F-16V vs Gripen NG

[zero-one]

Smaller air forces are looking at these 2 airframes head to head.
Both are cheaper than most top of the line fighters, specially when we look at operating cost, but still offer competitive capabilities against anything short of 5th gen fighters.

Gripen NG Specs can be found here:
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... 4_jas7.pdf

best I can find for the Block 70 is here:
https://www.defenceaviation.com/2016/09 ... artin.html

Specs wise, both are impressive
did they push through with the moving swash plate AESA mount on the Gripen E?

Integrated IRST seems to be available for both, not sure how the AAQ-32 compares with the Skyward-G
Brite-cloud integration is another bright spot on the Gripen's side

Performance is a bit interesting as SAAB claims the NG can super cruise to mach 1.2 with an A-A load.
Lockheed is offering the V model with the PW F100-229 EPE as the default power plant but so far I have only seen thrust rates along the 29,000 pound range which is the rated output of the regular 229.

I always thought the Viper has a distinct performance advantage over the Gripen because unlike the other euro canards the Gripen doesn't have the power to compensate for the massive drag produced by those large wings.
NG weighs 17,600 lbs empty with an engine rated at 22,000 lbs.

The V on the other hand is said to weigh around 20,300 lbs empty with a 29,000 pound motor. I'll give instantaneous turn rates to the NG but I think the V will beat it in every other performance metric

Your thoughs??

[hornetfinn]

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. F-16V is bigger and more powerful with larger fuel load which gives it advantages in range, payload and performance figures. I think F-16V is better fighter all around, but Gripen NG is not bad and might be preferable due to other reasons for other countries. Things like tech transfer and politics might be on Gripen side in some cases.

[rheonomic]

Things like tech transfer and politics might be on Gripen side in some cases.

Using the F414 means Gripen is still subject to US export approval, which does put some limits on where they can sell. But I’d agree they’re probably better for tech transfer.

I’d still pick Block 70 though.

[marsavian]

30% of the Gripen NG is of British origin which they already used to block sales to Argentina.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/ ... SV20150504
https://www.saabplanet.com/argentina-bu ... ay-no-way/
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/tw ... es-022821/

[weasel1962]

Cost is not exactly the same either.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/22782/ ... zVxt2cUnug

In India's case, Gripen is 20% more expensive than F-16.

[basher54321]

So you think you know the answer on who wins between the F-16V and the J-39E? Well let’s see if you agree with our resident expert, former F-16 pilot, and current SkunkWorks test pilot Nate “Buster” Jaros.

https://fightersweep.com/6024/dogfight- ... 9e-gripen/

[madrat]

I have believed from the get go that Gripen NG aims at a market that is unrealistic.

They should have grown the airframe with an F100 option and aimed at ex-Viper users.

Viggen II with actual stealth would have been more realistic.

[zero-one]

I have a few problems with the pilot's assessment. here
https://fightersweep.com/6024/dogfight- ... 9e-gripen/

While the “V” retains all the incredible capabilities of the normal F-16, this new variant carries some new goodies that the J-39E doesn’t have.

The V model gets some new displays in the cockpit. There is limited data and photos of these new displays, however it is supposed to have a color MFD (Multi-Function Display) in the center position, in addition to other new advanced displays on the sides. Gucci!

Is he saying the Gripen E doesn't have MFDs, photos of the Gripen E cockpit also show a large center MFD

It is surmised that this new cockpit display also contains some amount of sensor fusion.

but later he says this about the Gripen

It has a reported cockpit suite that embraces sensor fusion, the future of cockpit displays.

Remember he is talking about differences here.

it will also have an IRSTS (Infra Red Search and Track) system that can detect and track targets passively,

doesn't the F-16V have the integrated IRST as well.

At max weight, the J-39E has a better thrust-to-weight ratio, and a fuel burn rate at combat power settings will be slightly lower than the F-16 as well.

Irrelevant unless you plan on fighting at max load after take off. but having better fuel economy than the Viper at "combat power settings" is an interesting tidbit. What is combat power settings anyway?

Both fighters are limited by fly-by-wire flight control logic and “HAL” as we call it, but the canards and thrust-to-weight ratio of the J-39E should give it a slight advantage in the slow-speed “phone booth” regime.

We all know the F-16's fight is in the high-speed phone booth not the slow-speed version.
anyway, I understand that his goal was to make it politically acceptable and not to degrade the Swedish plane. a good read, but not really that informative.

[hornetfinn]

I think this is somewhat wrong in that article:

The J-39 also has a smaller engine than the F-16V, but this canard-carrying bird is also lighter. The Viper’s GE powerplant produces almost 30,000 pounds of thrust for the Viper’s max takeoff weight of 48,000 pounds. Compare that to the new engine (same as the F/A-18) on the J-39E with it’s 22,000 pounds of thrust for the much lighter 31,000 pound max takeoff weight Gripen.

31,000 pouds is correct for C/D model Gripens. Saab says E-model max takeoff weight is 16,500 kg which is 36,340 pounds.
https://saab.com/globalassets/gripen.co ... et--en.pdf

So E-model Gripen can carry about 5,100 kg or 11,200 pounds of weapons and EFTs etc. With that weight the T/W ratio is 0.61 so they are basically equal at their max takeoff weights.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/ ... ril%202019).pdf

Empty weight: 20,300 lb/9,207 kg
Max takeoff weight: 48,000 lb/21,772 kg
Internal fuel: 7,000 lb + CFTs is something like 10,000 lb total (is that correct?)

This means max internal fuel leaves room for over 17,000 lb or 7,700 kg of external stuff.

So F-16 Block 70/72 can carry about 60 percent more/heavier weapons, fuel and equipment at max takeoff weight than Gripen E. It still has similar T/W ratio and fuel fraction, although likely quite a bit higher drag also. However with similar weapons load F-16 Block 70 will have better T/W ratio (0.71 vs. 0.61 or so) and higher fuel fraction.

Of course that might not matter that much to many operators as Gripen E can still carry decent weapons and fuel load. F-16 does have more flexibility with loadouts though.

[vilters]

Those Brazilians must have been very drunk when they signed that contract.

[garrya]

Gripen NG has better radar, intergrated IRST and better missile, imho, it takes the win

[ricnunes]

Gripen NG has better radar, intergrated IRST and better missile, imho, it takes the win

Well, I really have my doubts about the Gripen NG radar having a better than the F-16V radar (APG-83).

The F-16 is a somehow bigger plane than the Gripen E (the F-16 is a medium-weight fighter while the Gripen E is light-weight) and thus is probably capable of carrying a bigger and more powerful radar.
Moreover the APG-83 is a derivative of the F-35's APG-81 radar which one of the best and powerful among all fighter aircraft radars.
As such, I believe that its the otherwise - I would say that the F-16V probably has a better radar than the Gripen E.

Regarding integrated (or internal to be more precise) IRST, you are correct. Yes the Gripen E does seem to have an internal IRST while the F-16V can only carry an IRST on a pod/external only.

Regarding better missiles, I would say that a very subjective subject. I guess that you're referring to the Meteor here, no?
In this case, the Gripen E does carry the Meteor while the F-16V don't but I would say that if a customer wants to integrate the Meteor with their F-16Vs then this would be a relatively straightforward upgrade. Afterall, there's no other fighter aircraft - apart perhaps for the Hornet/Super Hornet - that is integrated with so many weapons as the F-16V is.

[marsavian]

As has been revealed in other threads the APG-83 is not a great performer as it is air-cooled primarily. The NG radar also has 210 degree radar coverage. The NG radar has more functionality as a result and probably better performance too due to liquid cooling.

[basher54321]

Unless you can trial each one side by side impossible to say really.

The Selex ES-05 is advertised as being liquid and air cooled just like a lot of other radars and components. The APG-83 is liquid cooled with probably more than adequate air cooling in reality.

Some assumptions have been made based on figures presented 10 years back that shed no light whether they were due to limitations or the result of requirements.

How in hell a radar set derived from APG-80 with that experience behind it isn't cutting edge is beyond me - the USAF are getting these sets it isn't just for export.

[ricnunes]

Some assumptions have been made based on figures presented 10 years back that shed no light whether they were due to limitations or the result of requirements.

How in hell a radar set derived from APG-80 with that experience behind it isn't cutting edge is beyond me - the USAF are getting these sets it isn't just for export.

This, absolutely this!

I'm aware of the APG-83 brochure that was shown/shared in other threads but like basher said above that brochure seems to be based on old info and/or probably old set of requirements. For example that same brochure doesn't seem to be available by official sources anymore, namely by the manufacturer which in this case is Northrop Grumman.

Moreover and like the name of the radar says/implies - SABR - it is a Scalable radar which means that its components can be "scaled up", namely I imagine, such as by adding better cooling systems, etc...