the road is anyones guess.
Also it seems Gripen takes a leaf out of European designed fighters in that to perform as advertised it needs a good 10 to 15 years from its entry into service to be upgraded with AESA's, CFT's, TVC etc etc not to mention the Mythical Meteor missile which i notice has once more been touted as the game changer. A game changer which may well still be 7 to 12 years away! Good luck if you get attacked in the meantime!

All in all its a nice jet but it seems vastly overhyped by the same Swedish nationalists who manage to get around many different forums all declaring it a world beater (in the face of evidence to the contary as we have seen here in this thread) I personally wouldn't mind betting many of its proponents are employee's of SAAB...

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2010, 00:17
by muir
Well, I may be swedish but I have no affiliation with SAAB whatsoever. I did serve in the swedish air force as a conscript though. I was one of the first conscripts who recieved any education on the Gripen even if I worked mostly with it´s predecessor. Now, that don´t in any way make me an expert on any ac, I did however get a decent insight in how the Swedish air force was supposed to function in time of war.

What many fail to realize is that even if the F-16 and the Gripen looks quite similar in many aspects on paper they where, in the beginning, two very different beasts. The F-16 was, as most of you know conceived, as the light weight fighter, a more or less dedicated dogfighter, later on it evolved into what is probably the most successful multi-role fighter the world has ever seen but that was very much not the case when Swedens new fighter programme was initiated back in the early eighties.

Sweden was and still remain a neutral, non-aligned country. It was a very real possibility that we´d have to fight the russians alone and could never hope to achieve even air-parity. We´d have to fight a defensive war and try to survive for as long as we could, part of that was to make sure they wouldn´t be able to wipe out our entire air force in the first days. Therefore it was decided to build very different air bases. Had we built american or for that matter russian style airbases they would, in all probability, be taken out day one leaving us with effectively no airforce. Instead it was decided to spread them out. A swedish air base could have as many as ten "runways" and literally hundreds of "parkingspots" for aircraft. Mobile "troop's" with all the equipment needed to turn around an aircraft were trained and equipped. Everything to make sure that we could at least pose some threat in the air for as long as possible. Very little of this would have been possible with any non-swedish aircraft at that time, except the Harrier I suppose. Remember, back in those days precision guided munitions where still unheard of, doubt if the russians have large stocks of them even today. The war in Georgia suggests they don´t.

As for the turnaround-times. I don´t know about the Gripen but on the Viggen 10 minutes were common for A-A missions, 15 for strike, and 20 was unheard of. Suppose the Gripen would take a bit more time with the two extra pylons. This was in the field and with a group of conscripts with a regular serviceman as supervisor. More extensive overhaul where done by regulars but almost all of it could be done in the field.

As for the maintenance and the weapons, it was in the requirement that it should be cheaper than it's predecessor to operate and maintain. How well they did on those points and compared to the Viper I suppose is anyone's guess. Fifteen years ago all swedish fighters could carry sidewinders and amraams. I only remember the Swedish designation so I don´t know which version of said missiles we had but it still suggests the Gripen today would be well suited to carry the latest versions too even if there is a need to upgrade the software. Don´t even know if there is a derivative of the sidewinder around though?

In short, the Gripen do what it was supposed to. Unfortunately for it, the world turned and it found itself between a rock (viper) and a hard place (F-35) on a market where it was probably never meant to be. It is a versatile fighter that could cause problems for any opponent it´s likely to face. The most amazing thing is probably the fact that it was built by a country roughly the same size as California and with a population of 9 million.

Regards

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2010, 09:45
by loke
shep1978 wrote:Well this thread was a good way to pass an hour or so!
Some interesting comments and facts banded about but I still am of the opinion that in terms of energy, weapons, radar and general A-A ability the F-16 still comes out on top. Gripen seems to have some nice gimmicks such as the much vaunted road take offs but i do wonder just how badly the sortie rate would suffer and just how easy it would be to keep these road bases from being attacked when considering how advanced A-G radars are these days. In other words i don't think any road base would go unnoticed for long.
The whole "world leading TIDLS" that the Gripen has seems to be based more on marketing and one does wonder why no-one else is clamouring to buy it. Must say on the maintenence front it appears good, but as others have pointed out the aircraft are still very fresh so how it will look 10 years down the road is anyones guess.
Also it seems Gripen takes a leaf out of European designed fighters in that to perform as advertised it needs a good 10 to 15 years from its entry into service to be upgraded with AESA's, CFT's, TVC etc etc not to mention the Mythical Meteor missile which i notice has once more been touted as the game changer. A game changer which may well still be 7 to 12 years away! Good luck if you get attacked in the meantime!

All in all its a nice jet but it seems vastly overhyped by the same Swedish nationalists who manage to get around many different forums all declaring it a world beater (in the face of evidence to the contary as we have seen here in this thread) I personally wouldn't mind betting many of its proponents are employee's of SAAB...

F-16 has been a "world beater" for many years. In some areas F-16 is "more capable" than Gripen; in other areas Gripen has some advantages (like lower RCS, lower IR signature). It's also a question which F-16 you are talking about. Seems to me current Gripen is comparing well in a2a with the current F-16 block 50-52, whereas block 60 would be a step ahead of Gripen C/D; Gripen NG being developed would add many of the "goodies" that you mention that would bring Gripen up to speed.

Gripen has the same a2a weapons as F-16, so I don't see the big difference there? "Energy" is less important than it used to be; it's more about situational awareness. MMI of Gripen seems more modern and better than most F-16 variants (although I don't know much about the block 60 MMI).

And to the extent it is important, difference between F-16 is not that big; RM12 is weaker than F-16 engines however the a/c is also much lighter.

I agree Gripen is not on the level of Typhoon and Rafale or SH, however it is always possible to underestimate, and it seems that's what you are doing.

Gripen NG was the preferred plane of Brazilian Air Force, ahead of both SH and Rafale. So it met all technical requirements, and was cheaper. It may lose, because of politics.

Had it been so weak don't you think the Brazilian airforce would have but it a bit lower on the list, perhaps behind SH? They did not.

And do you really think the Saab employees pose as "Gripen fanboys" on the internet? The Saab employees I am aware of that participate on forums certainly never showed any "fanboyism".

Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2010, 13:16
by yor_on
wjtk wrote:Article was about Polish squadron not about F-16 vs JAS-39. Author mentioned this episode only in few words like "Pilots from 10th squadron took part in Loyal Arrow exercies 2009 where they met with Swedish JAS-39. Score was 4:0 on our pilots favour. Main reason of succes was higher detection of our planes. Similar score was achieved against Finnish F-18".
Thats it.
I want to notice that i'm not judging about completly F-16 superiority. I just want to show that air fight is much more complicated thing than tables, numbers, theory etc. This time Poles were lucky - other day lucky were JAS-39 pilots. Many depends from pilots, tactics etc.


That's news too me:)

The Swedish radar is superior my friend, even when we considered buying American instead of building a new fighter we knew we were going to keep the Swedish radar concept. F-16 radar better, built on what? Aviation weekly? And you can't even source it for us??

Not impressive..

---
Views from South Africa..

"Gripen is pretty much as agile it can get. G onset rate at least 6 G/s (1-9 G in 1.2 s), the Gripen platform is designed with tactics in mind. Gripen fight not only with missiles and bullets but with information, superior situation awareness is the key in modern warfare..

Gripens flight computer is outstanding, and can make some worldclass calculations. Gripens Fedec are highly impressive, it even has a backup mechanical calculation system. something only a handful of companies can manage. The air craft also incorporate a very low radar profile making it hard to find. And it has a superior data link. And in real tests against other aircrafts the radar has been found very hard to jam by other systems, meaning that it will work in practice, not only in theory. And those country's using it have found it working in all weathers.

The radar is capable of detecting, locating, identifying and automatically tracking multiple targets in the upper and lower spheres, on the ground and sea or in the air, in all weather conditions. It can guide four air to air missiles (AMRAAM, MBDA Meteor) simultaneously at four different targets. "

The Czech Air Force had this to say after testing the first generation Gripen 2005.

"Sweden required hard discretion related to ALL Gripen abilities information, but rumors say Gripen pilots used to call fox 3 (AMRAAM engagement) farther away than viper guys. When reporters asked guys from AFB Caslav to compare our new birds with another, they answered our fighters (model C block2) are the best HW currently available on the word market."

And also

"Since 1 May we have flown over 570 missions in total [figures as of mid-October] and since 1 July when were went operational on the QRA mission we have flown over 300 missions. We are very busy and we’re flying every day. Every aircraft flies at least twice, each day. We have eight pilots at the moment and sometimes we have all eight flying – and it’s not unusual to have all 12 aircraft operational and available on the line. We have never lost a single operational mission due to a technical snag with the aircraft and every single QRA mission has gone ahead as planned."
---

Ericsson’s future airborne radar is Not Only a Radar, NORA (for the NG), but also a complete electronic warfare system including jamming and data communication. The new radar will use an Active Electronically Scanned Array, AESA, built up with approximately 1000 individual transmit/receive modules. The antenna, mounted on a single-axis platform, will give well over 200? coverage in azimuth. NORA will offer superior performance by virtue of a number of core capabilities at Ericsson – beam agility, beam widening, multi-channel processing, target-specific waveforms and low radar cross-section.....

It's planned to scan +-60 deg electronically and 60 deg mechanically in azimut, permitting scanning over a 240 deg arc and electronically +-60 deg up and downwards. ...

Fully programmable signal and data processors enable the radar to handle these air defence, attack and reconnaissance missions. This also gives the radar a very high growth potential to meet future requirements. The radars flexible waveforms make it possible to avoid ambiguities and allow performance characteristics to be optimized for all operating modes. The radar also matches the data link requirements for advanced medium range missiles...Ericsson has started development work for upgrading the PS05/A multimode radar. Some of the up-grades have been possible to incorporate, since new, faster and more powerful processors and components have become available on the market. An essential part of these upgrades is a new data processor who will replace the D80 processor in the Systems Computer in Swedish Air Force Gripens. It is a Modular Airborne Computer System (MACS) with higher capacity. A significant upgrade of the signal processor is also included which will dramatically enhance functions in both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions....

Ericsson AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) is a new airborne radar project currently in development at Ericsson Microwave Systems. The AESA technology will improve the radars overall performance drastically, especially its target detection and tracking capability. Beam direction can be changed instantaneously, detection range will be considerably increased, and jamming suppression further improved. The AESA radar will feature multibeam capability with all beams individually and simultaneously controlled. It can also operate simultaneously as a fire control and obstacle warning radar, and be used both in intercept and ground attack missions. The multibeam concept also allows for radar operation, data linking, radar warning and jamming simultaneously. As a consequence of the very large number of transmitter and receiver modules, the radar will have a high system availability through graceful degradation...."

----------End Quotes-------------------

That some Nato countries won't buy little Sweden's Gripen has very little to do with its capabilities. Much more to do with logistics, and who needs to 'take care' of who, and 'don't sh* on your doorstep' :)

At the same time I don't think those that use it are that disappointed. When you want to make a 'kill' it's your radar and your weapon equipment that will count, combined with 'invisibility'. Gripen has those three plus an ability alike the Russian to assemble new parts very quickly, and sturdiness allowing it to land at small roads, hide and come up extremely quickly..


The Gripen can operate from 800m long and 9m wide road-strips. Take off and landing distances can be down to 400-350 meters.

-----------Quote------------------------

Radar (JAS-39): 20% longer than RDY (M2000-5), and 40% longer than the AN/APG-68 for F-16C/D Block40/42.

7. While combating with the basic type of MIG-29 (MIG-29G??) in BVR engagement:

* JAS-39A: the effective range for Gripen to detect MIG-29 is 60 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Gripen.


* F-16C/D: the effective range for Falcon to detect MIG-29 is 5 km longer than the effective range for MIG-29 to detect Falcon.

8. Maintenance of GRIPEN:
* The MTBF for JAS-39A is 7.6 flight hours, and the SAAB declared that the MTBF for the USAF?s frontline fighters (except F/A-22 perhaps) is no more than 4.1 flight hours.

* The man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour: 12 man-hours initially, than reduced to 10 man-hours (F/A-18 E/F: 15 man hours of maintenance for each flight-hour).

* The charge for each flight-hour: 2,500 USD initially, than reduced to 2,000 USD.


----------------------------Quote------------------------------
Foreign alternatives

The F-16 was studied and was found to basically be able to fulfill the ground attack requirement, the emphasis being on beating back a sea borne invasion with anti-ship missiles. On the other hand, as an interceptor it would just barely do, as in 1980 it took 3 minutes to start an F-16, while the requirement for Swedish fighters is that they are airborne after 60 s from a start order.

Also the F-18 satisfied the ground attack requirement and perhaps also fitted the Swedish profile with dispersed bases somewhat better.

In both cases, they were primarily intended to replace AJ/S 37 Viggens in the middle 1990's, with most likely another fighter bought to replace the JA 37 Viggens a decade or more later.

Shortly thereafter, it was shown that it would be possible to, for less money (comparing to F-18 and assuming a number of 240 or more airframes) develop a true multi role fighter, which eventually could replace all Viggen versions; And Gripen was born.

-----End of quotes--

We have one of the sweetest little mosquitoes you ever will be killed by :)
And we're not interested in speed records, we use 'invisibility' aka, a very low natural radarprofile (small plane:), good tactics, fast missiles, and a superior radar and data link to achieve that. We built it differently than the American 'Deathstar' concept with its centralized steering mechanism. Ours was 'peer to peer' fifteen years ago, and we've constantly gotten better on that too..

--Quote---

TIDLS (datalink)

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.

TIDLS can connect up to four aircraft in a full-time two-way link. It has a range of 500 km and is highly resistant to jamming; almost the only way to jam the system is to position a jammer aircraft directly between the two communicating Gripens. Its basic modes include the ability to display the position, bearing, and speed of all four aircraft in a formation, including basic status information such as fuel and weapons state. The TIDLS is fundamentally different from broadcast-style links like Link 16. It serves fewer users but links them more closely together, exchanging much more data, and operating much closer to real time.

TIDLS information, along with radar, EW, and mapping data, appears on the central MFD. The display reflects complete sensor fusion: a target that is being tracked by multiple sources is one target on the screen. Detailed symbols distinguish between friendlies, hostiles, and unidentified targets and show who has targeted whom.

Today, Sweden is the only country that is flying with a link of this kind.
The Flygvapnet has already proven some of the tactical advantages of the link, including the ability to spread the formation over a much wider area. Visual contact between the fighters is no longer necessary, because the datalink shows the position of each aircraft. Leader and wingman roles are different: the pilot in the best position makes the attack, and the fact that he has targeted the enemy is immediately communicated to the three other aircraft.

A basic use of the datalink is "silent attack." An adversary may be aware that he is being tracked by a fighter radar that is outside missile range. He may not be aware that another, closer fighter is receiving that tracking data and is preparing for a missile launch without using its own radar. After launch, the shooter can break and escape, while the other fighter continues to pass tracking data to the missile. In tests, Gripen pilots have learned that this makes it possible to delay using the AMRAAM's active seeker until it is too late for the target to respond.

But the use of the link goes beyond this, towards what the Swedish Air Force calls "samverkan," or close-cooperation. One example is the use of the Ericsson PS-05/A radar with TIDLS. An Ericsson paper compares its application, with identical sensors and precise knowledge of the location of both platforms, to human twins: "Communication is possible without explaining everything."

"Radar-samverkan," the Ericsson paper suggests, equips the formation with a super-radar of extraordinary capabilities. The PS-05/A can operate in passive mode, as a sensitive receiver with high directional accuracy (due to its large antenna). Two PS-05/As can exchange information by datalink and locate the target by triangulation. The target's signals will often identify it as well.

The datalink results in better tracking. Usually, three plots (echoes) are needed to track a target in track-while-scan mode. The datalink allows the radars to share plots, not just tracks, so even if none of the aircraft in a formation gets enough plots on its own to track the target, they may do so collectively.

Each radar plot includes Doppler velocity, which provides the individual aircraft with range-rate data. However, this data on its own does not yield the velocity of the target. Using the TIDLS, two fighters can take simultaneous range-rate readings and thereby determine the target's track instantly, reducing the need for radar transmission.

In ECM applications, one fighter can search, while the wingman simultaneously focuses jamming on the same target, using the radar. This makes it very difficult for the target to intercept or jam the radar that is tracking him. Another anti-jamming technique is for all four radars to illuminate the same target simultaneously at different frequencies.'

--End of quote--

Our Swedish Data-link updates every second (or faster:), as compared to Link16 (every twelfth second) This makes it possible for us to fly 'radar silent' and even shoot its missiles from it without any own radar. And the data-link is able to steer you in, in every detail (close control) through its data commands. Which means that Gripen will be very operational even with its radio totally jammed. The NATO variant Link16 can, if I'm correct, open up to four(?) 'timeslots/channels' and if you place them correctly in time, give you a update every third second. (But we can also do that kind of stuff and as our systems each update every second by themselves (or faster:) you might wonder how much info we would be able to transmit that 'NATO' way opening new 'timeslots'. Not that I know of course, just guessing here:)

Our system have the possibility to use AWACS and satellites and 'peer2peer'. It seems to me that Link16 first handedly is a 'centralized' system, now also trying to in cooperate some of the Swedish 'ideas'. As for what is best in a battle situation? I prefer the one with the most options myself, and that's not Link16. And it's not only Gripen using our system, it's used in all types of military vehicles, that's why it is so redundant.

And that's why we still will have a 3-D sphere of information, even when all AWACS is down.

We use all available radar, and their data links too. But remember, ours system is 'peer to peer', just like the Internet, built for durability.

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2010, 17:06
by yor_on
Btw : I saw defenseindustrydaily state "To date, the F-22 is the only operational aircraft capable of supercruise while carrying weapons. "
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22 ... ted-02908/

sorry, we did it, before that (from 2001:)

http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE46 ... 001_01.pdf
"There was one interesting problem,” Colonel Eldh concludes with a smile. “Gripen is supersonic at all altitudes and can cruise supersonically with an external load including fuel tank, four AMRAAM and two sidewinder missiles without the need to engage the afterburner. In the early days of operations, we found some pilots inadvertently flying supersonic over populated areas. The problem was one of habit, as these pilots had their throttle settings as high as on the older-generation fighters that Gripen replaced. “It is fair to say there were a few startled people on the ground, as their day-to-day work, or perhaps sleep, was disturbed by unexpected sonic booms! It was, of course, a simple task to solve the problem – the throttles were re-set and everyone was happy." And no, no afterburners, please reread the text if you thought so. It's quite clear it came as a surprise.

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2010, 18:39
by yor_on
Done and gone:)

Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2010, 18:49
by exec
yor_on wrote:
The Swedish radar is superior my friend

Prove it (I'm talking about block 52+ radar).



Radar (JAS-39): 20% longer than RDY (M2000-5), and 40% longer than the AN/APG-68 for F-16C/D Block40/42.

So we are talking about APG68(v)1.

Since then, range was increased in versions V5, V7 and now in V9 (las upgrade +33% range). Tell me - where is this Gripen's radar superiority?

Btw : I saw defenseindustrydaily state "To date, the F-22 is the only operational aircraft capable of supercruise while carrying weapons. "

That's not supercruise. Even F-16 can do over Mach 1 without AB.

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2010, 19:36
by yor_on
"Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of an aircraft with a useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load performed efficiently and without the use of afterburners ("reheat")."

Didn't you know?

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2010, 19:46
by yor_on
Those quotes are old my friend, doesn't change the facts. Gripen is really cool :)
And hot too.

Take a look.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpo ... ostcount=1

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2010, 19:48
by exec
yor_on wrote:"Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of an aircraft with a useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load performed efficiently and without the use of afterburners ("reheat")."

Didn't you know?

USAF defined supercruise as a flight with a speed of 1,5+ Ma.

Flying just over Mach 1 without AB is not so uncommon. As I said - even the F-16 can do it.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2010, 20:16
by yor_on
Well my friend, USAF may define it after their engines :)
But it seems we were there first? Not really caring for it, as it wasn't that interesting to us, just a proof of a truly good design from the ground up. 39 is an interceptor, not a long distance racer :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise defines it a little different from USAF.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2010, 20:40
by yor_on
Just want to tell an anecdote that I heard in the military about our old Draken. (The first airplane with a data link, super secret at that time:) this guy told me "There wasn't anybody that could say how fast Draken was, with its afterburner on it just kept accelerating until it ran out of fuel " :)
On the other hand? Don't know how long that would sustain the aircraft on a constant afterburner? Minutes?
But it was a cool craft, as Viggen was too.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2010, 23:53
by exec
yor_on wrote:Well my friend, USAF may define it after their engines :)

A lot of aircrafts can actually 'supercruise' (can sustain speed over Mach 1 without AB). But the real supercuise ability referes to something that sets you appart from the crowd - ability to sustain much higher speed than Mach 1 without AB (otherwise almost every modern fighter plane should be described as a 'supercruiser').

yor_on wrote:But it seems we were there first?

No, you're (as usual :wink: ) wrong. The first supercruiser was: English Electric Lightning. First flight 1954.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2010, 01:41
by outlaw162
yor_on wrote:Just want to tell an anecdote that I heard in the military about our old Draken. (The first airplane with a data link, super secret at that time:)


The first Drakens with datalink capability were J35B's with the Stril 60 system, delivered in 1964. The J35A's did not have it.

The F-106A went operational in 1959 with the MA-1 fire control system which included datalink. I believe even the F-101B's fitted with a datalink system were operational by 1962 also. NORAD SAGE pre-dates your Drakens.

"Follow dolly."

:D

OL

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2010, 15:59
by yor_on
Didn't know that outlaw.
F-106A had it for their fire control system?
In what manner did they use it do you mean?

==
You're right Exec :)
Should have thought before I opened my mouth there.

Not that we Swedes need super cruise that much.
We're not planning any longer excursions. In fact the idea's biggest fascination seems to come from those expecting to have cover a lot of distance as economically as possible. We on the other side works with the idea of 'interceptors' strategically out placed, and constantly moving. And our excursions should be over in ? well engaging, delivering and leaving should be in fifteen minutes possibly? And the rest of the time possibly changing location if necessary.

But it's still not the F22 that have the first Super cruise..

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2010, 16:27
by yor_on
Quite cool in fact, not that it is what I'm thinking of when discussing our Swedish data link, but impressive all the same. A centralized concept where you went through to big tracking centers on the ground that then up dated your radar display locally. But it's not 'peer to peer'. like we had, as for what version of Draken that had it first :) Yep, and?

Draken was the first with our solution, you have to understand that there is big leap between a centralized solution and what we have in terms of peer2peer, our's are very flexible, and used since Draken. I know it hurts to admit but it's why NATO is trying to incorporate this kind of solutions too:)

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2010, 16:36
by outlaw162
"On a typical air intercept mission, after leaving the home base the pilot selected the data link receiver input from SAGE that interacted with the MA-1 system to interpret target and navigational intercept instructions. Under automatic control the aircraft was then flown to the predetermined interception point. Verbal control communications were not necessary, and the MA-I system interacted with the aircraft in that the aircraft "told' the MA-1 system what it was doing and the MA-I system told the aircraft what it ought to do to carry out the intercept properly. A consensus in the ensuing dialogue resulted in appropriate automatic vectoring to the target.
Once the intercept point had been reached, and the target displayed on the radar screen as a blip, the pilot then used the left half of the unique U-shaped control stick to lock the target on the display. As soon as the lock was achieved by bracketing the scope blip with a "gate", the MA-I system took over; after pre-selecting the weapons to be used, the pilot allowed the MA-1 to determine the successful fire and release point to ensure a kill."


SAGE could also recover and land the F-106 automatically in bad weather if necessary. :shock:

I'm not positive but I believe the F-101B had only a passive datalink. The pilot followed SAGE steering commands transmitted by the datalink to his displays.

This is where the GCI phrase "follow dolly (dali)" comes from.

"Go Gate, Follow Dolly."

Even though the datalink was passive, I believe the pilot could couple the autopilot to the intercept at some point, but SAGE could not "fly" the F-101 like it did the F-106. Gums would know more.

I dropped out of F-101 school to go fly the F-100. The only thing flying the Hun was the pilot.

OL

(You are correct, F-106 DL was not peer2peer capable. I learned something new about the Draken.)

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2010, 17:32
by yor_on
Well, we both learned something new I think :)

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2010, 17:45
by yor_on
Here is a cool link, courtesy of Signatory...
"How to build a Gripen" http://www.mediafire.com/?od4mwmfjvjy

If you look you will see the concept
"Demand: Low maintenance costs, restrictors for maintenance and overhaul.
Solution: 1 tool for several purposes. " That's sort of thinking is what leads to making a hot engine change in 45 minutes by a team of three 'in place'. I guess one can say that we 'stole' this concept from the Americans, and the Germans too under the last part of WW2 when they used 'mass assembly', although their thought seemed to have been to use to then throw away, whereas ours was 'use and reuse' instead.

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2010, 09:47
by tomcat21
robban wrote:
In real life exercise Gripens never knew what hit them. :wink:


Now THAT's wishful thinking! :lol:

In real life exercises, Gripens have owned Hornets and Falcons from the start.



Oh really?
Have you ever read what I wrote before? The Gripens had their... muzzles kicked 4:0 by Polish F-16 Block 52+ on Loyal Arrow - mainly due to be detected first.

RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2010, 12:02
by lichy1987
Greetings from Poland!
Indeed, on Loyal Arrow 2010, our F-16's defeated both, Gripen's 4:0 and Hornets 4:1.

Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 10 Apr 2010, 14:49
by shep1978
lichy1987 wrote:Greetings from Poland!
Indeed, on Loyal Arrow 2010, our F-16's defeated both, Gripen's 4:0 and Hornets 4:1.


I know it was only an exercise but if true that's pretty amusing. Do you have any links to back it up?

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2010, 13:51
by lichy1987
Sorry, it was Loyal Arrow 2009. Do You speak Polish? It was in "Lotnictwo" magazine from October. Article was made by maj. M.Fiszer and J. Gruszczy?ski.
I really don't know any source of this news in English:(

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2010, 13:56
by lichy1987
Sorry, it was Loyal Arrow 2009. Do You speak Polish? It was in " Lotnictwo " magazine from October. Article was made by maj. M.Fiszer and J. Gruszczy?ski.
I really don't know any source of this news in English:(

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2010, 13:57
by lichy1987
Sorry, it was Loyal Arrow 2009. Do You speak Polish? It was in Lotnictwo magazine from October. Article was made by maj. M.Fiszer and J. Gruszczy?ski.
I really don't know any source of this news in English:(

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2010, 13:57
by lichy1987
Sorry, it was Loyal Arrow 2009. Do You speak Polish? It was in Lotnictwo magazine from October. Article was made by maj. M.Fiszer and J. Gruszczy?ski.
I really don't know any source of this news in English:(

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2010, 13:58
by lichy1987
Sorry, it was Loyal Arrow 2009. Do You speak Polish? It was in Lotnictwo magazine from October. Article was made by maj. M.Fiszer and J. Gruszczynski.
I really don't know any source of this news in English:(
Oh, and it was 4:0 in both actions;)
I hope it will be enough.

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2010, 10:48
by shep1978
Hi, no sorry I don't speak polish, which may come as a suprise seeing as I live in the south of the UK... ;)
but if you ever do manage to find a translation of the article anywhere it'd be good if you could link it here. Cheers.

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2010, 07:36
by lichy1987
I'll try. I will translate it, when i get this magazine in my hands...I borrow it to my friend.
btw. Polish, is difficult a language;)
Please correct any mistakes i made in English, it will be fastest and most nice way to learn this language for me:)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2010, 18:21
by shep1978
lichy1987 wrote:I'll try. I will translate it, when i get this magazine in my hands...I borrow it to my friend.
btw. Polish, is difficult a language;)
Please correct any mistakes i made in English, it will be fastest and most nice way to learn this language for me:)


That would be very good if you could translate the article though i'd watch posting it all up incase you violate copyrights.

And for the record your English writing is better than many English nationals, well certainly the younger generations anyway. I have no qualifications in English (or anything for that matter) so i'm hardly a font of knowledge on the subject but 'borrow it to my friend' should have read "I leant it to my friend" but I understood what you meant clearly enough though.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2010, 08:01
by lichy1987
Thanks for correction:)

I think that i can translate only most important thinks obut fight between our F-16's and Gripen's. I was having trouble when i translate about 50% of article from one of our magazines. Fortunatelly it was only a warning:)

Interesting could be comparrison newest F-16's to Gripen NG (for now DEMO). But unfortunatelly theres no final version of this plane...yet:(

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2010, 18:33
by robban
tomcat21 wrote:
Oh really?
Have you ever read what I wrote before? The Gripens had their... muzzles kicked 4:0 by Polish F-16 Block 52+ on Loyal Arrow - mainly due to be detected first.


Yes, I read it and I responded to it looooooong ago.

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2010, 06:44
by shep1978
robban wrote:
tomcat21 wrote:
Oh really?
Have you ever read what I wrote before? The Gripens had their... muzzles kicked 4:0 by Polish F-16 Block 52+ on Loyal Arrow - mainly due to be detected first.


Yes, I read it and I responded to it looooooong ago.


Because there is no way a simple F-16 could ever best the mighty Gripen without the Gripen having 101 handicaps placed on it, I am right...... :roll: :lol:

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2010, 10:07
by robban
shep1978 wrote:
robban wrote:
tomcat21 wrote:
Oh really?
Have you ever read what I wrote before? The Gripens had their... muzzles kicked 4:0 by Polish F-16 Block 52+ on Loyal Arrow - mainly due to be detected first.


Yes, I read it and I responded to it looooooong ago.


Because there is no way a simple F-16 could ever best the mighty Gripen without the Gripen having 101 handicaps placed on it, I am right...... :roll: :lol:


I guess nothing is impossible.

But, considering that the Gripen beats the F-16 in:

Maneuverability: Gripen better at all speeds, especially when supersonic.

ITR: F-16 26 deg/sec. Gripen >30 deg/sec.

STR: F-16(C) 18 deg/sec. Gripen 20 deg/sec.

Wing loading: Gripen has MUCH lower wingloading.

Drag: Gripen has much lower drag. Even though the Gripen has a lower TWR, it can still outclimb the F-16 at certain speeds. It is also faster, especially on dry thrust.

Radar range: F-16 90-105km. Gripen 120km.

RCS: F-16 1.2m2. Gripen <0.1m2.

Sensor fusion: The Gripen is a new generation and was designed from the start with sensor fusion in mind. The F-16 is not comparable here.

Fighter link: F-16, Link 16. No real time info. 12 sec delay on information. Amount of information that can be transfered -low/limited.
Gripen, TIDLS, real time information with extremely high information flow. In full fusion with the aircrafts radar and EWS systems.

MMI: There's really no comparison.

Turn around time, MTBF, etc, Gripen completely superior.

If we go by RCS and radar range then it should give us an idea which aircraft will be detected first. Although it's not so easy. But looking at all the info we have. The F-16 falls short on all the points that counts. If the "report" is true, than the ROE clearly favored the Polish F-16's in this particular case.

Perhaps it would be easier if I made the aircraft trade places?

Like this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maneuverability: F-16 better at all speeds, especially when supersonic.

Radar range: Gripen 90-105km. F-16 120km.

RCS: Gripen 1.2m2. F-16 <0.1m2.

Sensor fusion: The F-16 is a new generation and was built with sensor fusion in mind. The Gripen is not comparable here.

Fighter link: Gripen, TIDLS. No real time info. 12 sec delay on information. Amount of information that can be transfered -low/limited.
F-16, Link 16, real time information with extremely high information flow. In full fusion with the aircrafts radar and EWS systems.

MMI: There's really no comparison.

Turn around time, MTBF, etc, F-16 completely superior.


Do you see what I'm getting at?

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2010, 13:54
by loke
AFAIK these exercises will often not say anything about which a/c is the "best", since they have very specific rules to adhere to and since the exercises are typically DACT, in which one team will play a specific role.

In some cases I am sure one can say something about the "performance" of each plane, however I think that even in those cases one would need to know all the rules and restrictions for that particular exercise to be able to interpret the results in a meaningful manner. Since such details are not available to us I think that we enthusiasts on the internet in general cannot draw any meaningful conclusions about any of these exercises -- only the pros actually involved in each particular exercise would be able to do that I suspect.

I am not an expert in these things however after spending some time on different fora, I have concluded with the above. Perhaps somebody with real experience can add to this...?

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2010, 16:31
by madrat
*sarcasm* This is proof that Saab should have kept the Viggen around and gave it all of the cool toys that they built for Gripen.

(Don't get me wrong, I really like the Viggen and not really a big fan of the Gripen. But the Viggen is obsolete today in no uncertain terms.)

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2010, 20:04
by shep1978
robban wrote:
shep1978 wrote:
robban wrote:
tomcat21 wrote:
Oh really?
Have you ever read what I wrote before? The Gripens had their... muzzles kicked 4:0 by Polish F-16 Block 52+ on Loyal Arrow - mainly due to be detected first.


Yes, I read it and I responded to it looooooong ago.


Because there is no way a simple F-16 could ever best the mighty Gripen without the Gripen having 101 handicaps placed on it, I am right...... :roll: :lol:


I guess nothing is impossible.

But, considering that the Gripen beats the F-16 in:

Maneuverability: Gripen better at all speeds, especially when supersonic.

ITR: F-16 26 deg/sec. Gripen >30 deg/sec.

STR: F-16(C) 18 deg/sec. Gripen 20 deg/sec.

Wing loading: Gripen has MUCH lower wingloading.

Drag: Gripen has much lower drag. Even though the Gripen has a lower TWR, it can still outclimb the F-16 at certain speeds. It is also faster, especially on dry thrust.

Radar range: F-16 90-105km. Gripen 120km.

RCS: F-16 1.2m2. Gripen <0.1m2.

Sensor fusion: The Gripen is a new generation and was designed from the start with sensor fusion in mind. The F-16 is not comparable here.

Fighter link: F-16, Link 16. No real time info. 12 sec delay on information. Amount of information that can be transfered -low/limited.
Gripen, TIDLS, real time information with extremely high information flow. In full fusion with the aircrafts radar and EWS systems.

MMI: There's really no comparison.

Turn around time, MTBF, etc, Gripen completely superior.

If we go by RCS and radar range then it should give us an idea which aircraft will be detected first. Although it's not so easy. But looking at all the info we have. The F-16 falls short on all the points that counts. If the "report" is true, than the ROE clearly favored the Polish F-16's in this particular case.

Perhaps it would be easier if I made the aircraft trade places?

Like this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maneuverability: F-16 better at all speeds, especially when supersonic.

Radar range: Gripen 90-105km. F-16 120km.

RCS: Gripen 1.2m2. F-16 <0.1m2.

Sensor fusion: The F-16 is a new generation and was built with sensor fusion in mind. The Gripen is not comparable here.

Fighter link: Gripen, TIDLS. No real time info. 12 sec delay on information. Amount of information that can be transfered -low/limited.
F-16, Link 16, real time information with extremely high information flow. In full fusion with the aircrafts radar and EWS systems.

MMI: There's really no comparison.

Turn around time, MTBF, etc, F-16 completely superior.


Do you see what I'm getting at?


Not really, your just reeling off a load of numbers and a whole lot of conjecture such as the Gripen has lower drag , RCS and superior sensor fusion. F-16's are still more nimble as can be seen at any airshow and you yourself admit the Gripen can outclimb an F-16 but only at "certain speeds". TIDLS is horribly overhyped, notice how no ohter country has tried to buy it?

And for the sensor fusion part, well I would think a Block 50/52 would equal the Gripen and a block 60 would blow it out of the water in that regard. Same goes for radar sets and EW equipment. I still don't know how you know the gripen has lower drag either, I guess SAAB must have told you so and they wouldn't tell porkies to try and sell an aircraft would they..

At the end of the day Gripen isn't special, just overhyped and it's certainly able to be beat by a comparably aged F-16 and whats more it'd certainly have a real struggle against an early block F-16 in WVR combat.

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2010, 21:14
by robban
shep1978 wrote:
Not really, your just reeling off a load of numbers and a whole lot of conjecture such as the Gripen has lower drag , RCS and superior sensor fusion. F-16's are still more nimble as can be seen at any airshow and you yourself admit the Gripen can outclimb an F-16 but only at "certain speeds". TIDLS is horribly overhyped, notice how no ohter country has tried to buy it?

And for the sensor fusion part, well I would think a Block 50/52 would equal the Gripen and a block 60 would blow it out of the water in that regard. Same goes for radar sets and EW equipment. I still don't know how you know the gripen has lower drag either, I guess SAAB must have told you so and they wouldn't tell porkies to try and sell an aircraft would they..

At the end of the day Gripen isn't special, just overhyped and it's certainly able to be beat by a comparably aged F-16 and whats more it'd certainly have a real struggle against an early block F-16 in WVR combat.


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

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2010, 22:33
by shep1978
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.

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2010, 23:55
by Scorpion82
shep1978 wrote:Not really, your just reeling off a load of numbers and a whole lot of conjecture


Well let's see what you come up with! No data and only conjecture!

RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2010, 06:11
by geogen
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?

Avionics, performance, fusion and comms wise, perhaps it's an equal comparison between block 60 type and Gripen NG. It will also come down to how each base aircraft is specially equipped with add-on systems in regards to actual sorties. Also, how one is armed also is a key factor. Does one jet have 2 AIM-120C-5 only and the other 4 METEOR, e.g.? Does one have 2 AIM-9M only and the other 4 MICA-IR or 4 IRIS-T, e.g.? Just saying it's probably more a factor of which systems and weapons involved in a match-up, rather than raw jet. (And that debate is obviously relative). Regards -

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2010, 08:14
by shep1978
Scorpion82 wrote:
Well let's see what you come up with! No data and only conjecture!


Why bother, the Gripen got eaten alive by Polish F-16's, thats pretty telling in itself that the gripen is not the superior aircraft. Note how no serious airforce has never bought the Gripen either, another telling fact.
Robban would be best to go back to his "canards are the best thing since sliced bread" thread, it was most entertaining to watch.

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2010, 08:27
by loke
shep1978 wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:
Well let's see what you come up with! No data and only conjecture!


Why bother, the Gripen got eaten alive by Polish F-16's, thats pretty telling in itself that the gripen is not the superior aircraft. Note how no serious airforce has never bought the Gripen either, another telling fact.


The SH has found only one export customer so far; does that mean it's a completeley rubbish a/c?

Also, training exercises say nothing about the strenght of each a/c, I thought you had enough insight to realize that.


I am not saying "Gripen is better" or "F-16 is better"; I am simply pointing out that your arguments above are complete rubbish. If you want a make a point you should try to support them with real arguments; it's actually a bit funny, Scorpion82 challenges you, and the above is you answer?

Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2010, 09:52
by robban
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?

Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2010, 10:08
by robban
double post

Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2010, 10:14
by robban
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2010, 10:31
by geogen
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-

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2010, 11:32
by robban
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)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: F-16 versus Saab Gripen

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2010, 07:02
by geogen
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?

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2010, 01:55
by bhimtu
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"

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2010, 21:06
by loke
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.

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2013, 04:14
by incar956
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!

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2013, 05:05
by incar956
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.

Re: Exersice over..

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2013, 05:24
by incar956
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.

Re: RE: Indian Air Force

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2013, 05:31
by incar956
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.

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2013, 05:41
by incar956
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.

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2013, 13:28
by hornetfinn
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.