F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6423
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post24 Mar 2020, 07:32

Most military buys have political considerations, even American ones (F-15EX for example...).


Thats my point
Choose Crews
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post26 Mar 2020, 11:42

XanderCrews wrote:
loke wrote:Timelines of events (Marketing statements by the Saab marketing team not included).

2007: Work on Gripen Demo starts
2008: First flight Gripen Demo
2012: Switzerland and Sweden commits to buying Gripen E but with preconditions. Sweden has a precondition that they will purchase if another country signs a contract. Switzerland has a precondition that the referendum is positive.
2013: Swedish parliament commits Sweden to Purchase Gripen E.
2013: Brazil announces intention to purchase Gripen E/F
2013: Work on first preproduction Gripen E is initiated
2014 Swiss referendum is negative; Switzerland cancels the plans for purchasing Gripen E
2014: Brazil signs contract with Saab for Gripen E/F. Delivery of first Gripen E is planned for 2019.
2017: First flight of Gripen E
2019: Delivery of first Gripen E to Brazil and Sweden


Thank you

my point is the biggest order for NG is by Sweden, which can technically do without it. Brazil who once envisioned up to 100 aircraft when it won the contract in 2014 has imploded to a handful.

Just play along for a second (for gripen fans this is hypothetical so you don't need to panic) but if there was some kind of brokered deal where Sweden and Brazil just said "lets cancel this thing, and make each other whole and move on after we've squared the costs"

Sweden can do the Gripen C+ plus thing, and Brazil would probably be more than happy to go F-16V alone or as a part of a larger arms package (helicopters, etc) with the Trump administration and Balsonaro would probably be all smiles.

Don't worry this is still going through but this is unbelievably unnecessary. they tried, they shopped it around, they worked a lot of deals and competed in a lot of tenders, but the market is not there like they thought despite decades of marketing hype. They won't because for both nations this is a job program, and I'm betting for sweden pride (no one is immune to this, I don't care how smart and fastidious you are) This airplane has already popped it budget, but we are going to go through with it from some reason, while grinning through our teeth that its "cheap!"

When I saw the first Gripen NG CGI I thought "wow thats neat, kinda like the super hornet," and assumed it would be in service at the latest 2011. was only off by 10 years.

people are going to complain that I'm being unfair and that the market is rigged against the gripen because of politics and national alignments (NORWAY!! WEHHHHHH), bribes, etc. Believe me I've heard it all. But the bottom line is the Gripen is competing against the big boys no matter how much company propaganda is spewed. It might be unfair that Slovakia aligns with the US and goes F-16, but guess what? That's a part of the game. Saab is a big boy and should know this. Don't talk about "punching above your weight class" and then get upset when it turns out you're not actually competitive in that weight class and getting your nose broken every contest. Maybe you got a little carried away?

And thats usually the refuge of the saab scoundrel when his baby loses yet again "oh it was rigged because politics" politics are a factor. Politics has benefited Gripen NG on ALL 3 occasions though. The NSA scandal, a cheaper cost in Switzerland, and Sweden signing onto it even though its not needed. It ONLY wins on politics.

The reason I harp on sales and why they matter beyond it being a good indicator of performance and capability and of course being directly linked to costs, is that sales actually MATTER. You can have the worlds greatest idea but if no one is buying it, it just goes into the dustbin of history. you have to be able to SELL your great idea or wonder invention. For Saab people obsessed with economical operations and money this should really be obvious but I find myself explaining it often for some reason. In order to do a good job, you must first GET THE JOB. I've had to give this speech on more than one occasion.

"All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right." -Sydney Camm

That quote is only what? 50 years old?

I agree that the market for Gripen E/F is small. However for Sweden I think that upgrading the avionics of the C/D would not have been a good solution. The C/D is too small and too limited. One could argue that also Gripen E/F is too small for future upgrades. Perhaps the design of the Gripen E/F should have been different, perhaps Rafale size, and with a much more powerful engine from GE. I don't know why they decided to go for the current design, my guess is that it is mainly related to keep development costs down. Maybe a Rafale sized Gripen would be too expensive for both Sweden and Brazil.

Anyway, for better or worse, the Gripen remains a light fighter, not suited for deep strike missions that require a lot of range and heavy munitions. However for air defence it may be better suited. A rough estimate of the weight of 4 Meteors and 2 IRIS-T, and one 450 gallon drop tank, with pylons/rails:

4*(190+100) + 2*(90+30) + 1377 + 100 + 250 kg = 3127 kg

This assumes the pylons weigh 100kg the rail 30 kg and the drop tank 250 kg.

Add the weight of the aircraft, internal fuel and pilot, and you are still well below MTOW.

I think for these kind of missions Gripen E will be good for quite some time to come.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4112
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post26 Mar 2020, 14:26

That depends, on who the adversary is and what they're flying.

Right now, Gripen is competitive with say SU-35's or Mig-35's BVR given its Meteor and E/W suite. If it fails in bringing them down though its at a distinct disadvantage WVR, owing to its much lower thrust to weight ratio and lesser maneuverability. Once Russia develops better BVR weapons, it's all over for Gripen. I'd say it has the BVR advantage for another 5 years, but that clock is already ticking and it's going to go fast.

The real issue is this: Gripen will constantly have to punch above its weight to stay competitive, and to do so even 5 years from now will require more. More thrust, more fuel and more power/room for more advanced avionics. Three areas where Gripen E/F is maxed out.

There will be no miracles. This is the end of the line for SAAB...
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post26 Mar 2020, 15:21

mixelflick wrote:That depends, on who the adversary is and what they're flying.

Of course.
Right now, Gripen is competitive with say SU-35's or Mig-35's BVR given its Meteor and E/W suite. If it fails in bringing them down though its at a distinct disadvantage WVR, owing to its much lower thrust to weight ratio and lesser maneuverability. Once Russia develops better BVR weapons, it's all over for Gripen. I'd say it has the BVR advantage for another 5 years, but that clock is already ticking and it's going to go fast.

The real issue is this: Gripen will constantly have to punch above its weight to stay competitive, and to do so even 5 years from now will require more. More thrust, more fuel and more power/room for more advanced avionics. Three areas where Gripen E/F is maxed out.

There will be no miracles. This is the end of the line for SAAB...

It is not enough for Russia to develop better BVR weapons; they also need to catch up on sensors, data links, and sensor fusion, as well as figure out how to "neutralize" the AESA based EW systems of Gripen. This is not going to can happen within 5 years.

As for WVR: with HMD and advanced and very agile HOBS-missiles like IRIS-T I am not sure if higher TWR is that important anymore. For sure it is always better to have more power, but I suspect that other things may be more important? Perhaps the experts can comment on that.
Offline

eagle3000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 66
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 17:17

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 00:41

loke wrote: A rough estimate of the weight of 4 Meteors and 2 IRIS-T, and one 450 gallon drop tank, with pylons/rails:


I'm pretty sure you can't carry a single 450 gal tank, unless you want a Hornet like asymmetric configuration.
The centerline is limited to a 300 gal tank, afaik. Maybe the larger 1400 l / 370 gal tanks the Hungarians use fits, and/or the big 450 gal tanks will be cleared for the centerline in the future. If it fits that is.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1254
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 05:03

loke wrote:
optimist wrote:The Super Hornet has 2 export customers.

Oops yes you are right, they now have two not one export customer. Sorry about that.

I had replied before, but just to be a pri*k and to make a joke.
It looks like Super Hornets have 3 exports now. Is that more than GripenE 1 export?
Ignoring f-15,16,35. That makes Super Hornet one of the world leaders now, equal to France doesn't it? :mrgreen:
Aussie fanboy
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 08:47

eagle3000 wrote:
loke wrote: A rough estimate of the weight of 4 Meteors and 2 IRIS-T, and one 450 gallon drop tank, with pylons/rails:


I'm pretty sure you can't carry a single 450 gal tank, unless you want a Hornet like asymmetric configuration.
The centerline is limited to a 300 gal tank, afaik. Maybe the larger 1400 l / 370 gal tanks the Hungarians use fits, and/or the big 450 gal tanks will be cleared for the centerline in the future. If it fits that is.

Good point...
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 08:48

optimist wrote:
loke wrote:
optimist wrote:The Super Hornet has 2 export customers.

Oops yes you are right, they now have two not one export customer. Sorry about that.

I had replied before, but just to be a pri*k and to make a joke.
It looks like Super Hornets have 3 exports now. Is that more than GripenE 1 export?
Ignoring f-15,16,35. That makes Super Hornet one of the world leaders now, equal to France doesn't it? :mrgreen:

Your sense of humor is even worse than mine! :P
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1254
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 16:12

It is funny that the US ugly step-sister. Now has the same export customers as the mighty French aircraft and similar export numbers
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2729
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 16:24

optimist wrote:I had replied before, but just to be a pri*k and to make a joke.
It looks like Super Hornets have 3 exports now. Is that more than GripenE 1 export?


And considering that one of the customers (Germany) plans to buy more Super Hornets than Gripen E's purchased by its single export customer (Brazil) then I would say, hell yeah :devil: :mrgreen:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1254
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 17:00

ricnunes wrote:
optimist wrote:I had replied before, but just to be a pri*k and to make a joke.
It looks like Super Hornets have 3 exports now. Is that more than GripenE 1 export?


And considering that one of the customers (Germany) plans to buy more Super Hornets than Gripen E's purchased by its single export customer (Brazil) then I would say, hell yeah :devil: :mrgreen:

That was already done by australia.
Brazil 27 F-39E and 8 F-39F, total 35 on order, but not fixed in stone.
Australia 18f 24, 18g 12 . . total 36 actually bought.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2729
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 17:13

optimist wrote:That was already done by australia.
Brazil 27 F-39E and 8 F-39F, total 35 on order, but not fixed in stone.
Australia 18f 24, 18g 12 . . total 36 actually bought.


Not wanting to nitpick but the Brazilian order is for 36 Gripen E aircraft (28 Gripen E and 8 Gripen F):
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... razil.html

Not that it makes much of a diference, but...
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1254
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 17:52

Damn you wiki, damn you. Who would have thought wiki would have the wrong numbers. I'm shattered. It brings into question my whole belief system.
Okay so they ordered the same number as Australia. Call me a skeptic, but I like it when you see the money paid.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2729
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 23:27

optimist wrote:Okay so they ordered the same number as Australia. Call me a skeptic, but I like it when you see the money paid.


Yes indeed, I fully agree.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24625
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 03:13

As one wanders (or wonders?) through the hourglass in the sands of time, looking just looking I found another reference first noted here in this thread two? years ago now: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=11311&p=387871&hilit=borne#p387871
Saab Sea Gripen – The Future Of Carrier Borne Air Power
06 mayo 2013 Historia

"...Operational Costs
Based on open statistics from the Swedish Air Force, the calculated cost per flying hour is approximately 4,000 USD including fuel....

Source: https://saab.com/es/region/india/about- ... air-power/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests