Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2017, 06:46
by loke
I suggest we use this thread to post news about the Gripen.

https://twitter.com/Saab/status/877927465267712002

Gripen E second flight took place yesterday, lasting 68 minutes.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2017, 06:51
by loke
In their recent competition Bulgaria ranked Gripen C first, with a score of 0.9; second-hand Typhoon tranche 1 was ranked second, 0.61 points.

Portugal's offer - with a US logistics package - was not classified "because of its price proposal mismatch with RFP requirements."


http://www.investor.bg/biudjet-i-finans ... ss-241714/

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2017, 06:58
by loke
SA use their Gripens to stalk Rhino poachers:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11 ... o-poachers

The article also quotes a cost of 6-8k USD per flight hour however also says that the journo does not know what is actually included in that number.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2017, 07:01
by loke
The Botswana Defense Force (BDF) commander this week confirmed for the first time that the country is negotiating a small order of Saab Gripen C/D fighters. Swedish defense marketing agency FMV said last month that the deal involves approximately eight aircraft.


http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... gotiations

AFAIK the other plane being considered is the Korean FA-50.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2017, 07:06
by loke
A nice write-up on the Gripen E/F development:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... enaissance

On Thursday last week Saab conducted the maiden flight of its new-generation Gripen E. Test pilot Marcus Wandt lifted off from the Saab plant at Linköping at 10:32 local time for a 40-minute flight during which handling was assessed. Wandt initially kept the undercarriage down while a simulated approach and go-around was conducted, before the gear was raised and the aircraft’s handling assessed in combat mode.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 15:38
by loke
Austria plans to end its Eurofighter jet program early and replace it with a cheaper alternative fleet of aircraft bought or leased from another government, its defense minister said on Friday, amid a legal battle over the jets with Airbus (AIR.PA).

The defense ministry said in a statement that Austria's 15 Eurofighter jets could be phased out from 2020. The continued use of the Eurofighter planes for 30 years - the normal life span of such jets - would cost up to 5 billion euros, largely for maintenance.


The head of export and international relations at Sweden's Defence Materiel Administration (FMV), Joakim Wallin, said the FMV supplied Austria last month with pricing and technical information about 18 Saab (SAABb.ST) JAS Gripen fighter jets.
"We expect to hear from them again after the summer," Wallin told Reuters, referring to a potential deal that could see Saab sell the planes to the FMV which would sell them to Austria. He declined to give details on the price quoted.

Austria has also spoken with U.S. officials about its interest in the U.S.-built F-16 fighter jet, made by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N), the largest arms maker in the world, according to a source familiar with the matter.


Full story: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-eurofighter-idUSKBN19S0ZN

Most likely they are considering the Gripen C/D and not E/F.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 17:05
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
Austria plans to end its Eurofighter jet program early and replace it with a cheaper alternative fleet of aircraft bought or leased from another government, its defense minister said on Friday, amid a legal battle over the jets with Airbus (AIR.PA).

The defense ministry said in a statement that Austria's 15 Eurofighter jets could be phased out from 2020. The continued use of the Eurofighter planes for 30 years - the normal life span of such jets - would cost up to 5 billion euros, largely for maintenance.


The head of export and international relations at Sweden's Defence Materiel Administration (FMV), Joakim Wallin, said the FMV supplied Austria last month with pricing and technical information about 18 Saab (SAABb.ST) JAS Gripen fighter jets.
"We expect to hear from them again after the summer," Wallin told Reuters, referring to a potential deal that could see Saab sell the planes to the FMV which would sell them to Austria. He declined to give details on the price quoted.

Austria has also spoken with U.S. officials about its interest in the U.S.-built F-16 fighter jet, made by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N), the largest arms maker in the world, according to a source familiar with the matter.


Full story: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-eurofighter-idUSKBN19S0ZN

Most likely they are considering the Gripen C/D and not E/F.


The E/F is bad value.

Hoping it's F-16 anyway

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 08:49
by loke
Talking to reporters in parliament, Bulgarian PM Boyko Borisov stated that negotiations would be held with three countries for the purchase of combat aircraft for the Bulgarian air force, reported BNR.

New ones must be bought, he added, not second hand machines.


http://www.novinite.com/articles/181066 ... achines%27

Interesting development.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2017, 08:12
by citanon
XanderCrews wrote:
loke wrote:
Austria plans to end its Eurofighter jet program early and replace it with a cheaper alternative fleet of aircraft bought or leased from another government, its defense minister said on Friday, amid a legal battle over the jets with Airbus (AIR.PA).

The defense ministry said in a statement that Austria's 15 Eurofighter jets could be phased out from 2020. The continued use of the Eurofighter planes for 30 years - the normal life span of such jets - would cost up to 5 billion euros, largely for maintenance.


The head of export and international relations at Sweden's Defence Materiel Administration (FMV), Joakim Wallin, said the FMV supplied Austria last month with pricing and technical information about 18 Saab (SAABb.ST) JAS Gripen fighter jets.
"We expect to hear from them again after the summer," Wallin told Reuters, referring to a potential deal that could see Saab sell the planes to the FMV which would sell them to Austria. He declined to give details on the price quoted.

Austria has also spoken with U.S. officials about its interest in the U.S.-built F-16 fighter jet, made by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N), the largest arms maker in the world, according to a source familiar with the matter.


Full story: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-austria-eurofighter-idUSKBN19S0ZN

Most likely they are considering the Gripen C/D and not E/F.


The E/F is bad value.

Hoping it's F-16 anyway


The smart thing to do for Austria is to buy F35s then rent them by the flight hour to Germany through some EU defense cooperation mechanism. This will solve Germany's Tornado problem and Austria's operating cost problem.

I'm only half kidding. :D

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2017, 08:30
by aaam
loke wrote:
Talking to reporters in parliament, Bulgarian PM Boyko Borisov stated that negotiations would be held with three countries for the purchase of combat aircraft for the Bulgarian air force, reported BNR.

New ones must be bought, he added, not second hand machines.


http://www.novinite.com/articles/181066 ... achines%27

Interesting development.


Even more interesting are the leaks from Bulgaria that the price for the first group of used, then updated, F-16s was 50% higher than the price of the same number of new production Gripen C/Ds, which Saab says it can deliver in 18 months. If ordered that would make the Gripen a shoo-in for the second batch because the total buy is going to be too small to support two different aircraft types.

I wonder what Portugal was asking for their used birds?

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2017, 16:16
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:The E/F is bad value.

Switzerland (and Brazil) seems to disagree...

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2017, 18:47
by loke
Swedish defense materiel organization FMV, which would facilitate any Gripen sale, said in a July 10 statement that while the aircraft meets all the operational requirements in Belgium’s request for proposals, Sweden itself could not meet Brussel’s need for “extensive operational support.”

“This would require a Swedish foreign policy and political mandate that does not exist today,” the FMV said.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/gripen- ... er-contest

So in other words; they are not saying that they withdraw because they do not have the technical capabilities to offer the support, but rather that due to Swedish policy they are not willing to offer the support that Belgium is asking for. This probably needs some additional explanations for those of you who are not familiar with Swedish politics.

Sweden has been "non-aligned" for a long time (since before WW1 I believe?) and in particular for the socialists (who are currently running the government) it seems important to show independence to NATO and the US.

Thus is should come as no surprise that Sweden says "no thanks" to enter an agreement that would force Sweden to support future NATO operations that may be not in aligmnent with Swedish policy.

Personally I think this is a clever move by the Swedish government -- they demonstrate to their core supporters that they give priority to their principles and internal Swedish policy rather than supporting Capitalist Saab at all costs; their core supporters are very unlikely to have much knowledge about military aviation and NATO and therefore will not appreciate that the Swedish government has stopped Saab from participating in a competition in which their chances of winning was approximately 0.00%.....

Oh well, such is politics.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2017, 18:27
by collimatrix
Gripen E/F seems screwed by the available engine choices. SAAB doesn't have the clout to make the F414 EPE, EJ200x or M88-3 materialize, so their bird is badly short on thrust.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2017, 20:36
by madrat
They were short-sighted to aim for anything less than an F-16 userbase to pickup customers unable to afford long term F-35 costs. You were unlikely to go head to head with F-35 for sales, but you have more dry thrust in the engine and most potential customers already have the supply line established for its use. Maybe you even go for an internal bay.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 04:09
by aaam
collimatrix wrote:Gripen E/F seems screwed by the available engine choices. SAAB doesn't have the clout to make the F414 EPE, EJ200x or M88-3 materialize, so their bird is badly short on thrust.


It's not so much clout as money and time. Note that even the USN itself has not shown enough interest to be willing to fund the EPE. It's questionable, even with the new Super Hornet buys that they'll be willing to fund even the EDE with or without the wartime software thrust enhancement (which comes at the expense of engine life). As for Sweden, they've often said that if the EPE was out there (funded by someone else), they'd certainly be happy to look at it, but for what the E/F is designed to do the F414 gives them all the thrust they need. They have also said they are not willing to accept more thrust at the cost of engine life or operating costs. Same applies to the enhanced Euro engines. Frankly, they probably would have rather gone with a European engine because it would come without the strings associated with an American engine. But they didn't want to bear the costs and time of growing one of those engines, especially since the host countries weren't going to do it themselves and the F414 already gave them all the thrust they need.

Not sure what the basis is for saying they are badly short of thrust.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 04:21
by aaam
madrat wrote:They were short-sighted to aim for anything less than an F-16 userbase to pickup customers unable to afford long term F-35 costs. You were unlikely to go head to head with F-35 for sales, but you have more dry thrust in the engine and most potential customers already have the supply line established for its use. Maybe you even go for an internal bay.


They actually have gone head to head with F-35 in the past, but they are learning that if a country wants the F-35, they're going to buy the F-35 regardless. As they pointed out in one of the Nordic competitions, when the results of the competition were published the announced cost of the F-35 was so low that Sweden could literally give them the Gripen E for free and the F-35 would still come out cheaper. in the reported analysis That's one of the other reasons they're not bidding in some contests where they realize that no matter what they have no chance of winning.

Boeing has started to realize the same thing. They have also withdrawn from the Belgian fighter competition. "We regret that after reviewing the request we do not see an opportunity to compete on a truly level playing field..."

I believe they are targeting the F-16/18 user base. Going for an internal bay on the Gripen E would have drastically increased costs and would have made the aircraft a larger one, which wold pushed up design, procurement and operating costs.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 05:09
by h-bomb
collimatrix wrote:Gripen E/F seems screwed by the available engine choices. SAAB doesn't have the clout to make the F414 EPE, EJ200x or M88-3 materialize, so their bird is badly short on thrust.


They will need to go with the M88-4, that variant finally got to 4000 cycles before overhaul. Not sure if the EJ200 has reached that yet. Also the M88 and EJ200 are an F404 thrust class power plants, not F414. I know you can find fanboys claiming 30K thrust EF200's are in development, but I could not find anything remotely reliable.

https://www.safran-aircraft-engines.com ... rcraft/m88

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 19:50
by aaam
h-bomb wrote:They will need to go with the M88-4, that variant finally got to 4000 cycles before overhaul. Not sure if the EJ200 has reached that yet. Also the M88 and EJ200 are an F404 thrust class power plants, not F414. I know you can find fanboys claiming 30K thrust EF200's are in development, but I could not find anything remotely reliable.

https://www.safran-aircraft-engines.com ... rcraft/m88



I'm sure they wold have liked some M88 derivative, as the French seem to have few restrictions on to whom you can sell aircraft containing their engines. Problem is, the M88 only puts about the same thrust as the F404 derivative they already were using in Gripen A-D, so there would be no point. They needed more thrust for the E/F and the F414 is 30% more powerful than the M88-4. Even the proposals for growth versions of the M** only go to 20K, and France itself is not looking at that thrust level for future versions of Rafale.

Regarding the EJ200, it puts out 13,500 lbs (dry) and 20,250 (max a/b), still not enough for Gripen E/F. Two growth versions have been proposed: EJ2X0 with 20% growth, which would put it 5% above the F414, certainly not worth the cost and trouble to Sweden. The second is a proposed unnamed variant with a 30% growth to 26-27,000 lbs. I also have seen no signs of a 30,000 lb. variant, and it's hard to see any near term requirement for such an engine that isn't already covered by GE/Pratt.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 20:27
by XanderCrews
Welcome to the Gripen E/F paradox. It needs a bigger engine. It weighs as much as an F-16, but it doesn't have F-16 Thrust. It needs an F-16 engine. But making it that F-16 like means one is better off just buying an F-16. Gripen E is overweight. Pure and simple. Fanboys try to say the canard makes that irrelevant but that's a joke. Gripen E T/W is worse than the original and the original didn't exactly have a lot of excess power to play with

The 2nd paradox is the cost, but one thing at a time

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 22:29
by wewuzkangz
XanderCrews wrote:Welcome to the Gripen E/F paradox. It needs a bigger engine. It weighs as much as an F-16, but it doesn't have F-16 Thrust. It needs an F-16 engine. But making it that F-16 like means one is better off just buying an F-16. Gripen E is overweight. Pure and simple. Fanboys try to say the canard makes that irrelevant but that's a joke. Gripen E T/W is worse than the original and the original didn't exactly have a lot of excess power to play with

The 2nd paradox is the cost, but one thing at a time


What do you mean that the Gripen is overweight? It is slightly smaller than the F-16 and its empty weight is about 6,800kg the F-16 is at 8,500kg empty weight by no means is the JAS-39 overweight......The bigger engine problem is being addressed as we speak https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/volvo-vi ... or-6423996 There was a F-18 engine F414G replacement that would give 20% more thrust but they said they will improve the RM-12 the matter is when?

http://nation.time.com/2011/09/28/stick ... lion-each/ The Gripen E versions are at 113 million dollars each. I am as curious to see how much F-16Vs cost. There are alot of interests of countries wanting JAS-39 but failed bids as well because of political reasons.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 22:44
by botsing
wewuzkangz wrote:What do you mean that the Gripen is overweight? It is slightly smaller than the F-16 and its empty weight is about 6,800kg

From SAAB's own fact sheet the Gripen E "basic mass empty" is 8000 kg:

http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial ... et--en.pdf

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 22:47
by wewuzkangz
botsing wrote:
wewuzkangz wrote:What do you mean that the Gripen is overweight? It is slightly smaller than the F-16 and its empty weight is about 6,800kg

From SAAB's own fact sheet the Gripen E "basic mass empty" is 8000 kg:

http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial ... et--en.pdf


I referred to the c/d Version instead of the E version.....E version in which they referred to themselves are currently looking to upgrade engines because for them they say it is cheaper

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 22:50
by wewuzkangz
file:///C:/Users/owner/AppData/Local/Temp/Raven_ES05_LQ_mm07819_.pdf Another thing i found interesting is its radars have a 200 degree view. I wish for information of what the an/apg-83 view is at. And i also highly doubt i will receive radar performance from either that give RCS detection range estimates.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 23:17
by botsing
wewuzkangz wrote:
botsing wrote:
wewuzkangz wrote:What do you mean that the Gripen is overweight? It is slightly smaller than the F-16 and its empty weight is about 6,800kg

From SAAB's own fact sheet the Gripen E "basic mass empty" is 8000 kg:

http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial ... et--en.pdf


I referred to the c/d Version instead of the E version.....E version in which they referred to themselves are currently looking
to upgrade engines because for them they say it is cheaper

If you referred to the C/D version then you should have mentioned the Volvo RM12, which gives about the same T/W class as the Gripen E with the F414-GE-39E.

Also, XanderCrews clearly mentioned the Gripen E about the overweight:
wewuzkangz wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Gripen E is overweight.

What do you mean that the Gripen is overweight? It is slightly smaller than the F-16 and its empty weight is about 6,800kg


wewuzkangz wrote:file:///C:/Users/owner/AppData/Local/Temp/Raven_ES05_LQ_mm07819_.pdf Another thing i found interesting is its radars have a 200 degree view. I wish for information of what the an/apg-83 view is at. And i also highly doubt i will receive radar performance from either that give RCS detection range estimates.

Nice to know you are user "owner".

Let me upload the PDF for you:
Raven_ES05_LQ_mm07819_.pdf
(167.22 KiB) Downloaded 894 times

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2017, 23:51
by swiss
loke wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:The E/F is bad value.

Switzerland (and Brazil) seems to disagree...


Switzerland didn't buy the Grippen. Thank god we have a Direct democracy.

And in the Evaluation by the Swiss Airforce, the Gripen was far behind the Rafale and Eurofighter.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 09:24
by ikea99
"Switzerland didn't buy the Grippen. Thank god we have a Direct democracy.

And in the Evaluation by the Swiss Airforce, the Gripen was far behind the Rafale and Eurofighter."

To be fair, an evaluation is not a competition. In a evaluation you look for what is possible to do with a "thing" and in a competition one wins. That said, Gripen E leaked eval in 2008 where only the first evaluation done and the last eval was done many years later when Saab even knew what would be inside gripen for real. To point out once more, the test evaluation was to see what the aircraft could be used for, and if it could manage to do the tasks given to them by the Swiss air force, it wasn't a competition. Absolutely not in 2008 anyway.

The final results where following Rafale(6,98), EF(6,48), Gripen MS21 (5,33). The difference between the best Rafale and the worst Gripen where 23,6%. Not really strange if you ask me. Gripen is a single engine aircraft.

If you look at the tests done with electronic warfare, gripen c/d (the one tested) had just about the same performance as the most expensive Rafale (the new one in Gripen E will be better with attack ability s etc). And i didn't even see any RCS tests in there of the aircrafts, here Gripen E will be a clear winner since its new built and Swaf had demanded "significantly" lowered RCS ( of a already low RCS).

The point is ! The Swiss Gov. didn't make a mistake, they choose Gripen as their winner since it was the most sensible choice. You can run two gripens ,at least, for the price of the other ones.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 19:46
by aaam
wewuzkangz wrote:file:///C:/Users/owner/AppData/Local/Temp/Raven_ES05_LQ_mm07819_.pdf Another thing i found interesting is its radars have a 200 degree view. I wish for information of what the an/apg-83 view is at. And i also highly doubt i will receive radar performance from either that give RCS detection range estimates.



wewuzkangz wrote:file:///C:/Users/owner/AppData/Local/Temp/Raven_ES05_LQ_mm07819_.pdf Another thing i found interesting is its radars have a 200 degree view. I wish for information of what the an/apg-83 view is at. And i also highly doubt i will receive radar performance from either that give RCS detection range estimates.


AESAs can generally look 45-60 degrees off from boresight, depending on the system. Beyond that, the beam can't be "bent" any further without a major loss in capability and accuracy. There's a technical name for this but it escapes me at the moment A mechanically scanned radar will have a wider field because the antenna is physically pointing to the side/up/down

The reason the radar on Gripen E has such a wide field of view is that Saab cleverly mounts the antenna at an angle on a rotatable turntable. By rotating the turntable, the boresight of the antenna changes, and the look angle is now 45-60 off the new "heading" if you will. In this case, if the antenna of the Selex ES-05 Raven is rotated so that its boresight is 30 degrees off aircraft centerline, then the radar can see its normal 45-60 degrees (I don't know the field of view of the Raven) to the side plusthat additional 30 degrees. So when they say it can see a total of 200 degrees, that means that the combination of the Raven's offset capabilities and the antenna deflection through rotation totals 100 degrees to each side.

The new Captor-E for Typhoon also physically points its antenna but it does that by mounting the antenna on an arm, which may give even more offset from centerline, but comes at the price of weight, complexity and possible a smaller antenna size that would be possible with a fixed antenna or rotating mount.

The SU-57 addresses the AESA field of view issue by having two additional fixed arrays pointing to the side. The F-22 was also supposed to have that, but that was cut early in the program.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 19:57
by aaam
swiss wrote:
loke wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:The E/F is bad value.

Switzerland (and Brazil) seems to disagree...


Switzerland didn't buy the Grippen. Thank god we have a Direct democracy.

And in the Evaluation by the Swiss Airforce, the Gripen was far behind the Rafale and Eurofighter.


Actually, Switzerland did select the Gripen E. What happened was that in a referendum, the populace voted not to buy anything at all, which killed the Gripen deal.

What is interesting is that in what few documents have been made public, the evaluation seems to have been done using the Gripen C/D, while the aircraft that was bid was the Gripen E. That may partly have been because at the time of the evaluation, the E was very much a paper airplane.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 20:34
by aaam
There seems to be a lot of repetition that the Gripen E is overweight and underpowered and that Sweden is desperately searching for a more powerful engine. To me at least, it appears that this is centered around the fact that its T/W ratio at gross is not as high as that of the F-16. The thing is, that is only one of many factors making up an aircraft's capabilities. Turn rate, drag, high alpha performance, ability to regain energy play in, as do sensors and weapons, availability and support, networking, etc.. What I'm saying is that just because they don't match the F-16 doesn't mean they aren't satisfied.

Two examples from the F-14 come to mind. When the F-14A came into service, it's T/W ration was inferior to that of the F-4, even when the TF30s were working. However, the Tomcat was less draggy. So, it out accelerated the Phantom consistently.

When the F-14B/F arrived, with the thrust for which the aircraft was designed, evaluations were done against the F-14A to see how the improved T/W assisted in air combat. With the F-14A starting in the defensive position, it could no disengage before the D got of its shot. This was expected. What was not expected, was that if they started with the A in offensive and B/D defensive, even though the B/D really outperformed the A, it also could not disengage before the A took its shot.

T/W is certainly a factor, but it's not the only, or even the most important factor.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 21:23
by basher54321
F-14A very likely had the higher T/D and was far better aerodynamically - however the F-14A also had about 6000 lbs more total max static thrust over the F-4S on given figures.

The lower powered F-16C Block 50/52 (~29,000 lbs) have about 7000 lbs more static max thrust over the Gripen E (~22,000 lbs) - so call me mr pessimistic but if looking at drag I wont be putting my money on Gripen E for that contest either. :beer:

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 22:05
by aaam
basher54321 wrote:F-14A very likely had the higher T/D and was far better aerodynamically - however the F-14A also had about 6000 lbs more total max static thrust over the F-4S on given figures.

The lower powered F-16C Block 50/52 (~29,000 lbs) have about 7000 lbs more static max thrust over the Gripen E (~22,000 lbs) - so call me mr pessimistic but if looking at drag I wont be putting my money on Gripen E for that contest either. :beer:



Not sure what you mean by "lower powered" F-16C Block 50/52. Aren't all of those blocks powered by an ~ 29,000 lb engine? I would say from appearance that an A2A loaded Gripen E looks less draggy but I don't have hard figures for either. In any case, I'm not saying that at low altitude an Gripen E will out accelerate an F-16. What I'm saying is that just because a Gripen E has a lower T/W at gross (F-16 C/D, the V is heavier), and I'm not sure if that applies at combat weight doesn't mean it's underpowered or that Saab is frantic fo a new engine.

There's an interesting comparison of the two aircraft at https://sofrep.com/61519/dogfight-f-16v ... ipen-wins/. Not endorsing it, just saying that it's interesting. the author is "... is a retired USAF F-16 fighter pilot, current Lockheed Martin test pilot, LO SME, aviation enthusiast, and author".

:pint:

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 23:18
by basher54321
aaam wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "lower powered" F-16C Block 50/52. Aren't all of those blocks powered by an ~ 29,000 lb engine? I would say from appearance that an A2A loaded Gripen E looks less draggy but I don't have hard figures for either. In any case, I'm not saying that at low altitude an Gripen E will out accelerate an F-16. What I'm saying is that just because a Gripen E has a lower T/W at gross (F-16 C/D, the V is heavier), and I'm not sure if that applies at combat weight doesn't mean it's underpowered or that Saab is frantic fo a new engine.

There's an interesting comparison of the two aircraft at https://sofrep.com/61519/dogfight-f-16v ... ipen-wins/. Not endorsing it, just saying that it's interesting. the author is "... is a retired USAF F-16 fighter pilot, current Lockheed Martin test pilot, LO SME, aviation enthusiast, and author".



Meant lower powered over the GE-132 (unlikely to be on any Vs currently) - any new Vs would be as advertised.

I know what you are saying however you cannot tell jack by looking at a photo - and without flight test data there isn't much to go on - so all there are is the advertised figures which suggest the F-16 has a higher T/W across the weight range and has a very significant 7000 lbs more max thrust to overcome any extra drag (assuming there is any & depending on config)


The article was originally here https://fightersweep.com/6024/dogfight- ... 9e-gripen/
Someone in the comments corrects his incorrect figures for T/W :D

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 23:25
by XanderCrews
aaam wrote:
T/W is certainly a factor, but it's not the only, or even the most important factor.


But in this case we are comparing Gripen to Gripen. Let's take a Gripen, give it more thrust but a lot more weight too and expect... What exactly?

Compare a MIG-29 to and F-16 And we have a lot to look at. Take Gripen C and compare to a Gripen E, when Gripen E is trying to be as similar as possible and we can make pretty accurate guesses based on the last 20 years of Gripen ops right?

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 03:56
by XanderCrews
ikea99 wrote:"

If you look at the tests done with electronic warfare, gripen c/d (the one tested) had just about the same performance as the most expensive Rafale (the new one in Gripen E will be better with attack ability s etc).



Can you post that please?


And i didn't even see any RCS tests in there of the aircrafts, here Gripen E will be a clear winner since its new built and Swaf had demanded "significantly" lowered RCS ( of a already low RCS).


I would like to know how it's "low RCS"

and I also want to see how they are going to change the RCS given that the airplane is externally the same save for some small details

I would like to see where swaf demanded lowered RCS as well. Because the saab boss dismissed stealth as obsolete just a few years ago. So some stories are not matching up here.



The point is ! The Swiss Gov. didn't make a mistake, they choose Gripen as their winner since it was the most sensible choice.


It disagreed heavily with what the evaluation felt was sensible. Hence the report leaked. Hence the revelation that Gripen fell short of even the F-18. Gripen often placed 3rd or 4th if you Include F-18



You can run two gripens ,at least, for the price of the other ones.


Standing by for comparative numbers

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 12:07
by swiss
ikea99 wrote:"Switzerland didn't buy the Grippen. Thank god we have a Direct democracy.

And in the Evaluation by the Swiss Airforce, the Gripen was far behind the Rafale and Eurofighter."

To be fair, an evaluation is not a competition. In a evaluation you look for what is possible to do with a "thing" and in a competition one wins. That said, Gripen E leaked eval in 2008 where only the first evaluation done and the last eval was done many years later when Saab even knew what would be inside gripen for real. To point out once more, the test evaluation was to see what the aircraft could be used for, and if it could manage to do the tasks given to them by the Swiss air force, it wasn't a competition. Absolutely not in 2008 anyway.

The final results where following Rafale(6,98), EF(6,48), Gripen MS21 (5,33). The difference between the best Rafale and the worst Gripen where 23,6%. Not really strange if you ask me. Gripen is a single engine aircraft.

If you look at the tests done with electronic warfare, gripen c/d (the one tested) had just about the same performance as the most expensive Rafale (the new one in Gripen E will be better with attack ability s etc). And i didn't even see any RCS tests in there of the aircrafts, here Gripen E will be a clear winner since its new built and Swaf had demanded "significantly" lowered RCS ( of a already low RCS).

The point is ! The Swiss Gov. didn't make a mistake, they choose Gripen as their winner since it was the most sensible choice. You can run two gripens ,at least, for the price of the other ones.


There was a 2 technical evolution in 2009. with all 98! upgrades for the Gripen (Aesa Radar irst etc.) And he still no achieve a 6 in a scale from 1-9. 6 means minimum capabilities and represents the Hornet C/D. Sorry you don't buy a fighter who is worse then the Fighters you already have.

And the Gripen E should be delivered 2018 to the swiss AF. But as far as i know the first Prototype flown this year, and will be delivered maybe 2021 to the swedish AF. At least 3 years later then promised.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2017, 20:10
by XanderCrews
^Swiss for the win^

There is not an airplane out there that is harder to find real data on than the Gripen, and especially the Gripen E and that's largely thanks to Saabs peerless marketing and the legions of fanboys who spread disinformation (often unwittingly) but frustrating nonetheless about this airplane

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 00:48
by collimatrix
wewuzkangz wrote:
What do you mean that the Gripen is overweight?


aaam wrote:
Not sure what the basis is for saying they are badly short of thrust.


Simple question, meet simple answer:





You would *think* that would be the end of it. Power-to-weight ratio or thrust-to-weight ratio has been an accepted metric of fighter maneuverability for decades. If you don't understand why, consider reading a book on the subject. Or, you know, thinking about it in terms of high-school level physics. It's pretty obvious why this matters. But noooooo...


wewuzkangz wrote:
I referred to the c/d Version instead of the E version.....E version in which they referred to themselves are currently looking to upgrade engines because for them they say it is cheaper


When I mentioned that the Gripen is short of thrust, I explicitly mentioned E/F. Stop trying to save face.

You know, for someone maladroit enough to try and discuss racial psychometrics on an aviation technology forum, I must say that you are a convincing argument for eugenics. No, not that you make a compelling argument for eugenics. I'm saying that you are a compelling argument for eugenics.

aaam wrote:There seems to be a lot of repetition that the Gripen E is overweight and underpowered and that Sweden is desperately searching for a more powerful engine. To me at least, it appears that this is centered around the fact that its T/W ratio at gross is not as high as that of the F-16. The thing is, that is only one of many factors making up an aircraft's capabilities. Turn rate, drag, high alpha performance, ability to regain energy play in, as do sensors and weapons, availability and support, networking, etc.. What I'm saying is that just because they don't match the F-16 doesn't mean they aren't satisfied.


Think about what you're saying for a second.

The Gripen E/F has wings that are only .2 meters wider than the Gripen C's. This means that the wings are going to be producing about the same amount of lift, but they are trying to shift an airframe that has about 17% more mass (going by the empty masses, Gripen E is supposed to carry more fuel so the comparison might be even less in its favor). That means that to achieve the same number of Gs the Gripen E will need to pitch to a higher AOA, which in turn means more induced drag. More drag wouldn't be a problem if it had more thrust to offset that drag, but it doesn't have thrust proportional to the increase in mass.

What's more is that you don't want to have to resort to higher AOA to achieve a given amount of Gs because of the way drag polars are shaped. Higher AOAs increase lift coefficient, but they increase drag coefficient faster than they increase lift coefficient. This is why the fighter mafia harped on the importance of wing loading.

In other words, turn rate is substantially a function of thrust to weight ratio. The Gripen E/F's turn rate will be degraded compared to the Gripen C's because its thrust to weight ratio is degraded. The aerodynamics just aren't different enough between the two for this not to be the case.

The same thing goes for sustained turn rate. High alpha performance? Why would the E/F have any advantages here? SAAB barely changed any of the external aerodynamics, how much could these have improved?

It's a pretty straightforward case that the Gripen E/F has worse agility than the Gripen C/D.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 22:57
by XanderCrews
collimatrix wrote:
wewuzkangz wrote:
What do you mean that the Gripen is overweight?


aaam wrote:
Not sure what the basis is for saying they are badly short of thrust.


Simple question, meet simple answer:





You would *think* that would be the end of it. Power-to-weight ratio or thrust-to-weight ratio has been an accepted metric of fighter maneuverability for decades. If you don't understand why, consider reading a book on the subject. Or, you know, thinking about it in terms of high-school level physics. It's pretty obvious why this matters. But noooooo...


wewuzkangz wrote:
I referred to the c/d Version instead of the E version.....E version in which they referred to themselves are currently looking to upgrade engines because for them they say it is cheaper


When I mentioned that the Gripen is short of thrust, I explicitly mentioned E/F. Stop trying to save face.

You know, for someone maladroit enough to try and discuss racial psychometrics on an aviation technology forum, I must say that you are a convincing argument for eugenics. No, not that you make a compelling argument for eugenics. I'm saying that you are a compelling argument for eugenics.

aaam wrote:There seems to be a lot of repetition that the Gripen E is overweight and underpowered and that Sweden is desperately searching for a more powerful engine. To me at least, it appears that this is centered around the fact that its T/W ratio at gross is not as high as that of the F-16. The thing is, that is only one of many factors making up an aircraft's capabilities. Turn rate, drag, high alpha performance, ability to regain energy play in, as do sensors and weapons, availability and support, networking, etc.. What I'm saying is that just because they don't match the F-16 doesn't mean they aren't satisfied.


Think about what you're saying for a second.

The Gripen E/F has wings that are only .2 meters wider than the Gripen C's. This means that the wings are going to be producing about the same amount of lift, but they are trying to shift an airframe that has about 17% more mass (going by the empty masses, Gripen E is supposed to carry more fuel so the comparison might be even less in its favor). That means that to achieve the same number of Gs the Gripen E will need to pitch to a higher AOA, which in turn means more induced drag. More drag wouldn't be a problem if it had more thrust to offset that drag, but it doesn't have thrust proportional to the increase in mass.

What's more is that you don't want to have to resort to higher AOA to achieve a given amount of Gs because of the way drag polars are shaped. Higher AOAs increase lift coefficient, but they increase drag coefficient faster than they increase lift coefficient. This is why the fighter mafia harped on the importance of wing loading.

In other words, turn rate is substantially a function of thrust to weight ratio. The Gripen E/F's turn rate will be degraded compared to the Gripen C's because its thrust to weight ratio is degraded. The aerodynamics just aren't different enough between the two for this not to be the case.

The same thing goes for sustained turn rate. High alpha performance? Why would the E/F have any advantages here? SAAB barely changed any of the external aerodynamics, how much could these have improved?

It's a pretty straightforward case that the Gripen E/F has worse agility than the Gripen C/D.



pretty much!^

Sweden is desperately searching for a more powerful engine.


No they are not. They picked the F414 to keep things as easy as possible, its too late now. They aren't going back to square one to throw anything else back there. Its basically The F414 or derivatives of it, Derivatives that add cost. Ehanced engine performance comes at the cost of engine life and more Maintenance. Not exactly a good trait for the ol' cheap and easy fix Gripen


The original "goal weight" was 7000 KG:

http://www.ziuaveche.ro/wp-content/uplo ... s-F-16.jpg

But they missed that by 1000 kilos. F414 made fine sense when it was 7000, 8000? not so much. But as I said. Too late now. Theyre going to have to live with it. The MTOW didn't increase with that weight increase either. So its less usable carriage of things that add range or help the bad guys die.

Oh well, should have bought F-16s.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2017, 14:17
by f-16adf
As the Gripen keeps gaining weight, even with more thrust, some of its performance metrics will suffer.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2017, 18:46
by madrat
The truth is a very small attrition rate would be devastating, so in actual combat both fighters will jockey for an advantage that doesn't leave them vulnerable. In these games they can take risks.

The big weakness that keeps being brought up against Gripen NG is fuel fraction. The Gripen NG would largely operate where fuel is optimal, so that discards a disadvantage there. The F-16V would be operating where it could ditch excessive fuel before an engagement, therefore its neither at an advantage or disadvantage there.

The F-16V wouldn't have any maneuver advantages over Gripen NG. It would have perhaps a radar advantage, but I'm not sure you can emit even with LPI without making your presence known. Eurofighter had a distinct maneuver advantage over Gripen C without being able to neutralize it. And Gripen C was able to keep Eurofighter at bay when it was emitting with its bigger, more capable radar due to its SA acquired by the internal electronic warfare suite. If Gripen NG truly is stealth I see no advantage going to F-16V.

Any attrition rate is counterproductive. Both sides are happy settling for mission kills over potential losses.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2017, 22:24
by XanderCrews
madrat wrote:If Gripen truly is stealth


What?

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 00:58
by madrat
We have no reason to believe the Gripen NG will be stealth in the same vein as an F-35. The original Gripen is optimistically VLO from some angles, but that doesn't make it stealth any more than Super Hornet, Rafale, or Eurofighter, all of which were carefully shaped and configured to be difficult to search or track by radar. I don't think Saab is any more privy to American stealth technology than any other outsider to the program.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 14:12
by XanderCrews
madrat wrote:We have no reason to believe the Gripen NG will be stealth in the same vein as an F-35. The original Gripen is optimistically VLO from some angles, but that doesn't make it stealth any more than Super Hornet, Rafale, or Eurofighter, all of which were carefully shaped and configured to be difficult to search or track by radar. I don't think Saab is any more privy to American stealth technology than any other outsider to the program.


I just have no idea where the Gripen got this reputation for being "stealthy" or "LO" most of the fanboys I see sighting such things are saying its LO thanks to its small size which is poppycock. The only stealthy feature I see on it is a hidden engine face. Other than that it has a single straight tail, slab sides, and canards.

IF the Gripen is LO, then This must be more even more stealthy:

Image

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 15:11
by basher54321
SAAB were pushing something called "E Stealth" at the NG launch whatever that is - it isn't anything to do with shaping though because in that regards it is a conventional aircraft - Grip/Raf et al might have had RCS reduction through RAM and composite components but likely nothing significant when you stick on the external stores.


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.
.......



viewtopic.php?f=55&t=11311&p=318189#p318189

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2017, 20:41
by loke
The official said the Request for Information will be issued in a couple of months for approximately 100 single-engine fighters, out of which 18 will be brought to India in a fly-away condition. The rest will be manufactured under ‘Make in India’ and will include technology transfer as mandated in the SP Model.

The official confirmed only two aircraft available in the global market — F-16 and Gripen — meet IAF’s requirement criteria.


Full story: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... s-4823046/

The battle lines are becoming clear in the globally watched, multi-billion dollar contest to build 100-200 single-engine fighters in India for the Indian Air Force (IAF).  Business Standard learns that, on Friday, Swedish defence and aerospace major, Saab, will announce a partnership with the Adani group to manufacture defence equipment in India, including Saab’s new Gripen E single-engine, medium fighter if that is chosen by the IAF.


http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 040_1.html

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2017, 00:06
by 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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2017, 03:09
by madrat
You saw them in real world exercises where they use simulated returns and transponders. Of course they all look the same.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2017, 05:27
by XanderCrews
aaam wrote: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)

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2017, 13:17
by hornetfinn
madrat wrote: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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2017, 08:53
by 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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2017, 09:40
by hythelday
loke wrote: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?

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2017, 11:35
by juretrn
loke wrote: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

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2017, 12:30
by basher54321
juretrn wrote:I present to you a true believer:


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

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2017, 15:32
by loke
hythelday wrote:

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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2017, 20:14
by hythelday
loke wrote:
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.

loke wrote: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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 08:57
by loke
hythelday wrote:
loke wrote:
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.

loke wrote: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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 10:04
by hythelday
loke wrote: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.

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


Yes.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 10:43
by loke
hythelday wrote:
loke wrote: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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 12:04
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:
hythelday wrote:

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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 17:56
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
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! :doh:

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 17:59
by XanderCrews
juretrn wrote:I present to you a true believer:
https://www.quora.com/Should-India-go-f ... aab-Gripen


That guy posts on best fighter for Canada LOL (note the Avro Arrow avatar)

He displays the kind of ignorance and stupidity Ive come to expect from the Gripen Collective

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 18:05
by swiss
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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 18:06
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
F-15 for Switzerland??? Complete nonsense.


I believe he was pointing out not so much the F-15, but the notion that the same company would not bid 2 aircraft, only one.

Image

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"?


Interesting loke, because earlier you said:

loke wrote: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?


now you are admitting the Swiss didn't bother to look at the F-16 at all? So how is the selection proof of anything, again?


In addition: Why did LM not offer the F-16 in the previous competition in Switzerland then?



The Swiss never gave LM an RFP. RFPs went to Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale, and Super Hornet. Super Hornet bowed out because it could not fit in the hangars.

What do I win?

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 18:31
by XanderCrews
loke wrote: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?


That proves it!
'
Image


Oh no, wait. a singular example cannot be applied to the whole

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2017, 21:54
by swiss
XanderCrews wrote:

The Swiss never gave LM an RFP. RFPs went to Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale, and Super Hornet. Super Hornet bowed out because it could not fit in the hangars.


You are 100% right. When i remember right, the Swiss AF chose the Hornet over der Viper because it was the better multirole fighter. End even for the FA-18 they had to increase the caverns ( Hangars).

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2017, 07:04
by hornetfinn
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.


All public data (as in real information from competitions and users) points out that F-35 is cheaper to buy and operate than Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon. Dassault Rafale is in similar ballpark as those two and would not be significantly cheaper. For example Danish evaluation indicates that F-35A lifetime costs are about third cheaper than EF Typhoon and acquisition costs of about 50 percent lower (which is very important politically). Super Hornet was found to have slightly (5-10 percent) higher lifetime costs than F-35A there but acquisition costs were also almost 50 percent higher per aircraft. Dassault Rafale is likely somewhere between SH and EF Typhoon in costs and I've really hard time believing it could be cheaper or even similar cost-wise than F-35.

Gripen is the only candidate that could have lower costs than F-35A. However public information again seem to indicate that it's not significantly so. F-35 has so much more powerful sensors and avionics systems and longer range that less of them would be needed to achieve similar or better coverage in air policing. I see Gripen having some chances but mostly due politics and not because of military or economic merits.

I don't think F-35 is technologically too much for Swiss Air Force. Maintenance personnel are saying that it's not more difficult to maintain than legacy fighters. Sure F-35 is technologically the most advanced, but that doesn't mean it's more difficult to own and operate.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2017, 08:11
by swiss
hornetfinn 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.


All public data (as in real information from competitions and users) points out that F-35 is cheaper to buy and operate than Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon. Dassault Rafale is in similar ballpark as those two and would not be significantly cheaper. For example Danish evaluation indicates that F-35A lifetime costs are about third cheaper than EF Typhoon and acquisition costs of about 50 percent lower (which is very important politically). Super Hornet was found to have slightly (5-10 percent) higher lifetime costs than F-35A there but acquisition costs were also almost 50 percent higher per aircraft. Dassault Rafale is likely somewhere between SH and EF Typhoon in costs and I've really hard time believing it could be cheaper or even similar cost-wise than F-35.

Gripen is the only candidate that could have lower costs than F-35A. However public information again seem to indicate that it's not significantly so. F-35 has so much more powerful sensors and avionics systems and longer range that less of them would be needed to achieve similar or better coverage in air policing. I see Gripen having some chances but mostly due politics and not because of military or economic merits.

I don't think F-35 is technologically too much for Swiss Air Force. Maintenance personnel are saying that it's not more difficult to maintain than legacy fighters. Sure F-35 is technologically the most advanced, but that doesn't mean it's more difficult to own and operate.


Hello Hornetfinn.

I fully agree with you. The F-35 is the best technical option for Switzerland. When im remember right the prize for the F-35 is or will be soon under 90 Million Dollar. So yes even cheaper than the Rafale. But, and there is a big But. Politics! :wink: The last Swiss Minister of defense Ueli Maurer chose the Gripen. A "Paipertiger" and the worst of the 3 Fighter we testet. Hell even the old Hornet was better.
So i really hope his successor Guy Parmalin will do a better Job. But he is from the French part of Switzerland. And he wants to intense the relationship with France. So thats whey i also said the Rafale is good chances.

BTW i enjoy to read your Posts. For me as a amateur, your are one of the best "sources" in this Forum. :D

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2017, 12:47
by hornetfinn
swiss wrote:Hello Hornetfinn.

I fully agree with you. The F-35 is the best technical option for Switzerland. When im remember right the prize for the F-35 is or will be soon under 90 Million Dollar. So yes even cheaper than the Rafale. But, and there is a big But. Politics! :wink: The last Swiss Minister of defense Ueli Maurer chose the Gripen. A "Paipertiger" and the worst of the 3 Fighter we testet. Hell even the old Hornet was better.
So i really hope his successor Guy Parmalin will do a better Job. But he is from the French part of Switzerland. And he wants to intense the relationship with France. So thats whey i also said the Rafale is good chances.

BTW i enjoy to read your Posts. For me as a amateur, your are one of the best "sources" in this Forum. :D


Oh, thank you for your kind words!

Sure, politics can turn anything around, like last time in Switzerland (from Rafale to Gripen). I think the choise will easily be F-35 on techical and military grounds, but Rafale has Frenchness on side while Gripen has Swedish neutrality and costs (at least perceived) on its side. Of course SH has the connection to current Hornets in use in Swiss AF. I think EF Typhoon is the least likely choice of all.

Btw, I'm not (and was not) surprised at all that F/A-18C/D was better than Gripen C it was compared to in the evaluation. Gripen has/had some good qualities (EW system and displays), but being so small meant it had significantly lower flight performance, range and weapons load. The same was found in Finnish evaluation in 1992 (and exercises with Swedish AF) and there is really no way to improve those things in significant way without making practically new aircraft. While Gripen C got more mature and got some decent upgrades, Hornets have been continually upgraded as well. F/A-18C/D is very good (and IMO way underrated) 4th gen fighter, although naturally later advanced 4th gen fighters (like Rafale, EF Typhoon and SH) are more capable. Gripen E will likely also be, but it will enter service about time F/A-18C/D exits service almost everywhere.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 02:13
by madrat
F-15 only isn't an option on life-time program costs. Operationally it is a terrific option and is greatly underestimated when it comes to it's ability to operate off short runways. The Super Hornet, Gripen, and Rafale would, however, be the most over-rated in capability from short runways. If short field operations were the parameter, then obviously F-35B is a must have.

I personally believe Gripen E rebuilt from Gripen C is a bargain for what they need in Switzerland. It's not really about capabilities. If ROK had money to bank, they would even lean towards F-50A or some other T-50 Golden Eagle variant.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2017, 01:18
by talkitron
Details on the Gripen electronic warfare suite have been classified. I suppose the details are still classified but now SAAB is marketing the next generation EW suite (to be installed on Gripen E) for use on fighters other than the Gripen. The next gen EW suite's name is Arexis. The website has a promotional video and some text.

Arexis is based on wideband digital technology specifically developed for robustness in the very complex signal environment of today. The core technologies in Arexis are ultra-wideband digital receivers and digital radio frequency memory devices, gallium nitride (GaN) solid state active electronically scanned array (AESA) jammer transmitters and interferometric direction finding systems.

Arexis products are adapted to fighter aircraft installation and environmental requirements. The architecture supports multi-function integration with other fighter aircraft sensors and countermeasures. One version of Arexis will be installed on board the new version of the
Gripen fighter, Gripen E/F.

Arexis also includes an advanced Electronic Attack (EA) application, with EW technologies adapted to the lower frequency ranges that are required to jam modern anti-stealth air defence systems. The EA application provides high output power and is packed in a pod to make it a role-specific solution.


http://saab.com/arexis

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 19:53
by loke
Saab expands EW development work in Finland:

Swedish defence and security company Saab is expanding its activities in Finland having established a new development centre – the Saab Technology Centre (STC) – in Tampere, Finland.

For the first stage, Saab has established a unit at the STC with a focus on Electronic Warfare (EW). The unit contributes to deliveries for Saab´s current EW contracts for fighter aircraft, including Gripen E/F, the EW system for Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEW&C) aircraft, and the Electronic Support Measures/Electronic Intelligence systems (ESM/ELINT) used for land applications.

During 2017, Saab recruited a number of engineers and invested in the establishment of the STC in Tampere, including a development laboratory. The recruitment and investment will continue in 2018.


http://evertiq.com/news/43375

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 19:56
by loke
In Sweden, the development of the Gripen E continues. Between its first flight in June 2017 and October of last year, the prototype n ° 39-8 has made 20 flight. He has since equipped with a set of sensors required further tests. Ground trials are underway with including the carriage tilting tanks and weapons. The next flight test campaign should focus on the carriage of these external loads.

The following two prototypes (39-9 and 39-10) are being assemblies and should be available soon for testing. 39-10 will be used for testing of the tactical systems. Saab also announced that the first Gripen E series is already being produced.


auto-translated from: http://www.air-cosmos.com/singapore-air ... n-e-106843

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 18:27
by playloud
XanderCrews wrote:
juretrn wrote:I present to you a true believer:
https://www.quora.com/Should-India-go-f ... aab-Gripen


That guy posts on best fighter for Canada LOL (note the Avro Arrow avatar)

He displays the kind of ignorance and stupidity Ive come to expect from the Gripen Collective

"The JAS-39C’s RCS is 0.1m² which actually classifies it as a stealth aircraft as the B-2 Spirit has the exact same 0.1m² RCS..." "The JAS-39E Super Gripen, while larger, will have a significantly smaller RCS than even the JAS-39C"

So, he is saying the Gripen E has a lower RCS than the B-2. I don't know if there is a meme powerful enough for that statement.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 18:48
by SpudmanWP
FIFU "Thomas Hawk, dropped out of Bishop's University"

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 20:29
by mixelflick
All these countries evaluating new fighters...

If the F-35 is going to be cheapest and most capable, why would you buy anything less? Politics, of course. I just hope most of these countries do in fact buy the most cost effective, capable aircraft for their crews. And by all accounts, that's the F-35. If Lockheed has in fact turned out an 80 or 90 millions $ bird that can carry a 5,000lb warload at mach 1.6, pull 9g's, take that a lot farther than any legacy bird, is the best sensor/shooter out there, can fly at AOA of 50 degrees, super-cruise, jam like a Growler, quarterback like an AWACS AND has an invisibility switch - they deserve the business!!!

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2018, 21:10
by loke
"We will stick according to the plan and deliver the first two aircraft to the Brazilian air force and Swedish air force next year," says Saab chief executive Håkan Buskhe. "Things are going according to plan," he said while discussing the company's financial results for 2017 on 16 February.

"Test and evaluation of the first [prototype] aircraft is going extremely well. We are getting better-standard data than we had anticipated," Buskhe says. A second prototype will join its fleet by the end of this year.


Full story: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ss-446054/

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2018, 10:15
by loke
Denel Dynamics is successfully using an aircraft-mounted testing pod to cost effectively and quickly develop its missiles, including the A-Darter and Marlin.

Denel’s Jaco Botha, speaking at a recent South African Radar Interest Group (SARIG) conference, said that one of the greatest benefits of the pod is that it saves the enormous expense of having to integrate a missile onto an aircraft. The pod is also able to function as a flying laboratory, and can measure and record data.

The pod was initially used to test the A-Darter fifth-generation infrared guided missile, which will have been delivered to the South African Air Force by 2020, and was integrated onto the Gripen in association with Saab. It is now being used to test the radar sensor used by Denel Dynamics’ Marlin technology demonstrator.

Botha said the pod includes a controller, power supply, telemetry downlink and uplink receiver, radios to communicate to the aircraft, and recording systems. It can test things like infrared and radar seekers, optical equipment and electronic warfare systems. Sensors can be either forward or backwards looking.


Full story: http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?o ... Itemid=204

Interesting concept.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2018, 12:53
by hornetfinn
I think this kind of pods have been used for some time (like 30 years):
https://southernresearch.org/wp-content ... d-size.pdf
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c02a/7 ... 2bfcf7.pdf

It sounds like this is just a modern version of the concept. Definitely worth doing and helps development a lot, I bet.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2018, 18:27
by white_lightning35
loke wrote:
The pod was initially used to test the A-Darter fifth-generation infrared guided missile, which will have been delivered to the South African Air Force by 2020, and was integrated onto the Gripen in association with Saab.


It appears it is fashionable to attach the label fifth-generation to everything now. 8)

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 12:20
by loke
On the RBS15 NG:

However, the Swedish Air Force had other thoughts, and had a requirement for the weapon to be lighter to allow four missiles to be carried simultaneously by the upcoming 39E Gripen. The result was the RBS15 ‘Next Generation’ (still lacking an official designation, though Mk4 wouldn’t come as a surprise), which is an upgraded Mk3 with a lighter launch weight, longer range, and generally improved performance.


https://corporalfrisk.com/2018/04/28/rb ... eneration/

So it seems the Swedish Air Force is indeed planning to carry up to four RBS15 NG anti-ship/land attack on one Gripen E.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2018, 13:31
by loke
Saab's annual Gripen seminar will be - on May 16:

http://saab-seminar.creo.se/180516/annu ... minar_2018

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2018, 18:10
by loke
Saab has been awarded SEK224 million (USD26 million) to upgrade systems on the Swedish Air Force (SwAF’s) fleet of Gripen C/D combat aircraft.

The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) contract, announced by the company on 23 May, involves enhancements to the current MS20-configuration, which was rolled out in 2016.

Specifically, improvements will be made to the aircraft’s ‘central capabilities’, including the target acquisition, self-protection, communication, and human-machine interface systems, as well as a number of key support and training systems.

The work will be carried out at Saab’s facilities in Gothenburg, Järfälla, Linköping, and Arboga, with deliveries to take place between 2018 and 2020.

The SwAF fields 73 single-seat Gripen C and 24 twin-seat Gripen D aircraft that have all be upgraded to the MS20 standard (the final such block for the Gripen C/D). Essentially a software package, MS20 includes integration of the MBDA Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile and BoeingGBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb I; improved radar modes; a digital close-air support capability; increased Link 16 connectivity; civil navigation enhancements; chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) protection for the pilot; night-capable operations using the SPK 39 Modular Reconnaissance Pod II; and a ground collision avoidance system (GCAS).

Read more: http://www.janes.com/article/80248/swed ... ripen-c-ds

Seems the Gripen C/D will be kept up-to-date for the next few years...

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2018, 11:38
by loke
So far, no delays since the first flight almost one year ago:

We are preparing for the next phase of flight trials – that is, external stores, said Jonas Hjelm, Head of Saab aeronautics at the recently held Annual Gripen seminar.

So far, all the milestones under the Gripen Brazil programme, like the launch of GDDN and SAM and the first flight of Gripen E, have been right on schedule.

“Since the first prototype's flight debut in June 2017, the programme has remained on track, with recent milestones including achieving supersonic flight,” he added.

http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/ ... px?ID=1902

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2018, 07:58
by loke
Saab test pilot explains about the new display in Gripen E:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-4i9pC4VWc

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2018, 12:45
by loke
Swedish company Saab has said it will begin flight tests for a new jamming pod by the beginning of next decade, as it eyes a growing requirement from several air forces for organic electronic attack capabilities.

‘The maturity of this technology is quite high due to the fact that we have reused several building blocks from the Gripen E, including the [digital radio frequency memory] and AESA technology we already have.’


Meanwhile, Saab is on track to begin testing EW systems onboard its new Gripen E this year as part of continuing flight trials for the Swedish fighter.

Testing of the Multi Functional System-EW (MFS-EW), which consists of radar warning receivers and electronic countermeasures, will carry on into 2019 when the first delivery of the Gripen E is planned.

A test programme will likely include radars illuminating the aircraft to test the platform’s radar warning receivers, eventually leading to the aircraft emitting RF energy from its high-powered electronic countermeasure system.
The Gripen E/F’s EW suite utilises several new technologies including ultrawideband digital receivers, gallium nitride, high-powered amplifiers and active electronically scanned array jammers. Electronic protection is provided in the frequency band ranging from 0.5GHz up to 40GHz.


https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/digi ... -pod-2020/

Is this frequency range common in integrated EW systems in fighters like SH, Typhoon, Rafale, F-16 block 70?

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2018, 08:38
by hornetfinn
0.5 to 40 GHz is pretty wide frequency range, but not unique. AFAIK, EF Typhoon has 0.1 to 18 GHz coverage and some sources give it 0.1 to 40GHz in latest upgrades. For example the IEWS in F-16 Block 60 has 0.5 to 18 GHz coverage with growth potential to 0.1 to 40 GHz. Dassault Rafale Spectra is said to cover 2 to 40 GHz, but some claim lower low end coverage. Super Hornet AN/ALQ-214 is said to cover 1 to 35 Ghz.

Of course overall coverage alone is not very important, although naturally it helps. The system also needs to have wide bandwidth, high sensitivity. good resolution and accuracy and short response time. For example 0.5 to 18 GHz system would cover almost all potential threat systems and it might actually be superior in real life to system that would have 0.1 to 40 GHz coverage. There are only handful of systems in the whole world that such a system would not cover. Of course wider coverage is nice to have if it doesn't affect other qualities of the system.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2018, 12:48
by loke
Gripen E has fired the first missile:


https://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/ ... -gripen-e/

The programme is on track, and we are making good progress in the programme towards delivery to our Swedish and Brazilian customers”, says Jonas Hjelm, Senior Vice President and Head of Saab business area Aeronautics.


Although not directly related to Gripen it is still interesting to note that:

Saab Receives Order for AESA X-band Fighter Array


from the US Government!

https://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/ ... ter-array/

I wonder what this is for!?

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2018, 13:32
by popcorn
Not necessarily for an airborne application.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2018, 15:52
by SpudmanWP
loke wrote:I wonder what this is for!?


Foreign Comparative Testing Program

Award was made to Saab Defense and Security USA, LLC for a research and development effort for the Office of Naval Research and the Office of the Secretary of Defense Foreign Comparative Testing Program under the authority of FAR 6.302-1 and DFARS 206.302-1 for an X-Band Active Aperture Array Radar prototype.


https://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2018/1 ... 118507.htm


What is the "Foreign Comparative Testing Program"

The Foreign Comparative Testing (FCT) program is to test items and technologies of our foreign allies that have a high Technology Readiness Level (TRL) in order to satisfy valid defense requirements quickly and economically. FCT continues to be a uniquely successful acquisition tool from a U.S. government-to-foreign industry standpoint. Since 1980, the FCT program has helped to foster the two-way street in defense spending between the U.S. and its allies through the procurement of more than $5 billion in foreign items. The program has reaped substantial savings by avoiding research and development costs, lowering procurement costs, reducing risk for major acquisition programs and accelerating the fielding of equipment critical to the readiness and safety of U.S. operating forces.

The FCT program has served as a catalyst for industry teaming arrangements, which have been productive for both U.S. and foreign industries in an increasingly competitive global market, helping to build a robust U.S. defense industrial base. Foreign items are nominated by a sponsoring organization within the Department of Defense for testing in order to determine whether the items satisfy U.S. military requirements or address mission area shortcomings. The OSD Comparative Testing Office funds testing and evaluation; the Services fund all procurements that result from a successful test. Additional information on the FCT program can be found at the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Comparative Testing Office (CTO) BIDS website: https://cto.acqcenter.com/osd/portal.nsf.


More at the jump
https://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Science-Tec ... esting-FCT

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 15:22
by mixelflick
I'm confused what SAAB's value proposition for the Gripen E is?

It's expensive.

It isn't stealth.

It can carry a lot of weapons, but not very far

It can fly far, but not with many weapons.

It does have (or at least looks to have) a very powerful EW suite

So at the end of the day you have a little fighter that wants to do everything, but can't. Unless you're a tiny country only interested in defending your borders, I don't see how it fits the need of India, Canada, the UAE etc.

What am I missing?

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2018, 16:11
by irt
mixelflick wrote:I'm confused what SAAB's value proposition for the Gripen E is?

It's expensive.

It isn't stealth.

It can carry a lot of weapons, but not very far

It can fly far, but not with many weapons.

It does have (or at least looks to have) a very powerful EW suite

So at the end of the day you have a little fighter that wants to do everything, but can't. Unless you're a tiny country only interested in defending your borders, I don't see how it fits the need of India, Canada, the UAE etc.

What am I missing?


What is it that it wants to do but can not?

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2018, 20:48
by wrightwing
irt wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I'm confused what SAAB's value proposition for the Gripen E is?

It's expensive.

It isn't stealth.

It can carry a lot of weapons, but not very far

It can fly far, but not with many weapons.

It does have (or at least looks to have) a very powerful EW suite

So at the end of the day you have a little fighter that wants to do everything, but can't. Unless you're a tiny country only interested in defending your borders, I don't see how it fits the need of India, Canada, the UAE etc.

What am I missing?


What is it that it wants to do but can not?

Fly in contested airspace, with a large payload over great distances.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2018, 22:17
by irt
wrightwing wrote:
irt wrote:
mixelflick wrote:I'm confused what SAAB's value proposition for the Gripen E is?

It's expensive.

It isn't stealth.

It can carry a lot of weapons, but not very far

It can fly far, but not with many weapons.

It does have (or at least looks to have) a very powerful EW suite

So at the end of the day you have a little fighter that wants to do everything, but can't. Unless you're a tiny country only interested in defending your borders, I don't see how it fits the need of India, Canada, the UAE etc.

What am I missing?


What is it that it wants to do but can not?

Fly in contested airspace, with a large payload over great distances.


You need to define contested airspace... some 3rd world country with 70s/80s tech sam systems maybee... Russia not a good idea propobly. But it is not designed to do so either. I dont get the hype to fly directly over a S400 and drop a JDAM on it. Its suecide even in a F35. Better to use a long range low rcs cruise missile to take out a sam system or any other target deep in enemy territory.

Everyone knows it not a long range bomb truck and it wasnt designed to be either..its an improvment over the C though.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2018, 23:45
by ricnunes
irt wrote:Russia not a good idea propobly. But it is not designed to do so either.


As far as I know the Gripen was designed to meet the Swedish needs in both air-to-air and air-to-ground roles and these needs have Russia as the opponent/threat in mind.

irt wrote:I dont get the hype to fly directly over a S400 and drop a JDAM on it. Its suecide even in a F35. Better to use a long range low rcs cruise missile to take out a sam system or any other target deep in enemy territory.


How about the FACT that a "long range low rcs cruise missile" is much, much more expensive than a JDAM??
And this not to mention that the cruise missile is probably more vulnerable to all sorts of short range air defense systems, including MANPADs and more advanced systems such as the Tor or Pantsir.

And no, a F-35 dropping a JDAM on a S-400 is not a suicide (not for the F-35) even because the JDAM can have a range of more than 15 nautical miles so it's already a considerable range which should allow the F-35 to release it (against a S-400) without being targeting due to the F-35's Stealth plus EW.

And then you have weapons such as the SDB which will allow the F-35 to engage the S-400 without the later having a minimal chance of engaging the former but if you put SDBs on the Gripen than the S-400 will likely be able to detect and target the incoming Gripen before it has the chance to launch its SDBs against the S-400.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 00:08
by irt
ricnunes wrote:
irt wrote:Russia not a good idea propobly. But it is not designed to do so either.


As far as I know the Gripen was designed to meet the Swedish needs in both air-to-air and air-to-ground roles and these needs have Russia as the opponent/threat in mind.

irt wrote:I dont get the hype to fly directly over a S400 and drop a JDAM on it. Its suecide even in a F35. Better to use a long range low rcs cruise missile to take out a sam system or any other target deep in enemy territory.


How about the FACT that a "long range low rcs cruise missile" is much, much more expensive than a JDAM??
And this not to mention that the cruise missile is probably more vulnerable to all sorts of short range air defense systems, including MANPADs and more advanced systems such as the Tor or Pantsir.

And no, a F-35 dropping a JDAM on a S-400 is not a suicide (not for the F-35) even because the JDAM can have a range of more than 15 nautical miles so it's already a considerable range which should allow the F-35 to release it (against a S-400) without being targeting due to the F-35's Stealth plus EW.

And then you have weapons such as the SDB which will allow the F-35 to engage the S-400 without the later having a minimal chance of engaging the former but if you put SDBs on the Gripen than the S-400 will likely be able to detect and target the incoming Gripen before it has the chance to launch its SDBs against the S-400.


Yes true! In a defensive role! With meteor it is superior to any russian jet in air to air combat. Su57 wont be produced and didnt have F35 stealth anyway. Their other fighters will be detected 100s of kilometers away. New antiship missiles with 300+ km range keeps it safe from sea launched sam systems. Tarus kepd 350 to strike russian harbours etc from long distance. Not to fly and drop gbu's on Moscow or something like that. The biggest threat to the swedish airforce is not their fighters, its the possibility of a surprise attack with cruise missiles and srbm's like iskander taking out our air force on the ground.

You want to fly into russia in a F35 and expect to only face radars from the front? Is F35 invicible from all directions? No. Hard to detect? Yes. You will have threats from all directions if u fly into russian or chineese airspace. It is suecide even in an F35. Then there is the pantsir systems that protect the s400, they like most modern short range sam/cwis systems have a good probability to take down incoming artillery and mortar rounds. What do you think is goining to happen to your 2000lbs -non manouvering-slow as fuck-gliding in from above -rcs like an arliner JDAM? Compared to a stealthy low flying manouvering cruise missile with built in ews and countermeasures.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2018, 14:12
by mixelflick
Not suicide in an F-35, not by a long shot...

The F-35 was specifically designed to defeat the S-300, 400 and whatever they come up with next threat. I guess that'll be the S-500. Please read that again; Designed specifically for the S-300/400/500 threat. Nobody's advocating flying directly over those batteries, but the F-35 will be able to get closer than any other aircraft, and said batteries will be well within range of SDB, JDAM and many other air to ground weapons.

The S-300/400/500 are certainly fearsome weapons. The US has fallen behind in that field and needs to play catch up pronto. But the S-300 is operational today in Syria, and Israeli F-35's are flying combat missions in that theater. They're also talking about ordering more. Make of that what you will...

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 04:11
by XanderCrews
irt wrote:You want to fly into russia in a F35 and expect to only face radars from the front? Is F35 invicible from all directions? No. Hard to detect? Yes. You will have threats from all directions if u fly into russian or chineese airspace. It is suecide even in an F35.


straw man. congrats on defeating it.

Then there is the pantsir systems that protect the s400, they like most modern short range sam/cwis systems have a good probability to take down incoming artillery and mortar rounds. What do you think is goining to happen to your 2000lbs -non manouvering-slow as fuck-gliding in from above -rcs like an arliner JDAM? Compared to a stealthy low flying manouvering cruise missile with built in ews and countermeasures.


the whole purpose of a LO platform using a JDAM is the bomb is not detected until after its dropped, cutting down response time. You can also used dozens in comparison to the cost of a LO Cruise missile complete with EW and Countermeasures.

This is going to shock you but people with far more experience than you know that the probability of success against SAMs with long range missiles is pretty damn slim. Thats all I'm going to say about that. In America we actually have people who have been to war.


mixelflick wrote:I'm confused what SAAB's value proposition for the Gripen E is?

It's expensive.

It isn't stealth.

It can carry a lot of weapons, but not very far

It can fly far, but not with many weapons.

It does have (or at least looks to have) a very powerful EW suite

So at the end of the day you have a little fighter that wants to do everything, but can't. Unless you're a tiny country only interested in defending your borders, I don't see how it fits the need of India, Canada, the UAE etc.

What am I missing?


Its a jobs welfare program. Theyve had a hellacious time selling it. They aren't even selling the airplane as much as they are that its a jobs welfare program for whomever buys it. Its gained weight which is going to have cascading effects over the entire thing. The T/W ins't going to be as good as the original. The EW will be kinda like spectra decades after Spectra came out.

Gripen E is the Gripen trying to catch up to the F-16 by addressing shortcomings in range and power that were well known. its not built to be revolutionary. Its the same airplane slightly bigger with more gas, a lot more weight, a new engine, and an EW Suite that will be pretty gosh darn ok by the time it gets full up in the mid 2020s. A gen 4.5 fighter showing up on the scene decades after Super Hornet, Rafale and EF Typhoon.

in hindsight the "F-16SWE" built in Linkopeg and complete with whatever mods they wanted was the way to go. :doh:

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 09:57
by hornetfinn
mixelflick wrote:Not suicide in an F-35, not by a long shot...

The F-35 was specifically designed to defeat the S-300, 400 and whatever they come up with next threat. I guess that'll be the S-500. Please read that again; Designed specifically for the S-300/400/500 threat. Nobody's advocating flying directly over those batteries, but the F-35 will be able to get closer than any other aircraft, and said batteries will be well within range of SDB, JDAM and many other air to ground weapons.

The S-300/400/500 are certainly fearsome weapons. The US has fallen behind in that field and needs to play catch up pronto. But the S-300 is operational today in Syria, and Israeli F-35's are flying combat missions in that theater. They're also talking about ordering more. Make of that what you will...


One thing that is almost always forgotten is that besides very low RCS, F-35 has insane situational awareness capability and can tell exactly where every one of those dreaded S-300/400/500 and other AD systems are and where they can possibly detect the F-35. So the pilots in F-35s can easily fly around those AD systems. Even in bad pop-up situation where some previously unknown AD radar is relocated and powered on again, F-35 will instantly know where it is and avoid it. Even if enemy radar can detect F-35, the small RCS means that F-35 has very good chance of getting outside effective range of said radar before any missile can reach F-35.

Not to mention the great EW capability F-35 has with enormous power coming from AN/APG-81 antenna. Together with very low RCS it's going to be very hard for radars to overcome.

I don't think US has really fallen behind in AD systems. US Navy probably has the best AD systems overall in existence with Aegis, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM and CEC capabilities. Even Patriot system is pretty damn good especially with latest upgrades and missiles. It's just that Russia focuses a lot more in AD systems than USA.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 15:50
by swiss
hornetfinn wrote:I don't think US has really fallen behind in AD systems. US Navy probably has the best AD systems overall in existence with Aegis, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM and CEC capabilities. Even Patriot system is pretty damn good especially with latest upgrades and missiles. It's just that Russia focuses a lot more in AD systems than USA.


It make a lot of sense to put your top notch AD system on a ship if you country is surrounded by oceans. And your enemys have to attack from there. The Aegis should be also more "movable" then a S-400 on land. And for each Carrier battle group, with several Ticonderoga/Arleigh Burke and subs, we talking about several 100 Surface-to-air missile. Not to mention dozens of SH.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 15:52
by icemaverick
I don't think US has really fallen behind in AD systems. US Navy probably has the best AD systems overall in existence with Aegis, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM and CEC capabilities. Even Patriot system is pretty damn good especially with latest upgrades and missiles. It's just that Russia focuses a lot more in AD systems than USA.


Russia focuses more on AD systems out of necessity. They don’t have nearly as many resources at their disposal for design/development/deployment of fighter aircraft and the training of pilots and related personnel. It’s much cheaper to develop SAM systems. It’s also more affordable for their export customers; it’s a lot easier and more economical to build an air defense network than an effective air force.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 17:10
by XanderCrews
icemaverick wrote:
I don't think US has really fallen behind in AD systems. US Navy probably has the best AD systems overall in existence with Aegis, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM and CEC capabilities. Even Patriot system is pretty damn good especially with latest upgrades and missiles. It's just that Russia focuses a lot more in AD systems than USA.


Russia focuses more on AD systems out of necessity. They don’t have nearly as many resources at their disposal for design/development/deployment of fighter aircraft and the training of pilots and related personnel. It’s much cheaper to develop SAM systems. It’s also more affordable for their export customers; it’s a lot easier and more economical to build an air defense network than an effective air force.


This is correct.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 17:47
by irt
XanderCrews wrote:
irt wrote:You want to fly into russia in a F35 and expect to only face radars from the front? Is F35 invicible from all directions? No. Hard to detect? Yes. You will have threats from all directions if u fly into russian or chineese airspace. It is suecide even in an F35.


straw man. congrats on defeating it.

Then there is the pantsir systems that protect the s400, they like most modern short range sam/cwis systems have a good probability to take down incoming artillery and mortar rounds. What do you think is goining to happen to your 2000lbs -non manouvering-slow as fuck-gliding in from above -rcs like an arliner JDAM? Compared to a stealthy low flying manouvering cruise missile with built in ews and countermeasures.


the whole purpose of a LO platform using a JDAM is the bomb is not detected until after its dropped, cutting down response time. You can also used dozens in comparison to the cost of a LO Cruise missile complete with EW and Countermeasures.

This is going to shock you but people with far more experience than you know that the probability of success against SAMs with long range missiles is pretty damn slim. Thats all I'm going to say about that. In America we actually have people who have been to war.


mixelflick wrote:I'm confused what SAAB's value proposition for the Gripen E is?

It's expensive.

It isn't stealth.

It can carry a lot of weapons, but not very far

It can fly far, but not with many weapons.

It does have (or at least looks to have) a very powerful EW suite

So at the end of the day you have a little fighter that wants to do everything, but can't. Unless you're a tiny country only interested in defending your borders, I don't see how it fits the need of India, Canada, the UAE etc.

What am I missing?


Its a jobs welfare program. Theyve had a hellacious time selling it. They aren't even selling the airplane as much as they are that its a jobs welfare program for whomever buys it. Its gained weight which is going to have cascading effects over the entire thing. The T/W ins't going to be as good as the original. The EW will be kinda like spectra decades after Spectra came out.

Gripen E is the Gripen trying to catch up to the F-16 by addressing shortcomings in range and power that were well known. its not built to be revolutionary. Its the same airplane slightly bigger with more gas, a lot more weight, a new engine, and an EW Suite that will be pretty gosh darn ok by the time it gets full up in the mid 2020s. A gen 4.5 fighter showing up on the scene decades after Super Hornet, Rafale and EF Typhoon.

in hindsight the "F-16SWE" built in Linkopeg and complete with whatever mods they wanted was the way to go. :doh:


Well since Syria is getting the s300 systems now, and the israelis have said they will take em out if they threaten israeli pilots, maybe we will find out if F35s with JDAMs or F16s with Delilah is the preferred solution for such operations.

So far in Syria it seems to me JDAMs are used against isis and other terrorist groups. And whenever the US and allies have targeted Syrian "chemical factories" and air bases they have used large numbers of cruise missiles to do so. If a B2/F22/F35 could do the job with cheap JDAMs, why waste 10s of millions on cruice missiles to do it?

As far as Gripen beeing a jobs welfare program and a F16swe you are pretty much spot on. T/W on the E model will be about the same as the C as far as i know.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 21:06
by XanderCrews
irt wrote:Well since Syria is getting the s300 systems now, and the israelis have said they will take em out if they threaten israeli pilots, maybe we will find out if F35s with JDAMs or F16s with Delilah is the preferred solution for such operations.

So far in Syria it seems to me JDAMs are used against isis and other terrorist groups. And whenever the US and allies have targeted Syrian "chemical factories" and air bases they have used large numbers of cruise missiles to do so. If a B2/F22/F35 could do the job with cheap JDAMs, why waste 10s of millions on cruice missiles to do it?



Operational Flexibility. In other words, there are many ways to do it, and that is what was chosen.

To add to what I said above youre also talking about Mobile SAMs, EW, and Dummy systems. Just because you launched a cruise missile at something from 250 miles away doesn't mean the target has to sit still while it arrives. Besides Cruise missiles from Aircraft are typically a last resort. If Sweden is using its rather small air force lobbing cruise missiles, its got big problems. The US has luaunched 10s of thousands of cruise missiles, they have their limitations and those limitations are known when comparing an airstrike vs cruise missile strike.

Target ID is a massive issue and the US's breakneck desire for ISR is a great example of that. The great 1991 Scud Hunt in Western Iraq was a real eye opener at the need to find and service the proper targets. We had tons of cruise missiles then just like we did now, but it turns out locating them is exceedingly difficult. Popping off missiles at anything that looks like a truck with a trailer doesn't work, especially when its moving.

As far as Gripen beeing a jobs welfare program and a F16swe you are pretty much spot on.


appreciate that.


T/W on the E model will be about the same as the C as far as i know.


It weighs 1200 more KG Empty than the Gripen C. just 300 kilos less than a Block 52 F-16. but the F-16 has a larger engine.


Gripen E: Empty weight 8000KG
F414:
13,000 lbf (57.8 kN) military thrust
22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) with afterburner


Gripen C: Empty weight 6800KG
RM12:

54 kN (12,100 lbf) military thrust
80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) with afterburner

In my opinion the second it hit 8000 KG it was time to cancel it, massively redesign it, or pick a new engine. But they were married to F414, and they missed their target weight. too late now I guess. Its crazy to think Saab was selling this thing not even 5 years ago as a 7000 KG airplane (or even less) thats not what it is. I'll also go out on a limb here, and tell you that the US has a formula where we calculate planes per pound. The more it weighs the more it costs is a solid general rule. I have no clue how thing thing will have gained 1200 kilos (thats 2,640 pounds more) and not see a corresponding increase in price. So its going to cost more too. According to some reports in India it already does cost more than an F-16V

I'll stop the bashing, we have a tread for that already. This is for news.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 22:10
by irt
XanderCrews wrote:
irt wrote:Well since Syria is getting the s300 systems now, and the israelis have said they will take em out if they threaten israeli pilots, maybe we will find out if F35s with JDAMs or F16s with Delilah is the preferred solution for such operations.

So far in Syria it seems to me JDAMs are used against isis and other terrorist groups. And whenever the US and allies have targeted Syrian "chemical factories" and air bases they have used large numbers of cruise missiles to do so. If a B2/F22/F35 could do the job with cheap JDAMs, why waste 10s of millions on cruice missiles to do it?



Operational Flexibility. In other words, there are many ways to do it, and that is what was chosen.

To add to what I said above youre also talking about Mobile SAMs, EW, and Dummy systems. Just because you launched a cruise missile at something from 250 miles away doesn't mean the target has to sit still while it arrives. Besides Cruise missiles from Aircraft are typically a last resort. If Sweden is using its rather small air force lobbing cruise missiles, its got big problems. The US has luaunched 10s of thousands of cruise missiles, they have their limitations and those limitations are known when comparing an airstrike vs cruise missile strike.

Target ID is a massive issue and the US's breakneck desire for ISR is a great example of that. The great 1991 Scud Hunt in Western Iraq was a real eye opener at the need to find and service the proper targets. We had tons of cruise missiles then just like we did now, but it turns out locating them is exceedingly difficult. Popping off missiles at anything that looks like a truck with a trailer doesn't work, especially when its moving.

As far as Gripen beeing a jobs welfare program and a F16swe you are pretty much spot on.


appreciate that.


T/W on the E model will be about the same as the C as far as i know.


It weighs 1200 more KG Empty than the Gripen C. just 300 kilos less than a Block 52 F-16. but the F-16 has a larger engine.


Gripen E: Empty weight 8000KG
F414:
13,000 lbf (57.8 kN) military thrust
22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) with afterburner


Gripen C: Empty weight 6800KG
RM12:

54 kN (12,100 lbf) military thrust
80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) with afterburner

In my opinion the second it hit 8000 KG it was time to cancel it, massively redesign it, or pick a new engine. But they were married to F414, and they missed their target weight. too late now I guess. Its crazy to think Saab was selling this thing not even 5 years ago as a 7000 KG airplane (or even less) thats not what it is. I'll also go out on a limb here, and tell you that the US has a formula where we calculate planes per pound. The more it weighs the more it costs is a solid general rule. I have no clue how thing thing will have gained 1200 kilos (thats 2,640 pounds more) and not see a corresponding increase in price. So its going to cost more too. According to some reports in India it already does cost more than an F-16V

I'll stop the bashing, we have a tread for that already. This is for news.


More complex systems like s300/400 tend to be more stationary and therfore more suited to attack with cruise missiles.

Antiship missions has always been a task of the swedish air force.
And since its basicly lobbing cruise missiles at the enemy, why is the airforce in big trouble because of that?

Thrust numbers ive seen is 64kn dry thrust. In that case its ~20% increase in weight and thrust. The 8 ton weight is a bit of a disappointment. It was supposed to be 14.1m and ~7 ton like the C in the early specs, now its 15+m and 8 ton. Something made them increase the size of the fuselage. Could be trouble fitting the cooling system for the aesa radar in the C body. They could fitt everything in the D model demonstrator but its 14.8m in length.


Full of fuel the E has a T/W ratio of .86 and the C a T/W of .82 and then the E can fly alot further tho. No hotrods by any means but not the end of the world either.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 22:39
by XanderCrews
irt wrote:
More complex systems like s300/400 tend to be more stationary and therfore more suited to attack with cruise missiles.



Road mobile means exactly what it says. They can pop and move quickly, they also have a lot of redundancy and providing they are coordinated there will always be some ready in mutual support while others relocate. also talking about multiple radars and decentralized targeting.

Antiship missions has always been a task of the swedish air force.
And since its basicly lobbing cruise missiles at the enemy, why is the airforce in big trouble because of that?


Because you're talking about using them for SEAD.

Thrust numbers ive seen is 64kn dry thrust. In that case its ~20% increase in weight and thrust. The 8 ton weight is a bit of a disappointment. It was supposed to be 14.1m and ~7 ton like the C in the early specs, now its 15+m and 8 ton. Something made them increase the size of the fuselage. Could be trouble fitting the cooling system for the aesa radar in the C body.


The only place ive seen 64KN is referencing the Gripen program. everywhere else says otherwise. I don't even think GE has 64KN. It looks like the classic game of internet telephone. One thing gets mistated once and then from there on its copied far and wide before anyone looks into it. which might explain why the F414 shows up at 64KN in all the Gripen literature but not many other places and certainly not with the Super Hornet. F414 is a decades old engine with millions of hours of service. I don't think its going to surprise us and out no nowhere start cranking out 6.2 KN more thrust, because we told it to "think in swedish" It is what it is and we know what it is. Just like we know what the Gripen C is.

Gripen fans really think that 1+1=11 and not 2.

We have 2 very logical reference points for Gripen E.1st is the Gripen C. 2nd is the F414 engine. I really don't expect miracles because its not supposed to be miraculous (despite call of it being a "6th generation" fighter). Its supposed to be an improvement. "deliberately constrained" though.

I really just don't know what we are expecting exactly. "comparable to the F-16" is a phrase that comes to mind. :| do we really think its going to exceed it? On the great pyramid of fighters, its not going to catapult itself to the top right past F-16, past the medium fighters and other European aircraft like the Typhoon and Rafale?

They could fitt everything in the D model demonstrator but its 14.8m in length.


yeah demonstrators are demonstrators, not representative of the full combat capable model.

Full of fuel the E has a T/W ratio of .86 and the C a T/W of .82 and then the E can fly alot further tho. No hotrods by any means but not the end of the world either.



Using the actual thrust of the GE F414 or the invented 64KN??

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 22:51
by ricnunes
irt wrote:So far in Syria it seems to me JDAMs are used against isis and other terrorist groups. And whenever the US and allies have targeted Syrian "chemical factories" and air bases they have used large numbers of cruise missiles to do so. If a B2/F22/F35 could do the job with cheap JDAMs, why waste 10s of millions on cruice missiles to do it?


Well, that was one/single strike on an air base and one/single strike on chemical facilities (3 of them) or resuming two (2) "isolated" air strikes/raids.
If you're going to perform a one-off strike against targets that cannot move - buildings - which was exactly the case above then cruise missiles are indeed a good solution.
However due to what was already mentioned about cruise missiles - being much more expensive and much more likely to be shot down compared to other weapons such as the JDAM or lets not forget the Small Diameter Bomb or SDB - it means that you cannot carry a sustained warfare resorting to that sort of weapons specially by using them against semi-mobile targets like the S-300/400 (Xandercrews also provided your reasons why cruise missiles aren't good weapons for Air Defense Systems since they can be mobile).
Probably even the USA which has lots of resources available don't have the means to fight a prolonged war resorting to (expensive) cruise missiles, much less countries like Sweden and other potential Gripen (or other Eurocannards) customers.

Moreover regarding those two air strikes/raids over Syria, notice that only in one (1) of those strikes/raids were combat aircraft used which was in the strike against the "chemical facilities". The other raid/strike (the one against the airbase) was performed by ship-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles and strike against the "chemical facilities":
- No F-35's were used.
- No B-2's were used either (as opposed to what you mentioned/hinted on your post).
- The only Stealth aircraft used was the F-22 but these were used to provide air cover/escort to US B-1Bs (basically/likely air-to-air role).
- So all the aircraft that were used on the actual strike against the ground based "chemical facilities" were non-stealth aircraft. These included, B-1Bs (mentioned on the point above), Tornadoes, Typhoons, Rafales and Mirage 2000s. And apparently for these to have a good chance of success (as they did) they needed to use a very big number of expensive cruise missiles (36 air-launched cruise missiles which excludes the ship-based Tomahawks) and this again for a single strike/raid - now and again, imagine a prolonged war/conflict!!

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 23:00
by ricnunes
irt wrote:More complex systems like s300/400 tend to be more stationary and therfore more suited to attack with cruise missiles.


Even this, which is a "monster of a radar/system":
Image

Can be disassembled and "hit the road" in 15 minutes and assembled back in another 15 minutes.
So, now imagine how much less time a much more compact and mobile S-300/400 system requires for this (to disassemble and "hit the road"/become mobile and then to assemble again)...

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 23:32
by marsavian
mixelflick wrote:I'm confused what SAAB's value proposition for the Gripen E is?

It's expensive.

It isn't stealth.

It can carry a lot of weapons, but not very far

It can fly far, but not with many weapons.

It does have (or at least looks to have) a very powerful EW suite

So at the end of the day you have a little fighter that wants to do everything, but can't. Unless you're a tiny country only interested in defending your borders, I don't see how it fits the need of India, Canada, the UAE etc.

What am I missing?


In the recent Slovakia bid its initial cost was less then the F-16 Block 70 but was considered to have greater life cycle costs but the latter is an estimate.

viewtopic.php?p=399213#p399213

So why else would you buy it ? Maybe you like the overall kinematic performance, the 200 degree swivelling AESA, the internal IRST, the aircraft networking, Meteor capability, powerful state of the art GaN EW system, short road performance, small size both physically and in the radio spectrum. Neat set of attributes but you wouldn't pick it over a proper 5th gen stealth aircraft using any sense but against other 4th gens it's in with a good shout in competitions.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 00:58
by marsavian
Philippine Air Force (PAF) likely to acquire Swedish-made fighter jets

http://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1051097

MANILA – After a thorough study and research, the Department of National Defense (DND) is most likely to buy the Swedish-made Gripen multi-role supersonic jet fighter for the Philippine Air Force (PAF).

Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana made this disclosure in an exclusive interview with the Philippine News Agency (PNA) on the sidelines of the book launching of former President Fidel V. Ramos at the Manila Hotel on Sunday.

Lorenzana said aside from being cheaper and less expensive in maintenance cost, the Gripen has been proven to be an excellent supersonic fighter aircraft with a top speed of Mach 2 or 1,236 kilometers per hour, or twice the speed of sound.

The Gripen has a delta wing and canard configuration and is powered by the Volvo RM12. It is being used by various countries in Europe and the Middle East.

The PAF has been scouting for over a decade of what jetfighter aircraft it would buy to replace the US-made F5A/B jet interceptors that retired in 2005 due to old age and lack of spare parts.

Since the F-5s were pulled from service, the Air Force tried to acquire advanced jetfighters such as the supersonic F-16 from the United States, but no progress was made.

Lorenzana said the United States government offered anew to sell F-16 fighter jets to the Philippines.

The offer, Lorenzana added, was made by US Defense Secretary James Mattis when the DND secretary visited Washington last month.

Lorenzana confirmed the US offer, but said the F-16 supersonic jetfighter interceptors are too expensive.

In comparison, the Gripen costs less and has the same capability with other multi-role jetfighters, including the F-16.

Since F-5s were put out of service, the PAF has no multi-role jetfighters in its arsenal, although it had bought from South Korea a dozen of F-50 jets but the planes’ capability is limited compared with the Gripen, F-16 and similar aircraft.

The acquisition of multi-role jetfighters, Lorenzana said, is badly needed to protect the country’s airspace.

It may be recalled that in 1995 during the administration of President Fidel V. Ramos, Congress passed the modernization program of the Armed Forces of the Philippines that includes the acquisition of new planes, helicopters and naval vessels to replace aging ones. (PNA)

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 03:15
by garrya
irt wrote:Then there is the pantsir systems that protect the s400, they like most modern short range sam/cwis systems have a good probability to take down incoming artillery and mortar rounds. What do you think is goining to happen to your 2000lbs -non manouvering-slow as fuck-gliding in from above -rcs like an arliner JDAM? Compared to a stealthy low flying manouvering cruise missile with built in ews and countermeasures.

F-35 can carry more than just 2000 lbs JDAM or glider bomb internally
SX0Ctsf.png

z9DSIq7.jpg

vKaBm6q.jpg

Capture.PNG

F-35B-MBDA-SPEAR-ASRAAM-Meteor.jpg

Cuda-LM-DSCN0157v2c2000.jpg

7jFg33D.png

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 04:55
by XanderCrews
ricnunes wrote:
irt wrote:More complex systems like s300/400 tend to be more stationary and therfore more suited to attack with cruise missiles.


Even this, which is a "monster of a radar/system":
Image

Can be disassembled and "hit the road" in 15 minutes and assembled back in another 15 minutes.
So, now imagine how much less time a much more compact and mobile S-300/400 system requires for this (to disassemble and "hit the road"/become mobile and then to assemble again)...



In the 80s even giant patriot missiles weren't expected to be in the same spot for more than 4 hours maximum and those are harder to pack up and move compared to Russian stuff.


It's not going to be a linear fight.


The issue isnt necessarily the cost of the uber stealthy/jamming/cruise missile it's that there will be fewer of them due to the cost. If someone goes to war with Russia the money spigot is on, the issue is how many uber cruisers you have stockpiled, how fast you crank them out, oh and BTW the ability to keep the factory from being put out of action wherever it is.

You will burn through ordnance distressingly fast and Russian mobility, Active defense, countermeasures, EW, redundancy, dummy systems etc are meant to help that happen. Another issue is BDA. Did your cruise missile take it out? Or is it still lurking?

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 15:47
by ricnunes
XanderCrews wrote:The issue isnt necessarily the cost of the uber stealthy/jamming/cruise missile it's that there will be fewer of them due to the cost. If someone goes to war with Russia the money spigot is on, the issue is how many uber cruisers you have stockpiled, how fast you crank them out, oh and BTW the ability to keep the factory from being put out of action wherever it is.


Well, I do think that cost is really important here. Like you correctly said, cost (or expensive cost) affects numbers of such expensive weapons available which are generally stockpiled in low numbers, specially compared with other cheaper weapons (such as JDAMs or SDBs for example).
Moreover, a successful Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD) usually requires a considerable (just not to say "a lot", yet) amount/number of expended ammo. This goes against the "nature of the Cruise missile" with its generally low availability in numbers.
You also brought up another interesting point which is how fast can someone produce (lots of) cruise missiles? I would say that the high cost of cruise missiles could probably mean that these weapons take a considerable amount of time to manufacture, this again and specially in contrast with other cheaper weapons.
And another reason for the high cruise missile cost could also be due to requiring a much bigger and much more complex supply line of raw materials and previously manufactured components whose supply line would likely be strained in the case of a prolonged war/conflict.

Resuming, the (cruise missile) high cost is likely a "symptom" of all the issues mentioned above.


XanderCrews wrote:You will burn through ordnance distressingly fast and Russian mobility, Active defense, countermeasures, EW, redundancy, dummy systems etc are meant to help that happen. Another issue is BDA. Did your cruise missile take it out? Or is it still lurking?


Absolutely agree! And that's another reason why I think that relying on Cruise Missiles to conduct a prolonged war/conflict - and it doesn't even have to be against Russia - and namely using them as the weapon of choice against enemy Air Defenses (which is a very hard task and requires the expense of "lots of ammo" to be successful) is a recipe for disaster.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 15:50
by ricnunes
marsavian wrote:Philippine Air Force (PAF) likely to acquire Swedish-made fighter jets

http://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1051097


Interesting, thanks for sharing the link marsavian :thumb:

So this means that the Philippine are interested in the Gripen C/D (second-hand ones perhaps?) and not on the Gripen NG.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 16:18
by marsavian
Yes, the very latest specification of C with the new MK4 radar is what is being proposed by Saab.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defe ... hilippine/
https://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/ ... gripen-cd/

The PS-05/A Mk4 is the most recent development of the renowned PS-05/A radar, originally developed for the Gripen fighter. Through continuous spiral development it has maintained its position as one of the most competent fighter radars in the world.

A new hardware configuration with a complete new radar back-end gives significantly improved radar performance and operational range, enhances the Gripen Weapon System capabilities and offers full AMRAAM and Meteor integration. It also enables significant capability growth through software upgrades to successfully counter evolving threats in decades to come.

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. The Meteor missile downlink is optimized to maintain radar performance during long-range data linking scenarios.


https://web.archive.org/web/20151220013 ... -d-fighter

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.

The upgraded radar, designated PS-05/A Mk4, features a new hardware and software, with the primary changes being in the system's 'back end'. 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').

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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 16:44
by mixelflick
Wow, the Phillipines select Gripen.

Well good for SAAB. I guess that makes the Phillipines the new powerhouse in that neck of the woods? LOL

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 16:50
by marsavian
The real takeaway is that Gripen will always have a chance where cost is the primary competition factor especially the C/D models.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 08:32
by hythelday
It is being used by various countries in Europe and the Middle East.


Which one is a ME country, South Africa or Tahiland? :D

Good for SAAB to pick up some orders. The Philippines said Gripen C was cheaper than F-16, but Slovakia said it's the other way around. Proves once more how difficult it really is to put a finger on precise cost of ownership of a fighter.

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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 11:26
by linkomart
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

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 15:03
by ricnunes
hythelday wrote:The Philippines said Gripen C was cheaper than F-16, but Slovakia said it's the other way around. Proves once more how difficult it really is to put a finger on precise cost of ownership of a fighter.


Isn't the Philippines or more precisely its leadership currently "at odds" with the USA??
Perhaps this is the reason why the Philippines selected the Gripen instead the F-16? And with that the "lower cost" is just a "manufactured excuse"?

I still don't know (perhaps I missed in it in the articles above) if those Gripen Cs are new built or second hand?
But in case they are newly build then it could also be the case (along with the lines above) that a newly manufactured Gripen C is perhaps a bit cheaper than a newly built F-16 which would likely be a F-16V which is the most advanced F-16 variant and as far as I know the only F-16 variant being newly build.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 15:24
by mixelflick
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??

SAAB always talked up its maritime warfare capabilities. Will be interesting to see what the Phillipines does with it. Won't be going far, but for point defense it won't need to. Zippy little design, and with the Meteor should command a good deal of respect. We'll see if they can parlay this into any more orders...

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 16:33
by jakobs
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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 16:58
by hythelday
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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 19:08
by marsavian
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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 21:34
by XanderCrews
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:

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 22:54
by ricnunes
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!

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2018, 01:25
by Corsair1963
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!

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2018, 04:21
by weasel1962
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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2018, 07:16
by linkomart
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

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2018, 10:07
by hornetfinn
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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2018, 06:53
by boilermaker
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

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2018, 08:21
by hornetfinn
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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2018, 13:00
by zero-one
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

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2018, 13:34
by pron
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

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2018, 16:19
by hythelday
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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2018, 17:42
by zero-one
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.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2018, 18:45
by hythelday
zero-one wrote:
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.


With just 12 it does not really matter what they buy. Looks like they want something to scramble in the air in case of airspace violations and a platform to launch AShMs.

I understand that if "high-speed low-drag" mindset is applied, then "old" Gripen ought to be considered obsolete; but then again there's precedent of ROKAF still flying F-4s and France only recently retiring Super Etendards, so I don't think Philippines will be looking at replacement anytime soon.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2018, 08:25
by element1loop
Philippines needs better diplomacy and defense links to allies with mutual interests. Gripen-C will get them building towards addition of another type which may be a South Korean KF-X LO single which Indonesia is still covering 20% of the development costs for (as the new Su35s already don't cut it). So it's not out of the question that 12 x KF-X are added after 2030 and the Gripen is replaced with more KF-X after that (now, if only New Zealand would try to do half as much as the Philippines does).

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2018, 09:10
by zero-one
Well NZ feels like they're far from the threat (China), which they are. PH is trying to fast forward upgrading their capabilities from a technological stand point.

They probably have the most experience in SE Asia when it comes to actual combat. Vietnam's veterans have long retired from the front lines so that leaves them as the dominant power when it comes to experience and battle hardened vets.

But from an equipment perspective, they're pretty much behind their neighbors and are only now beginning to catch up.
Here's the problem, their Modernization plan consist of 3 phases called "Horizons" and spans 15 years. The Ph's presidential term is 6 years, so thats gona be 3 people at the helm for the duration of the modernization plan

President Aquino was at the helm of Horizon 1. He had warm relations with Washington and was firm in his stance against China, he wanted to bolster external defense capabilities and build up what he called a "minimum credible defense posture". In laymans term he wants the Ph to have at least a decent territorial defense capability and fend of a modest invasion force all by itself. With allies helping, they could thwart a major invasion. Horizon 1 had a budget of about $1.7 Billion

President Duterte on the other hand is in charge of Horizon 2, he wanted a pivot towards China and at the beginning sought to curb the modernization by focusing on internal security instead of territorial defense. Relations with Washington were strained and the defense department as well as the public did not agree with this policy.

He soon realized that this plan doesn't work and that China will not ease their massive territorial land grab in the South China sea, so he is now scrambling to re align the modernization program back to territorial defense objectives. He recently approved the budget for Horizon 2 which amounts to $5.6 Billion

The next president in 2022 will be in charge of Horizon 3, this should be the biggest and costliest part of the modernization program, however the Ph has been fortunate so far as to have 2 President who both prioritize the modernization program. They may have different political ideologies but both grew up around guns personally know how to shoot. The next one remains to be seen. But if all goes right, Horizon 3 should be pushing upwards of $15 Billion dollars. Thats where we might see some serious hardware. The F-35 may be in the conversation.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 14:04
by element1loop
zero-one wrote:Well NZ feels like they're far from the threat (China), which they are. PH is trying to fast forward upgrading their capabilities from a technological stand point.


Given regional tensions I don't think it's acceptable to not have begun to rebuild a basic fastjet force (although there are some early indications of changes). Enough said about that.

zero-one wrote:Horizon 3 should be pushing upwards of $15 Billion dollars. Thats where we might see some serious hardware. The F-35 may be in the conversation.


$15 billion is peanuts compared to the modernization needs and for now it's vaporware, plus Philippines is in no position to consider buying from the topshelf. Last few times I've seen Duterte on TV he appeared to be very drunk and unsteady on his feet, which probably accounts for the mixed messages and a reduced quality of relations.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 16:46
by loke
Test aircraft 39-9 completed its first flight Nov. 26, to become the first Gripen E test vehicle equipped with all of the communications, navigation and surveillance systems that will be featured on the new fighter jet when it achieves a targeted first delivery in 2019.

On the Gripen E, Saab is using a unique DIMA platform software layer that allows all of the aircraft’s line replaceable units (LRUs) to effectively function as one system.

Johan Segertoft, development leader for the Gripen E program at Saab, spoke with AVI after the 39-9's first flight about how the fighter jet uses a unique data data-driven architecture and features unique technologies and materials designed to reduce weight and improve the design and development process.


Can you explain how DIMA enables the Gripen's LRUs to function as one system?

The DIMA system enables a level of abstraction. So from a software application perspective, you can develop code once without modifications based on deployment, and deployment can be in any of the LRUs of the system, which is governed by data driven configuration, or HIL, MIL, SIL installments.

Basically, from a logical perspective, you are working towards one system with the same set of rules and possibilities. This provide a lot of benefits in terms of verification and validation when you are able to run the exact same code towards the same application programmable interfaces in all environments irrespective of hardware or even operating systems.
There are a lot of key capabilities with the avionics platform, safe partitioning and flexible deployment being some obvious ones, but the ability to reconfigure the system with ease and very low impact in terms of reverification, even for safety critical applications, is probably one of the more important of all its unique features.

What are some of the innovative new technologies or materials featured on the Gripen E?

One area of interest, as it is for all aircraft programs, is to find ways to reduce weight. In Gripen E we have introduced aluminum lithium as an alloy for the structural parts, that allows for weight saving. Another technology is additive manufacturing, that has been used for some structural parts also with the intention to reduce weight with an improve functionality as well.


Read more: https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/12/1 ... ment-lead/

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2018, 16:48
by loke
OFIA (Bulgaria), December 14 (SeeNews) - Sweden's Saab said on Friday that it submitted an improved offer for supply of new Gripen C/D fighter jets to Bulgaria, and is now proposing to deliver 10 jets instead of the initially proposed eight.

"The optimised offer meets all mandatory requirements set by Bulgaria, is within the limits of the set budget and the first jets will be delivered within 24 months after the contract has been signed," Saab said in a statement.

Read more: https://seenews.com/news/saab-sweetens- ... ria-636748

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 08:14
by zero-one
element1loop wrote:
$15 billion is peanuts compared to the modernization needs and for now it's vaporware,


It is, but according to their defense secretary, the goal is not for them to be able to stand against China alone, the goal is to not be the weak link against China if a coalition is formed. The Mutual Defense treaty with the US remains to be the corner stone of their defense strategy. Everything hinges on that.

Heres an example, To date, they have 2 Anti Sub helicopters on the pipeline. Talking to a US navy crew member with experience in ASW. he says that you need at least 5 to effectively employ the box trap against an enemy sub. However those 2 anti-sub helos are training to properly integrate their capabilities with thier US Navy counterparts to effectively employ joint operations.

so for now at least, the goal is how to be a more effective ally to the US not to stand up against China alone.

element1loop wrote:plus Philippines is in no position to consider buying from the topshelf. Last few times I've seen Duterte on TV he appeared to be very drunk and unsteady on his feet, which probably accounts for the mixed messages and a reduced quality of relations.


Duterte's admin ends in 2022, Horizon 3 won't be under him. The PAF's budget for Horizon 2's multi role fighter program is 92 million per plane. Horizon 3 will probably be signed by 2024 or so, is it unthinkable to assume that this may increase to 100 or 110 million per plane for 24 air frames? The F-35 is scheduled to cost 80M by then. This isn't a pipe dream

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 10:58
by element1loop
zero-one wrote:
element1loop wrote:Duterte's admin ends in 2022, Horizon 3 won't be under him. The PAF's budget for Horizon 2's multi role fighter program is 92 million per plane. Horizon 3 will probably be signed by 2024 or so, is it unthinkable to assume that this may increase to 100 or 110 million per plane for 24 air frames? The F-35 is scheduled to cost 80M by then. This isn't a pipe dream


It is a total pipe dream, fly away cost is not even applicable, there's a whole infrastructure, people, hardware and electronic systems and supports needed to even prepare to operate F-35s, and they have next to none of it. Maybe after 2050.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 11:38
by zero-one
element1loop wrote:It is a total pipe dream, fly away cost is not even applicable, there's a whole infrastructure, people, hardware and electronic systems and supports needed to even prepare to operate F-35s, and they have next to none of it. Maybe after 2050.


That all depends on what kind of support their Airforce will get from the politicians that will take the helm in the coming years.

The F-35 is designed to be easy to operate, fly and maintain. Korea and Japan already has em. Singapore is trying to follow soon.

They are already close to Singapore by total GDP (nominal) size and have long surpassed them by GDP (PPP) size.
They'll surpass Singapore maybe as early as next year or 2020.

So its not a question of money, because once you have the money, infrastructure, people, hardware and electronic systems and supports will follow. The problem will be their political will. We've seen countries with smaller economies than the Ph mount a more robust and sophisticated air force (i.e. Pakistan, Egypt, Greece)

So I think the question is not "Can they buy it in 2030+" rather "will they buy it in 2030+"

Lets put it this way, If 10 years is not enough for one of the fastest growing major Asian economies to operate an F-35, then maybe the detractors were right all along, its too expensive to fly and operate and should not be a replacement for all the 4th gens.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 14:14
by element1loop
It's assuming a lot to think it will be available or offered to the Philippines within that time frame. Personally I doubt the jet will be getting handed out to whoever has enough money. Maybe when there's real market competition on the horizon, but not likely before that. The SH did not get offered to anyone except close Allies until a superior replacement for USN was well into LRIP. Then it was offered to others. More likely Philippines airforce develops with light 4.5s and is offered a forward basing arrangement with US F-35s if that became mutually desirable (and it may). That could then develop into a situation where their airforce is in a position to take on F-35s in conjunction with the US's presence. It all depends how vulnerable they feel. If I were them I'd feel plenty exposed, as glad-handing the CHICOMs will only buy some time, with regard to national security and territorial integrity.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2018, 16:08
by zero-one
^^I'll agree with that. Even Filipino defense bloggers I know say that getting 5th gens is more of a political climate question than an actual a cost and capability question.

In the 70s and 80s the PH hosted US naval forces in Subic and in return they got first dibs on high end US made equipment. Along with France they are only 1 of 3 nations that were allowed to purchase the F-8. I would say they were in the same level as Japan and pretty close to Israel level ties.

Then in the 90s and early 00s they were relegated into being more of 2nd tier ally. Something akeen to Thailand or Singapore, maybe a bit lower.

Aquino tried to get back to being Tier 1 by enacting EDCA (Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement) which will allow rotational basing of US forces in the PH.

Early in his term, Duterte tried to Scrap it, they even tried to declare it unconstitutional. But the Supreme court scrapped that motion so it stays.

Now Duterte is aware that his pivot to China isn't working and he's going back to Washington's good side. The fact that he and Trump seem to genuinely like each other helps a lot. What he hated about Obama was when he spoke against his drug campaign. On the other hand Trump supported it.

Anyway, hope the PH gets back to Japan or Korea level ties soon. Fun fact, the highest approval rating of the US is actually in the PH.
http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indic ... urvey/all/

They like the US more than the Americans do. So Duterte is actually an anomaly, its far more likely for the Ph to have a President that is very friendly towards the US.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 06:32
by boilermaker
hythelday wrote:
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.

Some progress indeed from buying the FA-50 which cannot do in air refueling I believe. They should have bought the Grippen back then instead of this crap.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2019, 07:44
by zero-one
boilermaker wrote:
Some progress indeed from buying the FA-50 which cannot do in air refueling I believe. They should have bought the Grippen back then instead of this crap.


The F/A-50 was part of their LIFT program or Lead in fighter-trainer.
It was supposed to get Filipino pilots back up to speed in the modern day by ordering 6 high end advanced trainers.
When the project was conceptualized, all their supersonic qualified pilots have retired. or moved on to the commercial flight business.

They were offered refurbished F-16s block 30s to be upgraded to block 50 standards but declined. They really needed to rebuild their fast jet forces from scratch after decades of neglect. So the candidates for the lift project were actually the T-50, M-346, L-159 and Yak-130.

However some within the Phil AF sought to have the trainer jets optionally armed as the AF was in desperate need of combat assets as well. So KAI offered the T/A-50, the Alenia Aermacchi reported that the M-346 could also be weapons certified with minimal modifications and the Yakolev reported the same.

Then suddenly in around 2013 timeline defense circles in the Philippines were rocked when the Department of defense reported that the F/A-50 which was the most expensive of all the variants offered and considered to be a long shot dream was announced as the winner of the LIFT program. And they ordered 12 instead of the 6 which was the original requirement for the program.

So the F/A-50 isn't really meant to be the backbone of their fighter squadrons. It is simply an interim fighter that is really intended for training purposes while waiting for proper 4th gens.

The winner of this new program, dubbed MRF (Multi-role fighter)program will be the backbone of their AF.
The goal is to have 5 fighter squadrons supported by some combat capable trainers (F/A-50s) or close to 100 fighters with proper C4ISR support in the 2030 timeline.

If they can make this happen, the Philippines will be a formidable AF for localized conflicts. And as part of an integrated fighting force with allies, they will make the job easier for the USAF and USN if a war breaks out against China.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 08:12
by loke
The first Saab Gripen E single-seat combat aircraft destined for Brazil has entered the second stage of final assembly and is on path for its first test flight this year.


Full story: https://www.janes.com/article/86256/bra ... l-assembly

Seems the Gripen E/F program is still on track...

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2019, 08:17
by loke
Justin Bronk, an aerial-combat expert at the Royal United Services Institute, told Business Insider that like the A-10 Warthog was built around a massive cannon, the Gripen was built around electronic warfare.

Virtually all modern jets conduct some degree of electronic warfare, but the Gripen E stands above the rest, according to Bronk.

Gripen pilots don't like to show their cards by demonstrating the full power of the jet's jamming in training. But the one time they did, it completely reversed the course of the mock battle in training, Bronk said.

"Several years ago the Gripen pilots got tired of being made fun of by German Typhoon pilots and came to play with their wartime electronic warfare and gave them a hell of a hard time," Bronk said. One of the Gripens was "reportedly able to appear on the left wing of a Typhoon without being detected" by using its "extremely respected" jamming ability, Bronk said.

"It would be fair to assume the Gripen is one of the most capable electronic warfighters out there," he said, adding that the Gripens that baffled the Typhoons were of the C/D series, which have much less powerful electronic-warfare capabilities than the E series Gripens that Helgesson described.


https://www.sfgate.com/technology/busin ... 602444.php

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2019, 22:40
by loke
Busy days in the Gripen factory. Another four Gripen E are soon ready to take to the skies!


https://gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2070

On time.
On budget.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2019, 17:30
by icemaverick
To defeat Russia's fearsome fighters and surface-to-air missiles, the US has largely turned to stealth aircraft. Stealth costs a fortune and must be built into the shape of the plane.

If Russia somehow cracks the code of detecting stealth-shaped fighters, the US's F-35, the most expensive weapons system in history, is cooked.

But Saab took a different, and cheaper, approach to combating Russia's fighters and missiles by focusing on electronic attack, which gives them an advantage over stealth because they can evolve the software without a ground-up rebuild, according to Bronk.Russia air defense s-400 EuropeRadio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

Saab plans to update the software on the Gripen E every two years, giving it more flexibility to meet evolving challenges, according to Bronk.


As we know the F-35 has very limited electronic attack capability. Same thing with the Growler. And it’s not like the capabilities software of these jets will ever get updated. :roll:

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2019, 20:04
by citanon
icemaverick wrote:
To defeat Russia's fearsome fighters and surface-to-air missiles, the US has largely turned to stealth aircraft. Stealth costs a fortune and must be built into the shape of the plane.

If Russia somehow cracks the code of detecting stealth-shaped fighters, the US's F-35, the most expensive weapons system in history, is cooked.

But Saab took a different, and cheaper, approach to combating Russia's fighters and missiles by focusing on electronic attack, which gives them an advantage over stealth because they can evolve the software without a ground-up rebuild, according to Bronk.Russia air defense s-400 EuropeRadio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

Saab plans to update the software on the Gripen E every two years, giving it more flexibility to meet evolving challenges, according to Bronk.


As we know the F-35 has very limited electronic attack capability. Same thing with the Growler. And it’s not like the capabilities software of these jets will ever get updated. :roll:


LOL. Leave it to Business Insider to find the most idiotic sounding "experts".

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2019, 20:15
by loke
hornetfinn wrote: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.


Albeit without any first-hand points of comparison, the air-to-air radar range was singularly impressive. In look-up mode we were able to detect and track airliners flying off the east coast – a range comfortably in excess of 300 km! Hans showed me how to use the throttle grip to slew the cursor on the radar display to select a target and engage it with a mock BVRAAM. He pointed out that the PS-05 Mk3 radar (current standard fit on all Swedish Air Force Gripens) is already able to take advantage of the MBDA Meteor’s formidable range. Sweden’s fighters were upgraded last year to incorporate the latest MS20 operating software standard, making the Gripen the first combat platform to operationalise the Meteor BVRAAM.


http://www.zone5aviation.com/2017/03/14 ... 39-gripen/

The RCS is pretty big in this case -- OTOH it says "track"...

What is the RCS of a typical "airliner"?

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2019, 20:26
by loke
Saab is continuing to make good progress with its Gripen E programme, with chief executive Hakan Buskhe revealing that it launched serial production of the fighter early this year.

Speaking during an annual results presentation on 15 February, Buskhe said the programme advance was made "in the first week of January". Saab is under contract to produce 60 examples of the new-generation type for the Swedish air force, and 36 E/F-model examples in partnership with Embraer for Brazil.

Following scheduled first deliveries to both customers before year-end, the Gripen E is expected to be available for use in Sweden from 2021, according to Stockholm's FMV defence materiel administration. Initial operational capability has previously been set for 2023.

Meanwhile, Buskhe confirms: "We are in discussions on a next batch for Brazil," and suggests that the follow-on procurement could be advanced from around 2021 or 2022. The Swedish air force's commander also recently indicated his service's interest in potentially acquiring another 60 of the type, he notes.

Other export opportunities are also being eyed for the single-engined fighter. "We just turned in our proposal to Switzerland and Finland, and we are in discussion with Canada," Buskhe says. Saab is also looking at Croatia's requirements, he confirms, after the nation's planned acquisition of ex-Israeli air force Lockheed Martin F-16s collapsed recently.

Saab's proposal to Finland totals 64 Gripen E/Fs, while Switzerland is being offered either 30 or 40 single-seat examples. Procurement decisions by both nations are expected around 2021.

Responding to a question about the Swedish company's willingness to collaborate on future European combat aircraft programmes, Buskhe says it has so far seen no detail about a recently launched French/German project. However, he confirms that it has had "very fruitful discussions with the UK and partners" regarding the Tempest concept.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... sa-455831/

So serial production has started already... what happened to the massive delays predicted by the "experts" on this forum...?

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2019, 11:04
by loke
https://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-sys ... gripen-ef/

Gripen E/F has 6 pylons cleared for a2a IR missiles and 7 pylons cleared for BVR missiles. 3 pylons are clared for drop tanks. I wonder what combos of a2a missiles and drop tanks will be possible? It seems 6 a2a missiles and one center drop tank is a no-brainer; I wonder if it can carry additional 2 BVR missiles on 5L and 5CR in combination with the center tank? That would give a quite acceptable 8 a2a missiles on one of the smallest multirole fighters on the market, and it would still have a decent range with the center tank. But it may be too tight? I wonder if 9 a2a would be possible missiles if they drop the center tank (pun intended)?

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2019, 13:33
by mixelflick
SAAB knows it has an issue with non E/F versions and how many weapons/how much fuel it can carry. Problems as in, it's one or the other.

But if what's being said here is true, they'll carry a "respectable" air to air loadout of 8 AAM's in the E/F. That's going to be a whole lotta' drag though, especially given most won't be semi-recessed (as is the case with Typhoon or snug to the fuselage in the case of Rafale). I'm guessing under-wing meteor's have a drag index greater than AMRAAM. And that centerline tank isn't going to do it any favors in the drag dept, either.

But it's got swell E/W capabilities, like the F-35 doesn't LOL. And if the Russians/Chinese crack the code on stealth, the F-35 is "cooked", LOL. Apparently, it then also looses its E/W suite, massive SA advantage/sensors and hyper-maneuverability too. To believe this article, it'll just fall out of the air.

Guess we should have bought Gripens... :)

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2019, 17:19
by jakobs
Depends on the mission, but I would guess 6 missiles and center tank will be the regular configuration. Most missiles you will probably see it fly with should be 7, one fuel tank on each wing and three missiles under the belly.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2019, 19:25
by marsavian
But it's got swell E/W capabilities, like the F-35 doesn't LOL.


The F-35 has great EW capabilities via the frontal cone of its big AESA but the Gripen NG has 6 GaN AESA jamming transmitters on the wing tips and tail fin that give it 360 degree jamming capability. Gripen may not be stealth but the final E/F versions may turn out to the most survivable of all the evolved 4th generation fighters. Its AESA also can swivel to cover just over the whole frontal hemisphere.

https://saab.com/air/electronic-warfare ... rs/arexis/

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2019, 22:20
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:So serial production has started already... what happened to the massive delays predicted by the "experts" on this forum...?


2013 Saab to begin serial production of the JAS 39 Gripen E

2014 Saab to begin serial production of the JAS 39 Gripen E

2015 Saab to begin serial production of the JAS 39 Gripen E

2016 Saab to begin serial production of the JAS 39 Gripen E

2017 Saab to begin serial production of the JAS 39 Gripen E

2018 Saab to begin serial production of the JAS 39 Gripen E

2019 "HA! Saab to begin serial production of the JAS 39 Gripen E Where were all the delays haters?!"

Theyre right here dude^^^

They already happened? Ive been predicting Gripen NG delays for 10 years now, Loke. 8)

1. The delays have already happened, unless you want to say the plan from the get go was full capability in 2023 when they were pitching this thing hard well over 10 years ago.

2. its still early, The F-35 serial production started in 2007.

3. As has been stated by the "experts" on this forum, Gripen Fans can't even agree on a Gripen NG timeline. when did research start again? when did development begin, then stop, then resume?

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

loke wrote:
Busy days in the Gripen factory. Another four Gripen E are soon ready to take to the skies!


https://gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2070

On time.
On budget.


and Overweight.

You must think we have no memory:


Saab contracted to begin Gripen E serial production
Gareth Jennings, London - Jane's Defence Weekly
18 December 2013

Based on the two-seat Gripen NG demonstrator, the single-seat Gripen E will feature an AESA radar, more advanced avionics, an improved General Electric F414G turbofan engine, increased stores capabilities, and increased fuel tanks for further range. (Saab)
Based on the two-seat Gripen NG demonstrator, the single-seat Gripen E will feature an AESA radar, more advanced avionics, an improved General Electric F414G turbofan engine, increased stores capabilities, and increased fuel tanks for further range. (Saab)
The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) has contracted Saab to begin serial production of the JAS 39 Gripen E fighter aircraft, the company announced on 18 December.

The SEK16.4 billion (USD2.5 billion) contract will cover serial production from 2013-26 and covers the conversion of 60 Gripen C aircraft to Gripen E standard. Deliveries will begin in 2018.

In February the FMV awarded Saab a one-year SEK2.5 billion agreement for development work pertaining to the 60 Swedish Air Force aircraft, as well as for 22 aircraft earmarked for Switzerland. This was followed in March with a SEK10.7 billion contract to take development work through to 2023.


(but the swiss!! I know I know :roll: )

The Timeline changed every year, Loke. the amount purchased, and by whom changed constantly just like the timeline dud. and Just like the claimed stats did. Even the NG prototype's first flight was delayed a half year.

2013 Saab to begin serial production of the JAS 39 Gripen E

2014 Saab to begin serial production of the JAS 39 Gripen E

2015 Saab to begin serial production of the JAS 39 Gripen E

2016 Saab to begin serial production of the JAS 39 Gripen E

2017 Saab to begin serial production of the JAS 39 Gripen E

2018 Saab to begin serial production of the JAS 39 Gripen E

2019 "HA! Saab to begin serial production of the JAS 39 Gripen E Where were all the delays haters?!"

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:



By your standard the F-35 is on time and on budget if its a never ending 1984-style "new history" and "memory holing"

"F-35C IOC!! what happened to the massive delays predicted by the "experts" on this forum...?"

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2019, 22:34
by pron
marsavian wrote:
But it's got swell E/W capabilities, like the F-35 doesn't LOL.


The F-35 has great EW capabilities via the frontal cone of its big AESA but the Gripen NG has 6 GaN AESA jamming transmitters on the wing tips and tail fin that give it 360 degree jamming capability.

And you don't think the F-35 have the same 360 capability? Read some more about the AN/ASQ-239.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... re-Systems

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2019, 22:56
by XanderCrews
Image

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2019, 03:14
by energo
pron wrote:[And you don't think the F-35 have the same 360 capability? Read some more about the AN/ASQ-239.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... re-Systems


Wasn't aware that the AN/ASQ-239 had 360 degree jamming, but I could be wrong?

https://www.baesystems.com/en/download- ... 878736.pdf

* Simultaneous jamming without interfering with radar and radar warning receiver

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2019, 03:32
by energo
The Gripen NG program started in 2005. Though it's certain that the program has had (and still has) its share of technical challenges (the media is not told) the delays, if you want to call it that, has probably more to do with lack of customers (Dutch, Norwegians, Swiss) and the desire to align procurement (Brazil, Swiss - formerly) with the main operator (Swedish AF) to reduce cost. Recall, that until about 2013 the Swedes were pretty much undecided on their own Gripen future.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2019, 04:35
by XanderCrews
energo wrote:The Gripen NG program started in 2005. Though it's certain that the program has had (and still has) its share of technical challenges (the media is not told) the delays, if you want to call it that, has probably more to do with lack of customers (Dutch, Norwegians, Swiss) and the desire to align procurement (Brazil, Swiss - formerly) with the main operator (Swedish AF) to reduce cost. Recall, that until about 2013 the Swedes were pretty much undecided on their own Gripen future.



Look I'm fine with that. I don't mind the Gripen NG -- its the fanboys. Even one doesn't want to count technical delays (and yes there have indeed been technical delays) the many questions and issues over its sales have caused delays as well, so I think its completely absurd to have some in here attempting victory laps and cheap shot based on falsehoods that its "on time. On budget" that's an utter joke.

:roll:

Ive literally had Gripen Fan boys tell me that its never been delayed because they only did any development work on it when another country was buying it. So its had years where it was never being developed and designed? Really? On The Other Hand I've had Gripen Fans tell me that Saab only doubles down when there is a sales set back, developing it even harder when a sale goes sideways or doesn't happen :roll: :roll: In the F-35 vs Gripen NG thread we literally had pages and pages of Gripen fanboys that couldn't come to an agreement on when its actual timeline and when the program was started, in development, etc etc. Utter ridiculousness


So I take umbrage at the apparent lack of memory and deeply concerning affinity for kool-aide chugging, at the expense of my own common sense and the fact that some of us have been watching the NG program since it was a snazzy CGI image in a magazine back in 2005.

Anyone who has been watching this program since 2005 has not seem an "on time, on budget" masterstroke. Its been chalk-a-block with drama and years long set backs, even a referendum, losses interrupted with occasional wins its been a helluva long and twisted road. it has not been a SWISS watch. It parallels the F-35 far more than its fans would like to admit, while being far less ambitious. if you've been watching as long as I have, one would have to be on crack to say its been "on time" and "on budget" as we just start serial production in 2019

its great that some have fallen for the propaganda but I refuse to, and I won't play along with the delusion and infinite hairsplitting

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2019, 10:09
by pron
energo wrote:
pron wrote:[And you don't think the F-35 have the same 360 capability? Read some more about the AN/ASQ-239.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... re-Systems


Wasn't aware that the AN/ASQ-239 had 360 degree jamming, but I could be wrong?

https://www.baesystems.com/en/download- ... 878736.pdf

* Simultaneous jamming without interfering with radar and radar warning receiver

It came out wrong. The F-35 have 360 EW apertures, bus as you say not 360 jamming as far as we know.
But do we know all what the upgraded AN/ASQ-239 can do?

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2019, 10:52
by loke
The first of 36 Brazilian Gripen NG multirole jets (also known as the F-39 E/F Gripen in the Brazilian Air Force) is in final assembly at the Saab facility in Linköping, the company told Jane’s on 28 February.

The single-seat flight test instrumentation (FTI) aircraft will be delivered to start the flight test campaign in Linköping during 2019. The aircraft is currently undergoing installation of the avionics, auxiliary power unit, engine, radar, canards, canopy, and windshield.

The Commander of the Brazilian Air Force, Lieutenant-Brigadier Antonio Carlos Moretti Bermudez, was briefed on the FX-2 programme by Håkan Buskhe, president and CEO of Saab, on 26 February.


https://www.janes.com/article/86960/a$$ ... g-advances

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2019, 16:25
by mixelflick
Outside looking in observations of the E program...

What's the selling point?

If it's cheap, it's not any longer. Brazil decided to buy Gripen E for $120M per craft, armaments and services, in 2014. That's $20 - 40 million more than than an F-35, depending upon variant.

How about the payload/range?

Appears to be better than Gripen C, but lacking especially in comparison to other Euro-Canards and certainly the F-35. Due to its small size, it would seem to be one or the other.

RCS?

Being a small fighter, it has one of the lower radar cross sections. Load it up though with 5,000lbs of weapons and two external tanks, and it's RCS is quite a bit larger.

E/W, Avionics?

They appear to be top shelf, and SAAB crows that they're so good, it will get first look/first shot. But against what? I would expect that vs. most Flankers, but assuming her missiles well, miss... Flankers will have many more missiles to shoot back with..

Weapons?

Certainly, getting the Meteor first was a big deal. I can see the small(er) RCS + Meteor + its avionics suite being formidable. It's air to ground capability appears to be the big sell though, getting in fast, hitting hard and egressing.

Kinematics?

Claims of being able to supercruise... but under what loadout? I would think perhaps with a light air to air load, which might be useful in running away or imparting greater momentum to AAM's when BVR shots are necessary

The NG/E has grown in weight, so I'm not sure as to its ability to gain/re-gain energy.

Overall?

It's no longer a good buy for nations that didn't have a robust budget. Its price range is right up there with more capable platforms like Typhoon, Rafale and considerably more expensive than the F-35 will be in just a few short years.

I'd be surprised to see many more nations pick it up. SAAB did a nice job given what they had to work with/budget, but its looking increasingly like the NG/E will be an export failure.

My 5 cents..

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2019, 17:08
by marsavian
Is your Gripen price comparison comparable to a foreign sales F-35 in all its components ? So why buy a Gripen E ? Well a few reasons I can think of. Supposedly it's cheap to run. You get a 200 degree AESA. You get 360 degree jamming with GaN transmitters which should be powerful, sophisticated and currently not on offer by anyone else. You get an internal IRST. Meteor missiles. Good airframe with high instantaneous maneuverability. It's not 5th gen but the F-35 is not on sale to everyone and I can see those wanting a modern 4th gen fighter going for it.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2019, 17:52
by loke
marsavian wrote:Is your Gripen price comparison comparable to a foreign sales F-35 in all its components ? So why buy a Gripen E ? Well a few reasons I can think of. Supposedly it's cheap to run. You get a 200 degree AESA. You get 360 degree jamming with GaN transmitters which should be powerful, sophisticated and currently not on offer by anyone else. You get an internal IRST. Meteor missiles. Good airframe with high instantaneous maneuverability. It's not 5th gen but the F-35 is not on sale to everyone and I can see those wanting a modern 4th gen fighter going for it.

Indeed -- some countries either cannot or will not go for the F-35. If such a country still want a modern, Western a/c, then what are the options? SH, Typhoon, Rafale, "F-21" and -- Gripen. Only "F-21" and Gripen seem to be reasonably cost-effective. Rafale, Typhoon and SH are more capable, but also more expensive.


Gripen cannot compete with the F-35, but neither can the other 4.5 gen fighters... It's really about those countries that cannot get the F-35 during the next few years.

Perhaps some of the best options for Gripen can be in Latin America -- Brazil no doubt will work hard to assist in selling the Gripen to neighbour countries. Gripen may also have an opportunity in India No doubt the IAF would prefer Rafale however the Rafale is very expensive.


Countries where Gripen will not win, include Finland, Canada, and most likely Switzerland. I am guessing they all go for the F-35. If you can get the F-35, then you will.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2019, 19:55
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
marsavian wrote:Is your Gripen price comparison comparable to a foreign sales F-35 in all its components ? So why buy a Gripen E ? Well a few reasons I can think of. Supposedly it's cheap to run. You get a 200 degree AESA. You get 360 degree jamming with GaN transmitters which should be powerful, sophisticated and currently not on offer by anyone else. You get an internal IRST. Meteor missiles. Good airframe with high instantaneous maneuverability. It's not 5th gen but the F-35 is not on sale to everyone and I can see those wanting a modern 4th gen fighter going for it.

Indeed -- some countries either cannot or will not go for the F-35. If such a country still want a modern, Western a/c, then what are the options? SH, Typhoon, Rafale, "F-21" and -- Gripen. Only "F-21" and Gripen seem to be reasonably cost-effective. Rafale, Typhoon and SH are more capable, but also more expensive.


When you post on F-16.net but forget that F-16s exist too :doh:

A Super Hornet is better value. I don't think Super Hornet is dramatically more expensive either, and in some cases Ive seen it cheaper than the Gripen E.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2019, 20:35
by basher54321
Sorry Xander but since the last time you were here some genius relabelled the F-16 as the F-21 for India. Not seeing that label hanging around for much longer - could be wrong.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2019, 20:41
by marsavian
One could see the Indians going for Gripen now if they have managed to convince themselves F-16 are no good even though they keep shooting down their planes ;). Could share Meteors with their Rafales. Even Mig-35 is in with another shout now, its design has solidified and would be very cheap i.e. under $50-60m even if they decide on the AESA/TVC options. One thing for sure you can see why India cares so much about fighter strength with Pakistan/China border disputes.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2019, 03:58
by XanderCrews
basher54321 wrote:Sorry Xander but since the last time you were here some genius relabelled the F-16 as the F-21 for India. Not seeing that label hanging around for much longer - could be wrong.



Oh wow! Thank you and my apologies everyone. I assumed "F-21" was some paper project somewhere. :doh:

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2019, 10:25
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:
basher54321 wrote:Sorry Xander but since the last time you were here some genius relabelled the F-16 as the F-21 for India. Not seeing that label hanging around for much longer - could be wrong.



Oh wow! Thank you and my apologies everyone. I assumed "F-21" was some paper project somewhere. :doh:

apology accepted :D

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2019, 15:12
by mixelflick
Gripen being on time and on budget... Such reminds me of Scott Steiner's math.. Why this man isn't working at NASA is beyond me, but SAAB might want to consider hiring him to explain Super Gripen's progress..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msDuNZyYAIQ

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2019, 16:41
by loke
Final assembly of four Gripen E in Sweden:

https://gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2085

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 08:32
by loke
Saab has commenced ground qualification of a prototype low-band escort jamming pod being developed as part of its Arexis family of fast jet electronic warfare (EW) systems and plans to begin flight testing the prototype before the end of this year.
Announced in 2017, the Arexis family of electronic attack pods – comprising self-protection, escort jammer, and escort jammer-extended capability variants – leverages from technology already in development for the MFS-EW self-protection suite that equips Saab’s JAS 39 Gripen E fighter. These building blocks include ultra-wideband digital receivers and digital radio frequency memory devices (DRFMs), gallium nitride (GaN) solid state active electronically scanned array (AESA) transmitters, interferometric direction finding systems, and high-speed digital signal processing architectures.

Saab has already offered a podded Arexis self-protection jammer for export applications. According to Jonas Grönberg, Saab’s head of marketing, sales, and emerging products for Fighter EW, the escort jamming pod is intended to provide strike packages with an airborne electronic attack capability to defeat early warning radar.

“You need high-powered electronic attack to deny shared situational awareness and targeting data, and to negate data networks,” he told Jane’s . “The Arexis [escort] jammer pod has the capability to screen and so protect the approach and departure of entire strike formations against lower frequency radars by the smart utilisation of DRFM-based jamming techniques, such as smart noise, coherent false targets and various saturation techniques.”

The escort jammer pod design first shown by Saab in 2017 incorporates L-band and S-band GaN-based AESA antennas in the fore and aft sections of the main pod structure, with large VHF and UHF fin antennas mounted externally. “This version, weighing less than 350 kg, has been specifically designed for integration with single engine fighters in mind,” said Grönberg. “It is powered by the aircraft so there is no need for additional electrical generation capacity inside the pod.”

https://www.janes.com/article/87260/are ... ght-trials

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 14:35
by zero-one
https://hushkit.net/2019/03/18/intervie ... pen-pilot/

Interview with a Gripen pilot

Tiny, smart and capable, the Swedish Gripen C is a bantamweight fighter aircraft with a big punch. The Gripen E now in development is a bigger aircraft, close in weight to the F-16. We spoke to SAAB test pilot Jonas Jakobsson about flying a machine that emphasises brains over brawn.

Gripen is a fascinating aircraft, lambasted by the Swiss air force evaluation and loved by its pilots and operators, it does things in a different way. Connectivity, situational awareness and other boring sounding concepts are prioritised over power and speed, resulting in a machine that is cheap to operate and capable of delivering nasty surprises to opponents that underestimate it. Though only around 250 Gripens have been built since production begun in 1987 it has earned Saab an excellent reputation as one of the few aircraft manufacturers that stay close to running timely projects on budget (a key reason for Boeing choosing to partner with Saab for its winning T-X trainer). But is its good reputation just another example of Sweden’s slickness in public relations? Over to Jonas Jakobsson.

Jonas Jakobsson (middle) with former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff.
What is your name, rank, unit and hours on Gripen C?
“My name is Jonas Jakobsson and I’m a Major (ret.) and currently an experimental test pilot working at SAAB. I’ve flown well over 1000h in Gripen.”
Which other aircraft types have you flown?
“During air force training I flew Beagle Bulldog (SK61) and SAAB 105 (SK60). My first aircraft as an operational pilot was the strike fighter version of Viggen (AJ-37) which later was upgraded to AJS-37 indicating that it also had recce capability. I’ve also flown Lansen, Draken, and all the other versions of Viggen. During my career as a testpilot I have also flown a number of helicopters, fighters and trainers.”
What were you first impressions of the Gripen?
“That it was a true pilot’s aircraft. I really felt that handling the aircraft out to the very edge of the allowed envelope was made really easy by the flight control system. The way information was fused and presented was also very intuitive. This has been a hallmark of SAAB aircraft for a long time. I think much due to the fact that Swedish fighters traditionally are single seat. A good Human Machine Interface compensated for the second pilot…”

How would you rate the Gripen in the following categories:
A. Instantaneous Turn rates
B. Sustained turn rates
C. Acceleration
D. Climb rate
E. Range
“Without mentioning specific numbers since this would be classified I would like to expand the question a bit. We have built Gripen to achieve the highest possible operational effect in a number of scenarios defined by our customers. To do this we have to balance a number of factors such as platform performance, sensor performance, weapon performance, avionics, Human Machine Interface etc. The classic metaphor stating that a chain isn’t stronger than its weakest link is relevant for fighters as well! So the answer would be; platform performance is as good as or better than what is needed to reach the high overall operational effect demand of a future fighter.”
(Though Jonas avoids answering this question directly I would like to quote from this article “Gripen is a bit of an unknown quantity against modern air superiority machines because it takes a fundamentally different approach to survivability. Whilst in traditional DACT exercises, Typhoon pilots have often referred to the Gripen as ‘cannon-fodder’ due to its inferior thrust-to-weight ratio, speed, agility and armament, in the few cases where the Gripen has ‘come to play’ with its full electronic warfare capabilities, it has given Typhoons very nasty shocks. Against the Su-35S, Gripen would rely on the cutting edge EW capabilities which Saab builds the Gripen (especially the new E/F) around to hide the aircraft from the sensors of the Russian jets in much the same way as the Raptor relies on x-band stealth. These EW capabilities are so highly classified that there is simply no way to assess their effectiveness in the public domain. Having said that, RAF pilots who I have talked to with experience of the Saab fighter’s EW teeth first hand say that the ability of the aircraft to get alarmingly close without detection thanks entirely to EW is very impressive.” The answer that modern air combat has greater emphasis on fighting at a distance is not just an avoidant answer, but if the Gripen was a very energetic aircraft Saab would be keen to share this, as Eurofighter is with the Typhoon. It is however understood that Gripen has a particularly good instantaneous turn rate. )
What are the best and worst aspects of the Gripen?
“I personally thoroughly enjoy the incredibly well designed HMI which makes it possible for me as a pilot to process enormous amounts of information and really interpret the tactical relevance of this information. The worst aspect of Gripen to me personally is that we are building such a fantastic and futuristic system but it is all on the inside so to speak. This makes it all a bit abstract and difficult to explain the full potential of the aircraft.”
How would a Gripen do in the following against a Block 52 F-16?
A. WVR combat
B. BVR combat
C. Situational awareness
E. maintainability- cost of ownership?
“Generally we stay away from direct comparisons but if I were to compare Gripen to other fighters in general I would say that I have already touched on one of the subjects you ask about. Situational awareness in Gripen E is outstanding! All the way from the sensor suite (radar, IRST, missile approach warner, radar warner etc), the local fusion of sensor data in every Gripen, the global fusion of data shared within the tactical air unit (and C2) and via the HMI with the elaborate symbology and wide area display. This information chain and the situational awareness it creates is rally the foundation that all fighting rests on. With this said it comes as no surprise that I think that Gripen helps me as a pilot to perform really well in both BVR and WVR.

The Swedish defense traditionally relied heavily on conscript personnel for tasks such as aircraft line maintenance. The operational doctrine of the Swedish air force also included operating from dispersed bases, basically a runway in the forest with no workshops or hangars. These two facts have been part of our design-genome for many years now. The result is that Gripen is very easy to maintain and also very fast to turn around between sorties. Generally we say that time for turnaround between two air-to-air sorties is done in 10 minutes and that is including both refueling and rearming! Ease of maintenance i.e. few hours to fix a potential problem and long mean time between failure add up to a high availability and low cost of ownership.”
Just how good is the Meteor-armed Gripen at BVR combat? Has it a big enough radar to take full advantage?
“Absolutely! The radar is well balanced with the weapon reach. But the radar is far from the only source of information we use to get target data…”
(By this I understand he is referring to the other sensors and information data-linked to the aircraft from off-board sources.)
What is your most memorable mission?
“A number of sorties comes to mind, my first display with the SwAF display team, my very first solo sortie at the air force academy, QRA sorties during the cold war when the Baltic was buzzing with activity or when I got to bring my children up in a jet trainer. But if I had to pick one sortie I think it would be something very different. About 10 years ago I was assigned to 2 Squadron in the South African Air force. My mission was to train the first South African group of pilots on Gripen. After a successful training and 18 months in the country I was about to move back to Sweden. One final sortie remained. It was a night flight and the weather was fantastic with stars everywhere. I spent that hour and a half cruising among the stars and contemplating what a fantastic job I have. When heading back to home base the mission controller greeted me with a cheerful “welcome back to earth sir”. I think the combination of a beautiful scenario and the end of a great mission all added up and made it a very emotional sortie.”
What is the biggest myth about Gripen?

“Actually haven’t heard so much negative. Maybe people are too polite to tell me. But I think one might be that a lot of people have the conception that Gripen E only is a slight upgrade to Gripen C because of their similarities in appearance. Nothing could more wrong! It is a totally new aircraft, albeit based on the same general aerodynamic design as Gripen C.”
One Typhoon pilot described Gripen as ‘easy meat’, how would Gripen perform in BFM against the following types? Typhoon, Rafale, Hornet, MiG-29 and F-22.
“Again no direct comparison but as I said above, the one with the best information wins the fight. It’s been a fact since world war one and still is. The only difference is how the information is gathered. In the old days looking with your eyes, today and in the future sensors and fusion of sensor data. The classic BFM I would say is no more and if you try it you die. In a world of high of boresight missiles, such as IRIS-T, data-link cueing and helmet mounted displays the within visual range fight looks more and more like a mini-BVR fight.”

Never let it be said that Europeans don’t love a delta. Typhoons, Gripens and a lone Mirage 2000.
What should I have asked you?
“What’s the best thing about being a Gripen test pilot?
The possibility to influence the future design and functionality of Gripen. I think all fighter pilots can relate to this. During training and operational use of the aircraft every pilot formulates his/her ideas of how to improve the design and functionality and now I really get to this. It’s also a huge responsibility. It’s important that I can meet fellow pilots in the air force and feel that we met their demands and built the most pilot friendly and operationally efficient aircraft possible.”

The first Saab Gripen E for Brazil is in final assembly. Saab hopes to deliver the first test aircraft to Brazil this year, with operational aircraft following from 2021. Brazil should receive 36 Gripen E/Fs between 2019 and 2024. Image source: Saab
What equipment would you like to see integrated into Gripen?
“Weirdly enough I will answer more computer power and unlimited broad band data-links. I think this is the key to success in a future scenario. The things you can do with computational power and data sharing is astounding and we are a good way down that path with Gripen E but you always want more. Luckily some clever engineer foresaw this and designed the avionics to be basically plug and play with both new software and hardware!”

Thoughts on Gripen
Politics is the biggest decider in arms deals, so what are the political advantages of going Swedish? One may be that for some nations it is a less inflammatory move than purchasing from the US and Russia. But is the Gripen independent from the US? In the past the US has beat down potential rivals to its commercial dominance by refusing export licences (something it may have done in the 1990s with AMRAAM during the search for the next Finnish fighter). Though Gripen E will have European missiles (Meteor & IRIS-T) and radar — it has a US-licensed engine and will probably use US guided munitions (Paveway and JDAM) as well as a US or Israeli targeting pod. Also despite Saab’s streamline, unbloated, approach to manufacturing – can spare parts for an aircraft produced in tiny numbers in an expensive country be cheap?
Gripen E is likely to be far cheaper to operate than the F-35 and is likely to be the only aircraft offering comparable levels of situational awareness in the near term. This is a big plus, and this is combined with the already operational long range air-to-air Meteor missile. If Saab can keep the Gripen E price down, and a suitable political climate prevails, it should find more customers, even in a massively over-saturated market[/code]
[/quote]

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 14:35
by zero-one
https://hushkit.net/2019/03/18/intervie ... pen-pilot/

Interview with a Gripen pilot

Tiny, smart and capable, the Swedish Gripen C is a bantamweight fighter aircraft with a big punch. The Gripen E now in development is a bigger aircraft, close in weight to the F-16. We spoke to SAAB test pilot Jonas Jakobsson about flying a machine that emphasises brains over brawn.

Gripen is a fascinating aircraft, lambasted by the Swiss air force evaluation and loved by its pilots and operators, it does things in a different way. Connectivity, situational awareness and other boring sounding concepts are prioritised over power and speed, resulting in a machine that is cheap to operate and capable of delivering nasty surprises to opponents that underestimate it. Though only around 250 Gripens have been built since production begun in 1987 it has earned Saab an excellent reputation as one of the few aircraft manufacturers that stay close to running timely projects on budget (a key reason for Boeing choosing to partner with Saab for its winning T-X trainer). But is its good reputation just another example of Sweden’s slickness in public relations? Over to Jonas Jakobsson.

Jonas Jakobsson (middle) with former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff.
What is your name, rank, unit and hours on Gripen C?
“My name is Jonas Jakobsson and I’m a Major (ret.) and currently an experimental test pilot working at SAAB. I’ve flown well over 1000h in Gripen.”
Which other aircraft types have you flown?
“During air force training I flew Beagle Bulldog (SK61) and SAAB 105 (SK60). My first aircraft as an operational pilot was the strike fighter version of Viggen (AJ-37) which later was upgraded to AJS-37 indicating that it also had recce capability. I’ve also flown Lansen, Draken, and all the other versions of Viggen. During my career as a testpilot I have also flown a number of helicopters, fighters and trainers.”
What were you first impressions of the Gripen?
“That it was a true pilot’s aircraft. I really felt that handling the aircraft out to the very edge of the allowed envelope was made really easy by the flight control system. The way information was fused and presented was also very intuitive. This has been a hallmark of SAAB aircraft for a long time. I think much due to the fact that Swedish fighters traditionally are single seat. A good Human Machine Interface compensated for the second pilot…”

How would you rate the Gripen in the following categories:
A. Instantaneous Turn rates
B. Sustained turn rates
C. Acceleration
D. Climb rate
E. Range
“Without mentioning specific numbers since this would be classified I would like to expand the question a bit. We have built Gripen to achieve the highest possible operational effect in a number of scenarios defined by our customers. To do this we have to balance a number of factors such as platform performance, sensor performance, weapon performance, avionics, Human Machine Interface etc. The classic metaphor stating that a chain isn’t stronger than its weakest link is relevant for fighters as well! So the answer would be; platform performance is as good as or better than what is needed to reach the high overall operational effect demand of a future fighter.”
(Though Jonas avoids answering this question directly I would like to quote from this article “Gripen is a bit of an unknown quantity against modern air superiority machines because it takes a fundamentally different approach to survivability. Whilst in traditional DACT exercises, Typhoon pilots have often referred to the Gripen as ‘cannon-fodder’ due to its inferior thrust-to-weight ratio, speed, agility and armament, in the few cases where the Gripen has ‘come to play’ with its full electronic warfare capabilities, it has given Typhoons very nasty shocks. Against the Su-35S, Gripen would rely on the cutting edge EW capabilities which Saab builds the Gripen (especially the new E/F) around to hide the aircraft from the sensors of the Russian jets in much the same way as the Raptor relies on x-band stealth. These EW capabilities are so highly classified that there is simply no way to assess their effectiveness in the public domain. Having said that, RAF pilots who I have talked to with experience of the Saab fighter’s EW teeth first hand say that the ability of the aircraft to get alarmingly close without detection thanks entirely to EW is very impressive.” The answer that modern air combat has greater emphasis on fighting at a distance is not just an avoidant answer, but if the Gripen was a very energetic aircraft Saab would be keen to share this, as Eurofighter is with the Typhoon. It is however understood that Gripen has a particularly good instantaneous turn rate. )
What are the best and worst aspects of the Gripen?
“I personally thoroughly enjoy the incredibly well designed HMI which makes it possible for me as a pilot to process enormous amounts of information and really interpret the tactical relevance of this information. The worst aspect of Gripen to me personally is that we are building such a fantastic and futuristic system but it is all on the inside so to speak. This makes it all a bit abstract and difficult to explain the full potential of the aircraft.”
How would a Gripen do in the following against a Block 52 F-16?
A. WVR combat
B. BVR combat
C. Situational awareness
E. maintainability- cost of ownership?
“Generally we stay away from direct comparisons but if I were to compare Gripen to other fighters in general I would say that I have already touched on one of the subjects you ask about. Situational awareness in Gripen E is outstanding! All the way from the sensor suite (radar, IRST, missile approach warner, radar warner etc), the local fusion of sensor data in every Gripen, the global fusion of data shared within the tactical air unit (and C2) and via the HMI with the elaborate symbology and wide area display. This information chain and the situational awareness it creates is rally the foundation that all fighting rests on. With this said it comes as no surprise that I think that Gripen helps me as a pilot to perform really well in both BVR and WVR.

The Swedish defense traditionally relied heavily on conscript personnel for tasks such as aircraft line maintenance. The operational doctrine of the Swedish air force also included operating from dispersed bases, basically a runway in the forest with no workshops or hangars. These two facts have been part of our design-genome for many years now. The result is that Gripen is very easy to maintain and also very fast to turn around between sorties. Generally we say that time for turnaround between two air-to-air sorties is done in 10 minutes and that is including both refueling and rearming! Ease of maintenance i.e. few hours to fix a potential problem and long mean time between failure add up to a high availability and low cost of ownership.”
Just how good is the Meteor-armed Gripen at BVR combat? Has it a big enough radar to take full advantage?
“Absolutely! The radar is well balanced with the weapon reach. But the radar is far from the only source of information we use to get target data…”
(By this I understand he is referring to the other sensors and information data-linked to the aircraft from off-board sources.)
What is your most memorable mission?
“A number of sorties comes to mind, my first display with the SwAF display team, my very first solo sortie at the air force academy, QRA sorties during the cold war when the Baltic was buzzing with activity or when I got to bring my children up in a jet trainer. But if I had to pick one sortie I think it would be something very different. About 10 years ago I was assigned to 2 Squadron in the South African Air force. My mission was to train the first South African group of pilots on Gripen. After a successful training and 18 months in the country I was about to move back to Sweden. One final sortie remained. It was a night flight and the weather was fantastic with stars everywhere. I spent that hour and a half cruising among the stars and contemplating what a fantastic job I have. When heading back to home base the mission controller greeted me with a cheerful “welcome back to earth sir”. I think the combination of a beautiful scenario and the end of a great mission all added up and made it a very emotional sortie.”
What is the biggest myth about Gripen?

“Actually haven’t heard so much negative. Maybe people are too polite to tell me. But I think one might be that a lot of people have the conception that Gripen E only is a slight upgrade to Gripen C because of their similarities in appearance. Nothing could more wrong! It is a totally new aircraft, albeit based on the same general aerodynamic design as Gripen C.”
One Typhoon pilot described Gripen as ‘easy meat’, how would Gripen perform in BFM against the following types? Typhoon, Rafale, Hornet, MiG-29 and F-22.
“Again no direct comparison but as I said above, the one with the best information wins the fight. It’s been a fact since world war one and still is. The only difference is how the information is gathered. In the old days looking with your eyes, today and in the future sensors and fusion of sensor data. The classic BFM I would say is no more and if you try it you die. In a world of high of boresight missiles, such as IRIS-T, data-link cueing and helmet mounted displays the within visual range fight looks more and more like a mini-BVR fight.”

Never let it be said that Europeans don’t love a delta. Typhoons, Gripens and a lone Mirage 2000.
What should I have asked you?
“What’s the best thing about being a Gripen test pilot?
The possibility to influence the future design and functionality of Gripen. I think all fighter pilots can relate to this. During training and operational use of the aircraft every pilot formulates his/her ideas of how to improve the design and functionality and now I really get to this. It’s also a huge responsibility. It’s important that I can meet fellow pilots in the air force and feel that we met their demands and built the most pilot friendly and operationally efficient aircraft possible.”

The first Saab Gripen E for Brazil is in final assembly. Saab hopes to deliver the first test aircraft to Brazil this year, with operational aircraft following from 2021. Brazil should receive 36 Gripen E/Fs between 2019 and 2024. Image source: Saab
What equipment would you like to see integrated into Gripen?
“Weirdly enough I will answer more computer power and unlimited broad band data-links. I think this is the key to success in a future scenario. The things you can do with computational power and data sharing is astounding and we are a good way down that path with Gripen E but you always want more. Luckily some clever engineer foresaw this and designed the avionics to be basically plug and play with both new software and hardware!”

Thoughts on Gripen
Politics is the biggest decider in arms deals, so what are the political advantages of going Swedish? One may be that for some nations it is a less inflammatory move than purchasing from the US and Russia. But is the Gripen independent from the US? In the past the US has beat down potential rivals to its commercial dominance by refusing export licences (something it may have done in the 1990s with AMRAAM during the search for the next Finnish fighter). Though Gripen E will have European missiles (Meteor & IRIS-T) and radar — it has a US-licensed engine and will probably use US guided munitions (Paveway and JDAM) as well as a US or Israeli targeting pod. Also despite Saab’s streamline, unbloated, approach to manufacturing – can spare parts for an aircraft produced in tiny numbers in an expensive country be cheap?
Gripen E is likely to be far cheaper to operate than the F-35 and is likely to be the only aircraft offering comparable levels of situational awareness in the near term. This is a big plus, and this is combined with the already operational long range air-to-air Meteor missile. If Saab can keep the Gripen E price down, and a suitable political climate prevails, it should find more customers, even in a massively over-saturated market

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 15:08
by zero-one
Interestingly, he downplays the importance or relevance of Kinematics in a hypothetical modern scenario. Or at least he never answered the question directly and instead pointed to the Gripen's other strengths.

How would you rate the Gripen in the following categories:
A. Instantaneous Turn rates
B. Sustained turn rates
C. Acceleration
D. Climb rate
E. Range

“Without mentioning specific numbers since this would be classified I would like to expand the question a bit. We have built Gripen to achieve the highest possible operational effect in a number of scenarios defined by our customers. To do this we have to balance a number of factors such as platform performance, sensor performance, weapon performance, avionics, Human Machine Interface etc. The classic metaphor stating that a chain isn’t stronger than its weakest link is relevant for fighters as well! So the answer would be; platform performance is as good as or better than what is needed to reach the high overall operational effect demand of a future fighter.”


(Though Jonas avoids answering this question directly I would like to quote from this article “Gripen is a bit of an unknown quantity against modern air superiority machines because it takes a fundamentally different approach to survivability. Whilst in traditional DACT exercises, Typhoon pilots have often referred to the Gripen as ‘cannon-fodder’ due to its inferior thrust-to-weight ratio, speed, agility and armament, in the few cases where the Gripen has ‘come to play’ with its full electronic warfare capabilities, it has given Typhoons very nasty shocks. Against the Su-35S, Gripen would rely on the cutting edge EW capabilities which Saab builds the Gripen (especially the new E/F) around to hide the aircraft from the sensors of the Russian jets in much the same way as the Raptor relies on x-band stealth. These EW capabilities are so highly classified that there is simply no way to assess their effectiveness in the public domain. Having said that, RAF pilots who I have talked to with experience of the Saab fighter’s EW teeth first hand say that the ability of the aircraft to get alarmingly close without detection thanks entirely to EW is very impressive.” The answer that modern air combat has greater emphasis on fighting at a distance is not just an avoidant answer, but if the Gripen was a very energetic aircraft Saab would be keen to share this, as Eurofighter is with the Typhoon. It is however understood that Gripen has a particularly good instantaneous turn rate. )


When you hear Raptor pilots talk about it they always rave on how the combination of Speed, Stealth, Situtational awareness and supermaneuverability makes them nearly invulneable and extremely leathal.

Typhoon pilots say they are the only ones who can "hang with Raptors, high and fast"

F-16 pilots, Ow its the ultimate rate machine

I think the fact that pilots are trained to play by their aircraft's strenths and minimize their weaknesses causes them to believe in their core what they say.

So a Raptor pilot will be trained to take advantage of that enourmous envelope while a Gripen pilot will be taught to always stay away from the fight at all cost.


Thus, pilots of kinematically inferior planes will always tell you how that is not important, or that the have chosen a "balanced" approach to survivability. Just like how they downplayed the relevance of Stealth.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2019, 22:20
by vilters
In brief :
When seeing other aircraft the Griphen pilot's checklist looks like :
- Drop stores (if any)
- Nose over to ZERO G (or call Boeing for 737 MCAS system, seems to work properly in doing so)
- Max AB
- Yell over Internal network : "Get the hell out ah here";.
- Search for Bible
- Start praying when fuel gage drops to zero when still at 100nm

Well, must admit ; GREAT Fighter spirits those Griphen pilots. LOL.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 08:19
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:https://hushkit.net/2019/03/18/interview-with-a-gripen-pilot/

(Though Jonas avoids answering this question directly I would like to quote from this article “Gripen is a bit of an unknown quantity against modern air superiority machines because it takes a fundamentally different approach to survivability. Whilst in traditional DACT exercises, Typhoon pilots have often referred to the Gripen as ‘cannon-fodder’ due to its inferior thrust-to-weight ratio, speed, agility and armament, in the few cases where the Gripen has ‘come to play’ with its full electronic warfare capabilities, it has given Typhoons very nasty shocks. Against the Su-35S, Gripen would rely on the cutting edge EW capabilities which Saab builds the Gripen (especially the new E/F) around to hide the aircraft from the sensors of the Russian jets in much the same way as the Raptor relies on x-band stealth. These EW capabilities are so highly classified that there is simply no way to assess their effectiveness in the public domain. Having said that, RAF pilots who I have talked to with experience of the Saab fighter’s EW teeth first hand say that the ability of the aircraft to get alarmingly close without detection thanks entirely to EW is very impressive.” The answer that modern air combat has greater emphasis on fighting at a distance is not just an avoidant answer, but if the Gripen was a very energetic aircraft Saab would be keen to share this, as Eurofighter is with the Typhoon. It is however understood that Gripen has a particularly good instantaneous turn rate. )


This is pretty much confirmed with that leaked Swiss evaluation paper. Gripen was praised for good EW suite and Typhoon was said to need improvments in EW, detection and identification domains. So it's both Gripen having good EW and Typhoon having weaknesses in detection performance. Gripen weak points were endurance and performances and aircraft weapons load. All of these were clearly inferior to Rafale, Typhoon and Swiss F/A-18C. Typhoon got 9 in performance criteria and Gripen about 5.5. So there is very large difference in aircraft flight performances between the two. So Gripen would need to ambush or surprise Typhoon or it would be in serious trouble due to much lower performance and endurance.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 12:58
by mixelflick
I read this interview shortly before coming here this morning. All I can say is...

If the Gripen E can dodge radar, IRST and other sensors as well as this guy dodged performance questions, it'll be a world beater. If I was SAAB, I'd have my pilots take a different approach because this came off bad, bad, bad. Not since Mark McGwire's testimony before Congress about steroids and other PED's in baseball have I seen such a poor showing..

Congressman: "Mr. McGwire, did you use steroids or other PED's while playing for the St. Louis Cardinals" ?

McGwire: "Sir, I'm here to talk about the future, not the past..." Over and over and over...

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2019, 13:32
by mixelflick
Read that interview before coming here this morning. All I can say is..

If the Gripen E is as adept at dodging radar, IRST, enemy AAM's etc. as this pilot was in dodging kinematic questions, it'll be unstoppable... :)

If I was SAAB, I'd drop the "we don't make direct comparisons" line - fast. It comes off as bad, bad, bad. Not since Mark McGwire's testimony before Congress has something sounded so dodgy and incriminating..

Congressmen: "Mr. McGwire, did you use anabolic steroids or other PED's while playing for the St. Louis Cardinals"?
McGwire: "I'm not here to talk about the past, I'm here to talk about the future...". Over and over and over.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2019, 16:42
by loke
Gripen pilot Musa Mbhokota (a.k.a. Midnite), takes us through an extensive walk-through of Gripen E, explaining in detail its features, especially its weapon systems, at Aero India 2019.

Gripen E has a wide weapon carrying capacity- up to nine missiles and 16 bombs can be carried- making it a fighter that is always ready for operating in a network-centric scenario.


More text and video here: https://gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2092

Some things highlighted in the video: E can carry 9 a2a missiles (7 meteor and 2 IRIS-T); it can do 9G with full internal fuel; sensor fusion and the advanced data link was highlighted; as well as the 360 degree EW system, and the MMI. Drag is lower than for Gripen C. This, together with increased thrust gives a good performance, he says.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 12:52
by mixelflick
loke wrote:
Gripen pilot Musa Mbhokota (a.k.a. Midnite), takes us through an extensive walk-through of Gripen E, explaining in detail its features, especially its weapon systems, at Aero India 2019.

Gripen E has a wide weapon carrying capacity- up to nine missiles and 16 bombs can be carried- making it a fighter that is always ready for operating in a network-centric scenario.


More text and video here: https://gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2092

Some things highlighted in the video: E can carry 9 a2a missiles (7 meteor and 2 IRIS-T); it can do 9G with full internal fuel; sensor fusion and the advanced data link was highlighted; as well as the 360 degree EW system, and the MMI. Drag is lower than for Gripen C. This, together with increased thrust gives a good performance, he says.


9g with full internal fuel is impressive, but not very if it isn't carrying weapons. If that's the case, then I find this very misleading.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2019, 18:18
by johnwill
F-16 has been 9g with full internal fuel and and four AIM-9s since 1977. Interestingly, the full internal fuel condition is not the critical g load condition. Wing fuel (the first to be burned) causes a down inertia load on the wings during a turn, relieving about 9% of total wing load. Max wing load occurs just as the wings go empty.

External stores on the wing do the same thing, reduce net wing load.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2019, 21:33
by loke
Saab is to significantly raise the tempo of its flight-test programme for the Gripen E fighter this year, with the activity to be expanded from a current two aircraft to five.

A pair of prototypes, designated 39-8 and 39-9, are already involved in the Swedish manufacturer's campaign. A third such example (-10) will be flown before mid-year, while Saab is to also resume using its "Gripen Demo" airframe – a specially adapted two-seater – in support of the programme. Its lead production example will also support the programme from later this year, before first deliveries are made to the Swedish and Brazilian air forces by the end of 2019.

Flight activities last year included carriage trials with MBDA's Meteor beyond visual-range air-to-air missile and separation tests with the short-range Diehl Defence IRIS-T weapon, and De La Motte says current work involves the fighter's Raven ES-05 active electronically scanned array radar, infrared search and track sensor – both supplied by Leonardo – and Saab electronic warfare suite.
The first four production Gripen Es are currently in final assembly at Saab's Linkoping site, with work having commenced early this year. "We're very happy with the progress of the production programme," says De La Motte, who describes this as "on track". Once its new production system is fully established, it will be able to complete up to 24 aircraft per year, he adds.

Full story: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-456945/

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 01:58
by madrat
johnwill wrote:F-16 has been 9g with full internal fuel and and four AIM-9s since 1977. Interestingly, the full internal fuel condition is not the critical g load condition. Wing fuel (the first to be burned) causes a down inertia load on the wings during a turn, relieving about 9% of total wing load. Max wing load occurs just as the wings go empty.

External stores on the wing do the same thing, reduce net wing load.


Am I to assume the underwing stores then create lift?

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 03:57
by johnwill
No, not net lift. Although the external stores do sometimes have some aerodynamic up lift, it is very small compared to the down inertia load from positive g on the stores. An exception would be an empty external fuel tank which is large for more aero lift and light for less down inertia load.

The reduced net wing load from heavy external stores is from down inertia load. So net wing load consists of up aero load on the airfoil (large) and stores (small) combined with down inertia load from wing structure, wing internal fuel, and external stores.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2019, 10:38
by linkomart
mixelflick wrote:9g with full internal fuel is impressive, but not very if it isn't carrying weapons. If that's the case, then I find this very misleading.


Generally speaking, as long as the missile or bomb is rated for 9g, Gripen can turn 9g with the load. Of course there are caveats to the statement, When at high altitude, high gross weight or the store is very heavy 9g might not apply. Can't say more than that.

johnwill wrote:No, not net lift. Although the external stores do sometimes have some aerodynamic up lift, it is very small compared to the down inertia load from positive g on the stores. An exception would be an empty external fuel tank which is large for more aero lift and light for less down inertia load.

Agree with johnwill. Another example of an exception is the RB04 on the A32 Lansen, it had positive lift when on the wing. Google and you will understand.

best regards.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2019, 14:33
by loke
The four Gripen E that was mentioned above have entered final assembly:
Mikael Franzén, head of Saab's Gripen Brazil business unit, said on 3 April at the 2019 LAAD Defence and Security exposition that of these four Gripen Es, one is for Brazil while the other three are for Sweden.


Read more: https://www.janes.com/article/87663/laa ... l-assembly

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2019, 22:14
by marsavian
Swedish taxpayers paid for 14 JAS-39C/D unused airframes in order to keep Gripen’s production line open

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/swedish ... line-open/

Ten of those are C models while the rest are two-seaters. The government had hoped that the fighters could be exported to overseas customers but the orders never came in. These aircraft in fact were ordered to maintain the skills to manufacture fighter aircraft, as the production of Gripens for Sweden’s Air Force and other export customers, such as Thailand, South Africa and the Czech Republic, almost ceased, and a substantial break was looming. The extra Gripens were therefore ordered to keep the assembly line running before the production of JAS-39E.

One possibility is to use these extra 14 aircraft as a replacement for crashed Gripen jets. According to Sputnik News previously, parliament decided that the Swedish Air Force should have 100 Gripen C/Ds. Today, there are 95. No such decision has been made so far.


Image

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 01:15
by hythelday
Small price to pay for such a valuable thing as fighter production know-how. Besides 14 airframes can easily be absorbed by SwAF and the pending Philippine order.

You needn't be smarmy about it. US taxpayers are about to shell out for Boeing too.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2019, 21:22
by loke
In a lot of scenarios, a next-gen system vs a standard “show where the sensor fused enemies are on the map” – can make a 5 to 1 difference. That’s huge, and comparable to the gap between aircraft generations. Gripen E/F will come with an even larger wide area display (WAD) and the possibilities for software upgrades becomes endless. Nowadays my company creates decision support systems for military aircraft and C2-systems, and without large high-fidelity screens to show it on, it wouldn’t be possible. Artificial Intelligence really makes a difference here, but perhaps not in the way many people think of it.

“The pilot is still in-the-loop with our AI though, and makes the tactical decisions, but is being presented with information that is richer and more pre-calculated to how the pilot is thinking.

Was there any upgrades or equipment you wanted when you were on the Gripen?
“Lots! But that might be because I have been an inventor and innovator in this field for the two years. Many of the things are also now in the Gripen E.
[...]
When it comes to software, I’m probably most excited about the increased survivability our new optimal evasive manoeuvre AI algorithm HUMAN would give. It takes an incoming missile and calculates an optimal trajectory for the aircraft, given any number of overlapping priorities, like staying in doppler-zero* , aiming your Electronic Warfare System antennas towards it or just physically be as far away from the incoming missile as possible. Few pilots react perfectly when you might have seconds to live and an automated or semi-automated system might do a lot for pilot survival. Would it be too self-serving to also ask for our AI decision support system Rattlesnake? It keeps track of all known enemies and their history, our own capability and conduct massive parallel simulations (now off-line due to our patented AI) to be able to show the pilot (or fighter controller) how to fly to stay away from enemy missiles and how to manoeuvre for an optimal shot. I honestly want it as it would make me almost invincible in a BVR environment. I could go on and on here, but maybe we should save that for a specific innovation interview?”


Would you be confident facing an F-16?

“Absolutely. I can’t think of anything the F-16 would be better at, if we don’t count ease of refuelling (F-16 is refuelled with a boom and the boom operator does much of the job).


https://hushkit.net/2019/04/15/flying-f ... rce-pilot/

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 03:14
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
In a lot of scenarios, a next-gen system vs a standard “show where the sensor fused enemies are on the map” – can make a 5 to 1 difference. That’s huge, and comparable to the gap between aircraft generations. Gripen E/F will come with an even larger wide area display (WAD) and the possibilities for software upgrades becomes endless. Nowadays my company creates decision support systems for military aircraft and C2-systems, and without large high-fidelity screens to show it on, it wouldn’t be possible. Artificial Intelligence really makes a difference here, but perhaps not in the way many people think of it.

“The pilot is still in-the-loop with our AI though, and makes the tactical decisions, but is being presented with information that is richer and more pre-calculated to how the pilot is thinking.

Was there any upgrades or equipment you wanted when you were on the Gripen?
“Lots! But that might be because I have been an inventor and innovator in this field for the two years. Many of the things are also now in the Gripen E.
[...]
When it comes to software, I’m probably most excited about the increased survivability our new optimal evasive manoeuvre AI algorithm HUMAN would give. It takes an incoming missile and calculates an optimal trajectory for the aircraft, given any number of overlapping priorities, like staying in doppler-zero* , aiming your Electronic Warfare System antennas towards it or just physically be as far away from the incoming missile as possible. Few pilots react perfectly when you might have seconds to live and an automated or semi-automated system might do a lot for pilot survival. Would it be too self-serving to also ask for our AI decision support system Rattlesnake? It keeps track of all known enemies and their history, our own capability and conduct massive parallel simulations (now off-line due to our patented AI) to be able to show the pilot (or fighter controller) how to fly to stay away from enemy missiles and how to manoeuvre for an optimal shot. I honestly want it as it would make me almost invincible in a BVR environment. I could go on and on here, but maybe we should save that for a specific innovation interview?”


Would you be confident facing an F-16?

“Absolutely. I can’t think of anything the F-16 would be better at, if we don’t count ease of refuelling (F-16 is refuelled with a boom and the boom operator does much of the job).


https://hushkit.net/2019/04/15/flying-f ... rce-pilot/



a massive upgrade to be better than the F-16 again? :mrgreen:

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 03:32
by XanderCrews
marsavian wrote:Swedish taxpayers paid for 14 JAS-39C/D unused airframes in order to keep Gripen’s production line open

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/swedish ... line-open/

Ten of those are C models while the rest are two-seaters. The government had hoped that the fighters could be exported to overseas customers but the orders never came in. These aircraft in fact were ordered to maintain the skills to manufacture fighter aircraft, as the production of Gripens for Sweden’s Air Force and other export customers, such as Thailand, South Africa and the Czech Republic, almost ceased, and a substantial break was looming. The extra Gripens were therefore ordered to keep the assembly line running before the production of JAS-39E.

One possibility is to use these extra 14 aircraft as a replacement for crashed Gripen jets. According to Sputnik News previously, parliament decided that the Swedish Air Force should have 100 Gripen C/Ds. Today, there are 95. No such decision has been made so far.


Image



White tails?

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 05:36
by Corsair1963
Well, the airframes are already paid for. So, somebody should get a good deal for at least 14 Gripens. Surprising somebody hasn't already picked them up???

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2019, 18:46
by loke
Using artificial intelligence, additive manufacturing (3D printing), and mixed reality (augmented reality) for the development and production of Gripen, and virtual reality for training purposes, are some of the ongoing technological implementations at Saab for Gripen. During the Gripen Seminar 2019, Lisa Åbom, Chief Technology Officer, Business Area, Aeronautics at Saab, gave a detailed presentation on how these latest technologies are implemented in the making of Gripen today.

Artificial Intelligence
According to Lisa, the basic function of AI is that it takes large amount of data, processes it through an algorithm to give you an answer. Saab uses AI during both design and production phase. AI is also suitable for image recognition and can provide tactical support to pilots to make right decisions. “For instance, we collected information from different sensors that we have in the aircraft, ran it through an algorithm, and were able to predict the fuel level in one of the tanks (without using a fuel sensor). This way, with the help of AI, we can use different kinds of information to deduce the information that we’re interested in,” Lisa says.

Additive manufacturing
Additive manufacturing, popularly known as 3D printing today, is used to produce the most basic as well as the more complicated parts of Gripen. For example, 3D printing can be used to optimize the design to take away the weight from certain structure part or to make specific small changes. What is really cool about additives is that you can add functionalities to the material. For example, a structure may be combined with a load-bank part that has electrical or optical properties. “We’re already flying Gripen E with parts that are produced using additive manufacturing,” adds Lisa.

Mixed reality or augmented reality
Operators at Saab use augmented reality to get a step by step production or operation instructions in goggles. These goggles are also helpful for “remote guidance” where operators can sometimes seek remote help from other operators whenever necessary.

Virtual reality
Virtual reality can be used to enhance the training experience. When the pilots run a simulation during training, virtual reality helps to get a much more realistic training scenario.
“We are on an exciting journey for the future. There’s so much new technology, both in our area and also the outside world, and it’s going to be important for us to keep an eye on them as well as to develop them with our customers, suppliers, and partners,” concludes Lisa.


https://gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2109

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 04:26
by marsavian
Sweden weighs extending Gripen C/D operations by a decade

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -d-457836/

“If Sweden will continue to fly the [Gripen] C/D much longer than 2025-2026 – maybe to 2035 – it’s good for our system, because we can share development on the C/D with the E/F, and the other way around,” says Saab chief executive Hakan Buskhe.

The Swedish air force currently maintains an active fleet of 100 Gripens, but its chief of staff has previously voiced a desire to increase this to a 120-unit total. Saab is currently under contract to produce 60 new-generation E-model fighters for the service, with operations to commence early in the next decade.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2019, 20:03
by loke
Lockheed Martin and RAFAEL have signed a cooperation agreement to jointly develop, manufacture, market and support RAFAEL’s Smart, Precise Impact and Cost-Effective (SPICE) missile guidance kits to Lockheed Martin’s platforms. RAFAEL already subcontracts about 80 percent of SPICE subassemblies to US manufacturers in eight states.

SPICE has also been integrated with the Saab Gripen E, and has already been selected to equip the new Brazilian Gripen NG fighters. RAFAEL also develops the SPICE 250 unitary guided munitions. The bigger SPICEs are designed as guidance kits added to standard bombs.

SPICE is a family of stand-off, autonomous, air-to-surface weapon systems, capable of destroying targets with pinpoint accuracy and at high attack volumes in a GPS-denied environment. Combat-proven and in service with the Israeli Air Force and several international customers, SPICE employs a state-of-the-art electro-optical seeker with unique scene-matching algorithms, navigation guidance and homing techniques to achieve operational missions in adverse weather without GPS. The MOU covers the SPICE 1000 (453 kilogram / 1,000 pound weight class) and SPICE 2000 (907 kilogram / 2,000 pound weight class) precision-guided missile kit variants. The SPICE extends the aircraft strike range to 100 km, thus enabling attack from standoff range.

https://defense-update.com/20190516_spice-2.html

SPICE is both potent and cost-effective.

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 11:31
by krieger22
https://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/ ... ght-tests/

Gripen E will not be attending Swiss Air 2030 tests

The Swiss defence procurement agency, armasuisse, has formally recommended to Saab not to participate with Gripen E in the upcoming flight tests in Switzerland. The reason is that the flight tests have been designed to only evaluate aircraft that are operationally ready in 2019. The flight tests are part of the fighter evaluation process that foresees aircraft deliveries in 2025. Gripen E will enter into operational service years before Switzerland has scheduled deliveries and will meet all its defined capabilities. However, the Gripen E development plan does not match the Swiss plan to perform flight tests with aircraft that are operationally ready in 2019. Therefore, Saab has decided not to attend the Swiss flight tests in Payerne 24-28 June.


EDIT: https://www.vtg.admin.ch/content/vtg-in ... 75390.html

And she is done! Non attendance means it is out of the Swiss Air 2030 running

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 14:04
by mixelflick
So who's going to buy Gripen E now?

If the Swiss aren't looking at it, who will??

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2019, 14:01
by agrippa
Most detailed report on Gripen E EW I've seen so far, with some interesting details how it came to be (TDLR: partly because of Norway selecting F-35).

https://www.jed-digital.com/jedm/1119_n ... eId1533269

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2019, 15:42
by marsavian
MFS-EW will jam low frequency radars too, fore/aft transmitters in fin, mid-band transmitters in wingtips.

"On Gripen C/D, the RWR system is based on amplitude monopulse direction finding techniques," said Bedoire. "But on Gripen E we have gone for an interferometric approach in order to achieve fully-spherical precision DF even when performing high-g maneuvers"

In terms of self-protection, the single biggest innovation in MFS-EW is the adoption of GaN-based AESA transmitters for the jamming subsystem. Mid-band transmitters are located in the wing tip "quadrant" stations, while the low-band transmitters are positioned atop the fin to cover the fore and aft sectors.


Image

Image

Re: Gripen News

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2019, 22:31
by loke
Saab flew its Electronic Attack Jammer Pod (EAJP) on the Gripen combat aircraft for the first time on 4 November, the company announced.

According to Saab, the pod's interfaces with the aircraft's hardware and software, as well as cockpit control and monitoring, were tested during the flight. "The purpose of Saab's new EAJP pod is to protect aircraft against radars by sophisticated jamming functions, thereby blocking the opponent's ability to attack them," the company added.
The EAJP is part of Saab's Arexis family of electronic warfare (EW) systems, and the test marked the latest milestone since the system was first briefed to reporters earlier in the year.

Speaking at the company's production facility in Linköping in late May, Petter Bedoire, Saab's head of marketing and sales for EW, said that the podded system that is aimed at affording the Gripen E/F (or any other modern combat aircraft) an electronic attack (EA) capability analogous to the Boeing EA-18G Growler aircraft.

The Arexis EA Jammer Pod provides forward and aft coverage to support the ingress, strike, and egress of a package of strike aircraft. It utilises a VHF/UHF surveillance and acquisition radar in the L and S bands that incorporates gallium nitride (GaN) AESA technology.

With flight trials of the pod now underway, Saab has noted a 12-month lead time for any customer wishing to adopt it.
This podded system is part of a wider EW capability that has been developed for the Gripen E/F, and that is so far delivering highly positive result in test.

Read more: https://www.janes.com/article/92416/saa ... first-time