F-16V vs Gripen NG

[skyward]

There was discussion on this forum about the APG-83 radar vs the APG-80 before. I think one thing that was discussed was that the APG-83 was an upgrade to older F-16 radar. It have to fit the power level of older F-16. Since the F-16 block 60 was built with the APG-80 in mind, the power infrastructure was design for it. It maybe that power level to take the full advantage APG-80 was not their in the older F-16 and the performance match that. It will be just to costly to update the power infrastructure of older f-16 to take full advantage of APG-83.

[basher54321]

I think one thing that was discussed was that the APG-80 was an upgrade to older F-16 radar. It have to fix the power level of older F-16.

Let's not get confused between old and "derived from" because almost every AESA radar in service has been "derived from" older radars - basically because not much point in reinventing the wheel each time. AFAIK the only F-16 radar that was built entirely from the ground up was the original APG-66 (WX-200) because there was no other suitable digital solid state radar around.

Also correct me if I am wrong but the ES-05 Raven was originally the PS-05 AESA which put an active array onto the existing PS-05A back end.

According to NG the 83 can use the same power and cooling as the 68 but you would have to ignore the trend to reduce power requirements in solid state components over the past 15 years (an eternity) to really conclude this is a significant limitation. Greece and Morocco are happily replacing APG-68v9s (a radar claimed to have 33% better range than the 68v5) so it probably ain't that bad!

[swiss]

I think nobody said the APG-83 is a bad Radar. Im sure its a big improvement over the APG-68. But all available data seems to say , its inferior to the APG-80. For several reasons mentioned in this forum.

[juretrn]

If Deagel is correct, then I'd say based on this

It is designed to fit F-16 aircraft with no structural, power or cooling modifications

APG-83 might as well be a "lesser" product.
However, one must take into account cost! If the -83 has 10% less performance but reduces cost by much more than that it doesn't really matter. And I'd say if you don't have to take half the a/c apart to perform a radar upgrade then you've already won that performance/$$$ battle.

[swiss]

If Deagel is correct, then I'd say based on this

It is designed to fit F-16 aircraft with no structural, power or cooling modifications

APG-83 might as well be a "lesser" product.
However, one must take into account cost! If the -83 has 10% less performance but reduces cost by much more than that it doesn't really matter. And I'd say if you don't have to take half the a/c apart to perform a radar upgrade then you've already won that performance/$$$ battle.

I fully agree with you.

[ricnunes]

I think nobody said the APG-83 is a bad Radar. Im sure its a big improvement over the APG-68. But all available data seems to say , its inferior to the APG-80. For several reasons mentioned in this forum.

Also note that I'm not saying that the APG-83 is better than the APG-80. Yes, I definitely could believe that the APG-80 should be "better" than the APG-83 (in terms of detection range, that is). I also fully agree that installing an APG-83 will/would be quite cheaper than doing the same with the APG-80 hence why the former was selected for the F-16V and not the later.
What I'm "saying" is that I have my very strong doubts that the APG-83 is "as bad" as some data seem to point out (such as only having 33% or so better detection radar then older APG-68 radars).
I'm saying this because of that basher said in his last post which I'll quote below:

Greece and Morocco are happily replacing APG-68v9s (a radar claimed to have 33% better range than the 68v5) so it probably ain't that bad!

[swiss]

What I'm "saying" is that I have my very strong doubts that the APG-83 is "as bad" as some data seem to point out (such as only having 33% or so better detection radar then older APG-68 radars).
I'm saying this because of that basher said in his last post which I'll quote below:

Greece and Morocco are happily replacing APG-68v9s (a radar claimed to have 33% better range than the 68v5) so it probably ain't that bad!

Ok. The range statement was from Airforce monthely (over 30% more then the APG-66) one year ago. This seems a reliable source to me.

[madrat]

Even if it had 0% range boost, the finer granularity of the picture it offers of the same airspace makes it worthwhile. It's more than just a boost in technology. The mission availability rate will be higher and the MTBF will be substantially different.

[marsavian]

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/fi ... 56.article

Referring to the Gripen bid specifically, he says: “We will test what Saab has put in its response – for example, whether the [Leonardo Raven ES-05] radar can detect a target at 100km [54nm].”

APG-80 and APG-83 estimated at 64nm and 47nm respectively for a 1 sq m target so what RCS are Saab quoting detection for ?

[optimist]

This isn't bad brochure for info on the F-16 block 70. The base model going forward.
https://lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/ ... ochure.pdf


The company is witnessing rising demand for new production F-16 aircraft. Bahrain, Slovakia and Bulgaria are the three customers who have signed up for the procurement of the advanced fighter machines.
https://www.airforce-technology.com/new ... 0-bahrain/

[gabi_johnson]

Pretty much what you stated. Avionics and systems seem to be roughly equal, although I think F-16V likely has advantages in software development and maturity as much of it comes from other projects like F-35.

[optimist]

Pretty much what you stated. Avionics and systems seem to be roughly equal, although I think F-16V likely has advantages in software development and maturity as much of it comes from other projects like F-35.

Hi and welcome. I think the V stands for Viper. unveiled in 2012. So you are right, it may be F-16V block 70.

[zero-one]

Since both the Gripen and Viper airframes are both designed to minimize drag, both create body lift and both are unstable, the only big difference I see is in the T/W ratio. In that department the F-16 holds a considerable advantage over the Gripen as confirmed by the Slovakian evaluation whete the F-16V was said to have better acceleration.

But I wonder why the kinematic advantage was just on acceleration, shouldnt it be accross the board, high G performance and turn performance included?

Furthermore watching a Gripen Pilot's interview. He says the Gripen can hold 9Gs longer than the F-16 and doesn't loose as much energy.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x31Zjhb2C ... e=youtu.be
(Cant post the video anymore, not sure why)
I read that delta canard configurations can be configured for maximum energy retention or increased lift coefficient but not both, it looks like the Gripen chose the former.

My question is, how good is it, the F-16's design is also built around maximum energy retention, so is the Gripen's just that much better, it is a 90s design by and large while the F-16 airframe is basically 70's era technology.

I don't want to dismiss his statements as just "just propaganda" a lot of pilots seem to hold the Gripen in high regard in the kinematic department despite having low thrust to weight.

[hkultala]

Furthermore watching a Gripen Pilot's interview. He says the Gripen can hold 9Gs longer than the F-16 and doesn't loose as much energy.

He is probbaly comparing to norwegian or danish F-16 which have old F100-PW-200 or F100-PW-220 engines.

Modern F110 and F100-PW-229 are MUCH more powerful.

[XanderCrews]

Since both the Gripen and Viper airframes are both designed to minimize drag, both create body lift and both are unstable, the only big difference I see is in the T/W ratio. In that department the F-16 holds a considerable advantage over the Gripen as confirmed by the Slovakian evaluation whete the F-16V was said to have better acceleration.

But I wonder why the kinematic advantage was just on acceleration, shouldnt it be accross the board, high G performance and turn performance included?

Furthermore watching a Gripen Pilot's interview. He says the Gripen can hold 9Gs longer than the F-16 and doesn't loose as much energy.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x31Zjhb2C ... e=youtu.be
(Cant post the video anymore, not sure why)
I read that delta canard configurations can be configured for maximum energy retention or increased lift coefficient but not both, it looks like the Gripen chose the former.

My question is, how good is it, the F-16's design is also built around maximum energy retention, so is the Gripen's just that much better, it is a 90s design by and large while the F-16 airframe is basically 70's era technology.

I don't want to dismiss his statements as just "just propaganda" a lot of pilots seem to hold the Gripen in high regard in the kinematic department despite having low thrust to weight.

F-16s routinely beat up on gripens because theyre underpowered. The airplane with the more power allows its pilots more mistakes, its been said by several operators that have done WVR practice against the gripen. as for "hold Gs longer" and "not loose as much" energy who cares unless we know the values? its an "interesting footnote"



Its not a coincidence that the Gripen E featured a newer more powerful from engine from the Get go. in fact, all the Gripen NG stuff is interesting, because the Gripen has no weaknesses of course. But by pure coincidence the Gripen NG was created to address the Gripens most obvious shortcomings for people in the know.

the thrust is fine, but it got a new engine

The weapons were fine, but added more pylons

the range was fine, but it added more fuel

The avionics were fine, but it has new avionics.

Amazing coincidences. its the greatest fighter ever, in no need of improvement other than that list above that they've been working on for 10 years--- for a plane that was perfect to start with.

I guess its just like a fun hobby or something.