Saab Gripen news

[aaam]

Been away for a bit. Sorry, I tend to do that.

Basher54321:

Misunderstood what you were saying about "lower powered", thought you were referring to lower powered Block 50/52s, which I didn't understand, when you were actually saying the Block 50/52s were lower powered than later blocks.

XanderCrews:

Just for clarity, I wasn't saying that the T/W ratio of JAS 39E was equal or better than that of later F-16s. My point is that they were going for a number of capabilities in sensors, ECM, weapons, AoA performance, networking, lethality , cost of purchase and operations, etc., of which T/W by itself is just one part that isn't as important as it used to be. To my mind if the engine provides enough thrust to enable the performance and range/payload they promise, then it isn't underpowered, even if the aircraft doesn't accelerate as well as some other aircraft.

[madrat]

You saw them in real world exercises where they use simulated returns and transponders. Of course they all look the same.

[XanderCrews]

Been away for a bit. Sorry, I tend to do that.

Basher54321:

Misunderstood what you were saying about "lower powered", thought you were referring to lower powered Block 50/52s, which I didn't understand, when you were actually saying the Block 50/52s were lower powered than later blocks.

XanderCrews:

Just for clarity, I wasn't saying that the T/W ratio of JAS 39E was equal or better than that of later F-16s. My point is that they were going for a number of capabilities in sensors, ECM, weapons, AoA performance, networking, lethality , cost of purchase and operations, etc., of which T/W by itself is just one part that isn't as important as it used to be. To my mind if the engine provides enough thrust to enable the performance and range/payload they promise, then it isn't underpowered, even if the aircraft doesn't accelerate as well as some other aircraft.

My issue is that you are taking a "light fighter" that was basically designed as a point interceptor and are now going for a multi role 21st century aircraft. This thing can't sling tanks and bombs with those slim margins and expect performance in other areas not to suffer. I don't care how aerodynamic the fanboys think it is, the bombs are as aerodynamic for Gripen as they are for all the other external carriers, ditto for weight.

So it might be an awesome interceptor still, but when the multi role aspect comes up, something will have to give.

I'm still curious how with all the ice requirements they're going to get that aircraft that packs on that much more weight from the original will fare. My guess is not as well, and ditto for take offs

My point is that a lot of the virtues that Gripen fans have for it don't apply, or won't as strongly apply to this newer variant. Which is fine, it doesn't mean it's a bust. Super hornet is not as nimble but has other virtues. There are still fanboys who think this thing is going to perform better to include super cruise with a combat load and that's a little "optimistic" at this point. They actually think you can put tanks and bombs and AAMs on a Gripen E and it's going to supercruise, even after blowing it's weight goal by 1000 kilos (so far)

[hornetfinn]

You saw them in real world exercises where they use simulated returns and transponders. Of course they all look the same.

Was this in reference to this quote from me?

I have seen with my own eyes how Gripen A is seen by radar systems in real world exercise and I must say it's not that different to F/A-18C, F-16 MLU or Mirage 2000-5. The difference in radar detectability and thus RCS seemed to be fairly small between all of those. I don't know what the aircraft were carrying during the exercise but it was large scale (up to about 40 aircraft in the air simultaneously) air combat exercise. All pictures I've seen, all aircraft have carried 1 or 2 EFT. I can believe Gripen has the lowest RCS of those mentioned, but it's not LO and definitely not VLO at any angle. C-model may have some minor improvements but there is no way it has seriously lower RCS than A-model.
.......

If it was, how do you use "simulated returns" with real radar systems detecting and tracking real aircraft? Of course all aircraft had transponders, but they do not affect radar returns at all. Primary and secondary radars work in totally different ways and transponder information is not even used at all as this was military exercise.

My point was that in real world exercise using real world radars, all these have very similar radar signature: Mirage 2000, F-16, JAS Gripen A and F/A-18C/D. Difference between these four was impossible to tell apart. All 4 have RCS so close to each other that other factors are more important like viewing angle and external storages. Gripen E probably has somwhat lower RCS due to the fact it will have AESA radar and probably some improvements in materials and manufacturing.

[loke]

A Swiss news-site list the 5 a/c being considered by Switzerland:

https://www.derbund.ch/news/standard/da ... y/29587506

F-35
Gripen E
Rafale
Eurofighter Typhoon
Super Hornet.

According to the experts on this site only fanboys (and the Swedish and Brazilian Air Force) will choose Gripen E over F-16 -- which begs the question, why did Switzerland once again ignore the technically superior, and also cheaper F-16 over the under-powered, expensive Gripen E, in this new competition?

Anyway, in the previous round in Switzerland the Rafale "won" the technical eval and Gripen E won overall (mainly due to lower costs). This time around the F-35 will of course win the technical eval by a wide margin so then it's down to costs and politics. I am guessing that the cost of the F-35 will get down to a level that it will win also when costs is added to the equation, and then it's down to politics.

[hythelday]

A Swiss news-site list the 5 a/c being considered by Switzerland:

https://www.derbund.ch/news/standard/da ... y/29587506

F-35
Gripen E
Rafale
Eurofighter Typhoon
Super Hornet.

According to the experts on this site only fanboys (and the Swedish and Brazilian Air Force) will choose Gripen E over F-16 -- which begs the question, why did Switzerland once again ignore the technically superior, and also cheaper F-16 over the under-powered, expensive Gripen E, in this new competition?

Because LM won't offer two planes in the same competition. Boeing does not offer F-15 "Swiss Advanced" either. Apparently Swiss are vetoed for top-notch tech, hence F-35. India, on the other hand, only got F-16 offer from LM, not F-35.

Also I don't speak german, but this quote:

Now also Federal Councilor Parmelin wants him to test - along with four other flyers.

...suggests its this guy Parmelin who "requested" F-35 eval, probably thanks to input from Swiss AF?

[juretrn]

A Swiss news-site list the 5 a/c being considered by Switzerland:

https://www.derbund.ch/news/standard/da ... y/29587506

F-35
Gripen E
Rafale
Eurofighter Typhoon
Super Hornet.

According to the experts on this site only fanboys (and the Swedish and Brazilian Air Force) will choose Gripen E over F-16 -- which begs the question, why did Switzerland once again ignore the technically superior, and also cheaper F-16 over the under-powered, expensive Gripen E, in this new competition?

Anyway, in the previous round in Switzerland the Rafale "won" the technical eval and Gripen E won overall (mainly due to lower costs). This time around the F-35 will of course win the technical eval by a wide margin so then it's down to costs and politics. I am guessing that the cost of the F-35 will get down to a level that it will win also when costs is added to the equation, and then it's down to politics.

I present to you a true believer:
https://www.quora.com/Should-India-go-f ... aab-Gripen

[basher54321]

I present to you a true believer:

These new high tech "proximity fuses" only found on Gripen missiles make all the difference

[loke]

Because LM won't offer two planes in the same competition. Boeing does not offer F-15 "Swiss Advanced" either. Apparently Swiss are vetoed for top-notch tech, hence F-35. India, on the other hand, only got F-16 offer from LM, not F-35.

F-15 for Switzerland??? Complete nonsense.

Also, the customer is always right. Had Switzerland asked for information on F-16, do you really think LM would have said: "sorry we won't sell it to you"?

In addition: Why did LM not offer the F-16 in the previous competition in Switzerland then? F-35 did not participate at the time, so your argument that they will offer only one solution to each customer cannot be the explanation for that competition.

[hythelday]

F-15 for Switzerland??? Complete nonsense.

Well Super Hornet is as heavy and only slightly shorter, so I don't see why Eagle's size would be a constricting factor.

Also, the customer is always right. Had Switzerland asked for information on F-16, do you really think LM would have said: "sorry we won't sell it to you"?

In addition: Why did LM not offer the F-16 in the previous competition in Switzerland then? F-35 did not participate at the time, so your argument that they will offer only one solution to each customer cannot be the explanation for that competition.

I do not know why F-16 wasn't selected for F-5 replacement eval. They did compare it to Hornet before though.

[loke]

F-15 for Switzerland??? Complete nonsense.

Well Super Hornet is as heavy and only slightly shorter, so I don't see why Eagle's size would be a constricting factor.

Look again -- some key words for you: payload, range, cost.

Also, the customer is always right. Had Switzerland asked for information on F-16, do you really think LM would have said: "sorry we won't sell it to you"?

In addition: Why did LM not offer the F-16 in the previous competition in Switzerland then? F-35 did not participate at the time, so your argument that they will offer only one solution to each customer cannot be the explanation for that competition.

I do not know why F-16 wasn't selected for F-5 replacement eval. They did compare it to Hornet before though.

They did compare the F-16 to the Hornet, and the F-16 lost.

[hythelday]

Look again -- some key words for you: payload, range, cost.

If F-15 is too payloady and too rangy for the swiss, then they should not assess EF or Rafale either. Singapore has an airspace ten times smaller and does not seem to care.

They did compare the F-16 to the Hornet, and the F-16 lost.

Yes.

[loke]

Look again -- some key words for you: payload, range, cost.

If F-15 is too payloady and too rangy for the swiss, then they should not assess EF or Rafale either. Singapore has an airspace ten times smaller and does not seem to care.

Sigh.

Singapore and Switzerland are two different countries with different needs.

[hornetfinn]

Because LM won't offer two planes in the same competition. Boeing does not offer F-15 "Swiss Advanced" either. Apparently Swiss are vetoed for top-notch tech, hence F-35. India, on the other hand, only got F-16 offer from LM, not F-35.

F-15 for Switzerland??? Complete nonsense.

Also, the customer is always right. Had Switzerland asked for information on F-16, do you really think LM would have said: "sorry we won't sell it to you"?

In addition: Why did LM not offer the F-16 in the previous competition in Switzerland then? F-35 did not participate at the time, so your argument that they will offer only one solution to each customer cannot be the explanation for that competition.

Finland actually requested information (last year) for Super Hornet, F-15, F-16 and F-35 for our current fighter replacement. We got reply from Boeing and LM (through US DoD) that they will provide information (and thus participate the competition) for SH and F-35. I think both manufacturers decided to concentrate efforts to one most likely candidate to win. It takes a lot of time, money and effort to even participate in these competitions, so this approach is very understandable. Both probably saw that F-15 and F-16 were unlikely to win due to many factors, but both SH and F-35 have decent chances of doing so (in both Switzerland and Finland). So why waste money and effort on a long shot when there is much more likely winner available?

As for previous competition in Switzerland, I think the Swiss didn't ask for F-16 to compete and it was dropped before the actual competition. Boeing didn't want to participate for some reason and thus SH and F-15 were not in the competition either.

[XanderCrews]

According to the experts on this site only fanboys (and the Swedish and Brazilian Air Force) will choose Gripen E over F-16 -- which begs the question, why did Switzerland once again ignore the technically superior, and also cheaper F-16 over the under-powered, expensive Gripen E, in this new competition?

This is validation for your Gripen fanboyism?

Can I beg the question as to why the Gripen isn't considered in so many evaluations where the F-16 is? What does that "prove"?

Anyway, in the previous round in Switzerland the Rafale "won" the technical eval and Gripen E won overall (mainly due to lower costs). This time around the F-35 will of course win the technical eval by a wide margin so then it's down to costs and politics. I am guessing that the cost of the F-35 will get down to a level that it will win also when costs is added to the equation, and then it's down to politics.

Wow Loke, in one post you manage to wonder why the F-16 wasn't considered, while at the same time pointing out that there are other factors like politics and not everything is chosen on pure technical performance?

extra points for mentioning "fanboys" while actually outing yourself.

Thats quite the smoking gun you got there!