Gripen News

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

jakobs

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2015, 11:38

Unread post14 Nov 2018, 16:33

hythelday wrote:Philippines sit in the place that is set to become a hotspot for a future conflict. Gripen be better up to the task, especially in the maritime domain.


If they actually go through with it then the anti-ship mission could have been one thing tipping it over for Saab. The anti-ship mission have always been one of the strongest requirements for SWAF and Saab and the new version of RBS-15 will surely be even meaner.
Offline

hythelday

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 444
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post14 Nov 2018, 16:58

jakobs wrote:
hythelday wrote:Philippines sit in the place that is set to become a hotspot for a future conflict. Gripen be better up to the task, especially in the maritime domain.


If they actually go through with it then the anti-ship mission could have been one thing tipping it over for Saab. The anti-ship mission have always been one of the strongest requirements for SWAF and Saab and the new version of RBS-15 will surely be even meaner.


Yes, I thought about it.

Littoral combat is quite tricky and US, which is clearly blue water oriented, might not offer the best solutions.
Kongsberg's NSM would have probably been a close match and have certain advantages (IIR terminal seeker vs J-band ARH seeker on RBS 15), but SAAB could probably make a better pitch and better deal as a complex solution.
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 737
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post14 Nov 2018, 19:08

linkomart wrote:
marsavian wrote:
The reporting on this radar was wrong at the time as the the improvement is 40-50% not 140-150% as can be calculated from the RCS detection improvement.


No, there was nothing wrong with the reporting, although you have to read what the text really says.

regards


Ok, so we have the following ...

"A new Air-to-Air mode has been implemented and demonstrated which takes full advantage of the signal processing capacity and the flexible waveform generation in PS-05/A Mk4. This mode increases acquisition range with 100% at low altitudes compared to previous version of PS- 05/A. This radar mode will also be useful for detection of targets with very low Radar Cross Section."

and

"In the air-to-air mode at low altitude, the Mk4 will provide a 140% improvement over current capabilities by 2017. These air-to-air modes have been implemented and demonstrated, the company said."

which don't agree with each other and

"A mechanically scanned radar, the Mk4 will offer a 150% increase in high-altitude air-to-air detection ranges over the current Mk3 radar by the time development is complete in 2017. As well as enhancing the detection distance, the Mk4 radar will be able to detect and track smaller targets at the same ranges. While at high altitude the in-service Mk3 radar can detect a target with a radar cross-section (RCS) of approximately 0.4 m 2 (the size of a medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft) at a distance of 'X', at the same range the Mk4 system will be able to see a target with an RCS of 0.1 m 2 (the approximate size of an air-to-air missile or 'stealth' aircraft')."


Now we have a specific example. Something that is 0.1 sq m will be detected at (0.1/0.4)^0.25 the distance of a 0.4 sq m object for the Mk 3 which is 70.7%. So for the Mk 4 to see this 0.1 sq m object at the 100% distance a Mk 3 sees a 0.4 sq m object implies a 100/70.7 = 1.414 range improvement for a 0.1 sq m object which is a 41.4% increase. They got confused with percentage factors as opposed to percentage increases.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5674
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post14 Nov 2018, 21:34

mixelflick wrote:
marsavian wrote:The real takeaway is that Gripen will always have a chance where cost is the primary competition factor especially the C/D models.


C and D's with Meteor should still be a formidable opponent. Makes me wonder why they don't go with the NG/E though. Price? Not ready yet??




Its looks like everyone is trying to get their hands on used C/D and I'm betting thats because they are actually cheaper, as opposed to "well it costs more money but look at all the jobs! jobs! JOBS!" that is the NG selling point

Botswana was looking at C/D to replace their F-5s for example. I heard Sweden is getting nervous about how many of the legacy gripens get dolled out, but I don't know


Which brings me to a point a friend of mine likes to make "Gripen is a fine aircraf that deserves to replace every F-5 and Mig-21 in the world" But notice he doesn't say Teen fighters, or F-35s. or other Eurofighters...

the Gripen should be fine for what you want, its when people think its suddenly a 6th gen world beater is when I get this: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1727
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post14 Nov 2018, 22:54

XanderCrews wrote:the Gripen should be fine for what you want, its when people think its suddenly a 6th gen world beater is when I get this: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Not only that but with the Gripen NG, the Gripen is no longer a "cheap" fighter, actually quite far from it.
So and regarding the Gripen NG, you end up with a plane that's not only is a light fighter and inferior to its competitors (which are medium fighters for the most part) but it's as expensive as its (heavier) competitors.

The only cheap Gripen seems indeed to be used/second-hand Gripen C/D which Sweden (according to wikipedia) only has 74 Cs and 24 Ds left or resuming not many to sell them off and so that what you said about "Sweden getting nervous about how many of the legacy gripens get dolled out" makes perfect sense!
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4945
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post15 Nov 2018, 01:25

ricnunes wrote:
The only cheap Gripen seems indeed to be used/second-hand Gripen C/D which Sweden (according to wikipedia) only has 74 Cs and 24 Ds left or resuming not many to sell them off and so that what you said about "Sweden getting nervous about how many of the legacy gripens get dolled out" makes perfect sense!



Honestly, if I were a smaller Air Force with a limited budget like say Bulgaria. I would be jumping on those Gripens (C/D's) in a heartbeat!
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1272
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post15 Nov 2018, 04:21

A limited budget should always be carefully managed. Acquiring a fighter is not just buying the fighter. Its buying a system that one will need to train to use, maintain otherwise that is merely a hanger queen or an accident cow. If one needs to buy trainers, build new hangers, retrain all maintainers, new maintenance equipment, new fuel depots, etc etc....what could really be required is more than a limited budget. Then there is the usage doctrine, how that fits into IADS etc. Choose the wrong aircraft, how are the SAMs going to operate? how will that fighter integrate into the rest of the armed forces....One can only hope that potential aggressors make procurement decisions on the kinds of Canadian-styled sales talk consumption and evaluations.
Offline
User avatar

linkomart

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 390
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:30
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post15 Nov 2018, 07:16

marsavian wrote:
linkomart wrote:
marsavian wrote:
The reporting on this radar was wrong at the time as the the improvement is 40-50% not 140-150% as can be calculated from the RCS detection improvement.


No, there was nothing wrong with the reporting, although you have to read what the text really says.

regards


Ok, so we have the following ...

"A new Air-to-Air mode has been implemented and demonstrated which takes full advantage of the signal processing capacity and the flexible waveform generation in PS-05/A Mk4. This mode increases acquisition range with 100% at low altitudes compared to previous version of PS- 05/A. This radar mode will also be useful for detection of targets with very low Radar Cross Section."

and

"In the air-to-air mode at low altitude, the Mk4 will provide a 140% improvement over current capabilities by 2017. These air-to-air modes have been implemented and demonstrated, the company said."

which don't agree with each other and

"A mechanically scanned radar, the Mk4 will offer a 150% increase in high-altitude air-to-air detection ranges over the current Mk3 radar by the time development is complete in 2017. As well as enhancing the detection distance, the Mk4 radar will be able to detect and track smaller targets at the same ranges. While at high altitude the in-service Mk3 radar can detect a target with a radar cross-section (RCS) of approximately 0.4 m 2 (the size of a medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft) at a distance of 'X', at the same range the Mk4 system will be able to see a target with an RCS of 0.1 m 2 (the approximate size of an air-to-air missile or 'stealth' aircraft')."


Now we have a specific example. Something that is 0.1 sq m will be detected at (0.1/0.4)^0.25 the distance of a 0.4 sq m object for the Mk 3 which is 70.7%. So for the Mk 4 to see this 0.1 sq m object at the 100% distance a Mk 3 sees a 0.4 sq m object implies a 100/70.7 = 1.414 range improvement for a 0.1 sq m object which is a 41.4% increase. They got confused with percentage factors as opposed to percentage increases.


Ok, I'll bite.
Range ~= capabilities. (~= means not equal to) Then again, how to measure capabilities I'm not sure...
Signal processing makes it possible to lower the cut off from background noise (and jamming) so small RCS targets can be detected from farther away. With High RCS target, not the same. Other factor are limiting range, such as..... (hornetfinn, help please) The engineers explained it to me, but I don't really recall how it works, not my cup of tea.
Let me say like this, the engineers explained it to me, and they said that the market guys didn't lie, even if they of cause don't give you the whole cake on such a sensitive equipment.

my 5 cent
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2622
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post16 Nov 2018, 10:07

linkomart wrote:
marsavian wrote:Ok, so we have the following ...

"A new Air-to-Air mode has been implemented and demonstrated which takes full advantage of the signal processing capacity and the flexible waveform generation in PS-05/A Mk4. This mode increases acquisition range with 100% at low altitudes compared to previous version of PS- 05/A. This radar mode will also be useful for detection of targets with very low Radar Cross Section."

and

"In the air-to-air mode at low altitude, the Mk4 will provide a 140% improvement over current capabilities by 2017. These air-to-air modes have been implemented and demonstrated, the company said."

which don't agree with each other and

"A mechanically scanned radar, the Mk4 will offer a 150% increase in high-altitude air-to-air detection ranges over the current Mk3 radar by the time development is complete in 2017. As well as enhancing the detection distance, the Mk4 radar will be able to detect and track smaller targets at the same ranges. While at high altitude the in-service Mk3 radar can detect a target with a radar cross-section (RCS) of approximately 0.4 m 2 (the size of a medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aircraft) at a distance of 'X', at the same range the Mk4 system will be able to see a target with an RCS of 0.1 m 2 (the approximate size of an air-to-air missile or 'stealth' aircraft')."


Now we have a specific example. Something that is 0.1 sq m will be detected at (0.1/0.4)^0.25 the distance of a 0.4 sq m object for the Mk 3 which is 70.7%. So for the Mk 4 to see this 0.1 sq m object at the 100% distance a Mk 3 sees a 0.4 sq m object implies a 100/70.7 = 1.414 range improvement for a 0.1 sq m object which is a 41.4% increase. They got confused with percentage factors as opposed to percentage increases.


Ok, I'll bite.
Range ~= capabilities. (~= means not equal to) Then again, how to measure capabilities I'm not sure...
Signal processing makes it possible to lower the cut off from background noise (and jamming) so small RCS targets can be detected from farther away. With High RCS target, not the same. Other factor are limiting range, such as..... (hornetfinn, help please) The engineers explained it to me, but I don't really recall how it works, not my cup of tea.
Let me say like this, the engineers explained it to me, and they said that the market guys didn't lie, even if they of cause don't give you the whole cake on such a sensitive equipment.

my 5 cent


There are many things that affect detection performance and there are ways to improve detection capability of low-RCS targets from higher background noise. This would be for example detecting low-flying cruise missiles and drones for example. For example AESA radars are comparatively much better in this than MSA/PESA radars can ever be. This is mostly because of distributed HPA/LNA architecture means system errors basically cancel each other. Then basic radar range equation does not give right answer as it doesn't include all the factors affecting detection. Basically AESA radar has higher gain in high background clutter situation than in low clutter situation. Higher gain can also be achieved with upgrading back-end of radar. This is what they have done with PS-05 radar with improved signal processing HW/SW and possibly receiver upgrade and some other minor tweaks. In older systems this can result in pretty impressive improvements in performance. Like old AN/APG-68 versions to AN/APG-68(V)9.

However I'd say that in this example they are talking about high-altitude air-to-air detection performance which would mean low background noise levels. Here range improvement will be much closer to basic radar range equation and target radar cross section is the most determining factor. I agree that Saab statements here have been rather rather strange and I'd say the range improvement is mostly 40-50 percent and definitely not 140-150 percent they state. That would mean detection range has been improved from say 100 km to 240-250 km which is not possible with just upgrading the back-end. Of course if the previous back-end was totally horrible, then it might be true but I don't think that's the case.
Offline

boilermaker

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015, 18:12

Unread post14 Dec 2018, 06:53

swiss wrote:The f-15 is indeed to big for Switzerland. I Think even the SH. Especially for the caverns we have for the Fighters.

We need the new fighters mainly for Airpolicing. So i think the Rafale has good chances. The f-35 looks like overkill for Switzerland. The Swiss newspaper also supposed, that the F-35 are to much for the possibilities and the Budget of the Swiss AF.

Did the Rafale really win on technicalities for the Swiss? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0rnxF6tnuk&t=2s

I think the new engine and radar upgrades for the Typhoon will leave the Rafale in the dust - which already has weak motors
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2622
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post14 Dec 2018, 08:21

boilermaker wrote:
swiss wrote:The f-15 is indeed to big for Switzerland. I Think even the SH. Especially for the caverns we have for the Fighters.

We need the new fighters mainly for Airpolicing. So i think the Rafale has good chances. The f-35 looks like overkill for Switzerland. The Swiss newspaper also supposed, that the F-35 are to much for the possibilities and the Budget of the Swiss AF.

Did the Rafale really win on technicalities for the Swiss? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0rnxF6tnuk&t=2s

I think the new engine and radar upgrades for the Typhoon will leave the Rafale in the dust - which already has weak motors


Yes, Rafale did win (ten years ago) mostly because of better sensor performance and better EW suite. Sensor/data fusion performance was also the best. It also had clearly the best performance in air-to-ground missions.

http://lignesdedefense.blogs.ouest-fran ... suisse.pdf

EF Typhoon had the best flight performance, but shortcomings in other areas was deemed more important by the Swiss AF.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1862
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post15 Dec 2018, 13:00

The Philippine airforce's plan to acquire the Gripen C/Ds is part of their Horizon 2 modernization project.
Its a 3 part modernization plan that spans from 2011 to 2025.

Horizon 1 got them back to the jet age with the F/A-50s that performed spectacularly against ISIS in the southern islands.
theres also an upcoming batch of Super Tucano CAS platforms.

Horizon 2's budget for Fighters is equivalent to $1.1 Billion which is the largest amount Filipinos will spend on fighters to date. The project calls for 12 air frames which is the minimum size for a fighter squadron in the Philippine air force.

Filipino defense bloggers who attended the ADAS defense convention sat down with SAAB representatives and got some details.

Apparently SAAB is offering the latest iteration to their Gripen C\D platform the MS20. This is said to be equipped with the PS-05\a Mk4 which some say is a PESA system installed on a mechanical swash plate. (is this true by the way or is it simply an advanced mechanically scanned array?)

It will also be integrated with the RBS-15 anti ship cruise missile and Meteor BVRAAM.

The Gripen's stiffest competition comes from Lockheed's own F-16V with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis personally writing a letter to the Filipino president about the offer.

Filipino defense secretary recently hinted that they will most likely take SAAB for it's Gripen offer because of cost. Although many in the defense and civilian communities lean more towards Lockheed's offer.

My personal take of the Gripen against the F-16

Pros:
-Cheaper, according to the Filipino Defense Secretary they are leaning more towards SAAB's offer due to cost. Apparently even with $1.1 Billion the F-16V is still a stretch to buy and operate
https://www.airforce-technology.com/new ... air-force/

-Antiship capability is a domain that the Philippines is quickly trying to bolster and the RBS-15 integration is a big leap towards that.

-Meteor is arguably the most advanced operational BVRAAM

-SAAB claims that the Gripen's cockpit presents information via sensor fusion, if this is true then the Gripen would be the cheapest fighter that has sensor fusion.

Cons:
-The Gripen is fast and agile but its not an F-16. It may have great instantaneous turn rates, maybe even better than an F-16 but with an engine rated at 18,000 lbs and an airframe weighing 15,000 lbs empty, I doubt it could sustain turns like a Viper can. This is important for 2 reasons:

a. The Philippine airforce is not slated to buy HOBS capable missiles anytime soon, their latest A-A weapons acquisition is for advanced iterations of the Aim-9L all aspect IR missiles.
http://pitzdefanalysis.blogspot.com/201 ... s-roe.html

b. I believe full on BVR shoot fests are only possible in an all out war scenario, most engagements tend to be no flyzone enforcements that turn hot. WVR is more likely and even BVR shots in these scenarios tend to be performed at closer ranges not at the AMRAAM's max range

-The PS/05 is a non AESA, although there are some claims that the Mk 4 is actually a PESA system on a mechanical swash plate. Is this ture?


-The Gripen C is a decent fighter by today's standards, but lets face it, the Philippine AF will get theirs in the 2025 timeline, by that time its getting really long in the tooth. Probably equivalent to what the F/A-18C is today.

So what if someone told you that you're about to get your newest toy which will form the backbone of your CAP force while everyone around you seems to be retiring theirs
Offline

pron

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28

Unread post15 Dec 2018, 13:34

You can read the product page for the MK4 here. I think the upgrade are about the backend as I read it.
https://saab.com/globalassets/commercia ... -a-mk4.pdf
Offline

hythelday

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 444
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43

Unread post15 Dec 2018, 16:19

zero-one wrote:So what if someone told you that you're about to get your newest toy which will form the backbone of your CAP force while everyone around you seems to be retiring theirs


Still better than nothing though.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1862
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post15 Dec 2018, 17:42

hythelday wrote:Still better than nothing though.


I suppose.
But I think they can do better.
They are tagged as being the 38th largest economy by the World bank. Below them are Pakistan, Egypt, Chile, Jordan and a lot of other F-16 operators.

Will the operating cost of the block 70 be so big that they can't afford it? And they'll start operating it at the 2020+ time lines. They're currently the fastest grwoing major economy in ASEAN. By that time they'll be around 34th or maybe even 30th.

I think they should go for Bang instead of Buck. If not, they'll need to look for a replacement to their brand new Gripen C/Ds by 2030+, a replacement being sought after before the order is even completed.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests