F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

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

bumtish

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 378
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 15:59

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 22:28

aprichelieu wrote:Denmark and Norway are going for one airbase each, because of the high cost of an airbase capable of servicing the F-35. The Gripen family have much less requirements from their airbases.


You have so many factual errors that leads you to false conclusions that it is hard to know where to start.

Denmark consolidated all the F-16s on one airbase back in 2006. It had nothing to with costs of the F-35 which was chosen in 2015. Norway will have one main and one forward airbase. Does Denmark and Norway need more "main" bases? No, because both countries maintain a capability to operate in dispersed mode during crisis and conflict, just as they can receive NATO reinforcements.

It is prudent use of money that can be used for other defence needs.

aprichelieu wrote:Gripen is designed to be serviced by a few conscripts and one regular with equipment loaded on a few trucks.
If you bring in the equivalent of a full airbase, then of course you can operate from roads.


And conscripts doing a very minimal maintenance, refuel and rearm from a prepped BAS90 facility is just that. Could be done with F-16, F-35 and others.

In particular because the dispersed road runways almost always where inside a km of the full main base support! The dispersed operations were basic, fall back, and not meant for intensive sustained sortie generation.

Because BAS90 or dispersed operations is 95% ground setup and 5% airplane. If Gripen has a e.g.100 m less take off and landing requirements means close to nothing.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5907
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Aug 2018, 00:49

aprichelieu wrote:
Good luck with that ”hundreds of miles”. Even more luck trying to operate Norwegian F-35As from aircraft carriers.



I was speaking about F-35s in general if you want to get specific with Norway we can, but others have covered it.


The F-35s will have to fly around three hours just to get there. That is pretty quick reaction time, don’t you think


You moved the goal posts. You switched the standard to "reaction time" from survivability. your original assertion was that Denmark and Norway would be vulnerable based on the number of official fighter airfields they have. myself and others said that was irrelevant, then you changed the standard to "reaction time"

I'm sure the Russians would never figure out where all the Swedish mini bases that have only been there for decades are. just like they didn't know back then, they must be absolutely dumbfounded now.


Changing the name makes something totally different?
The GE F404 is totally unrelated to the RM12 engine according to your reasoning.


Totally different? no. Different enough to change the name at least? yes. I don't know if there is a language barrier or if you're being deliberately obtuse.

Saab thought Gripen E was close enough to keep the same name...

I was simply trying to find a middle ground. Oh well.

Anyone can operate from a straight road in the middle of the desert if the road is long enough.
The big difference is the baggage train needed to support such operations.

Gripen is designed to be serviced by a few conscripts and one regular with equipment loaded on a few trucks.
If you bring in the equivalent of a full airbase, then of course you can operate from roads.


We seem to be talking about 2 different things. I'm talking about sustained combat operations near the frontline on a road that has no other help or previous preperation. Youre talking about a camping trip with airplanes. no major maintenance, fuel, spare parts, ordnance, or other logistics. BAS90 is vastly easier than what I was talking about and seeing as it predates Gripen, is clearly not a Gripen unique feature.

We can do that too. Thats the easiest type of operation in fact. The scenario you are talking about is either unrealistic or you're planning on a very short war. If it is as bumtish says, just throwing some guys in a truck so you have bodies to put fuel in the airplane, and throw (light --like say AAMs )ordnance on with the minimum of maintenance--Anyone can do that with minimal "baggage. " Whats the point of having a "mobile air force" with immobile bases? well I have no idea. I guess the enemy is supposed to get tired of pretending to be surprised as they bomb them?

We are talking about very different things. In my mind to be truly unknown you have to go to the middle of nowhere with no prep lest the enemy get you in their surprise attack (which is what you brought up). And you are talking about minibases built up years ago that for some reason the enemy will not have found with basic reconnaissance in an age of UAVs and spy satelites that have been gathering that intel since before the berlin wall fell.

So your real issue isn't bases, its not having enough bases. Breaking one known base into 10 smaller but still known bases is just as useless in the event of a dedicated counter force strike, but hey whatever. maybe theyll be too stupid to target your HAS's betting on the enemy stupidity for you, while lamenting his same cunning for those you disagree with doesn't make much sense. But Swedish Magic is amazing.


That conscripts can turn around airplanes faster than regulars tells you that the crew is not everything.
An optimized process is the key. A good crew will improve things, but will not succeed if they have to follow a bad process.


what?

Did you not read my post?


bumtish wrote:
aprichelieu wrote:Denmark and Norway are going for one airbase each, because of the high cost of an airbase capable of servicing the F-35. The Gripen family have much less requirements from their airbases.


You have so many factual errors that leads you to false conclusions that it is hard to know where to start.

Denmark consolidated all the F-16s on one airbase back in 2006. It had nothing to with costs of the F-35 which was chosen in 2015. Norway will have one main and one forward airbase. Does Denmark and Norway need more "main" bases? No, because both countries maintain a capability to operate in dispersed mode during crisis and conflict, just as they can receive NATO reinforcements.

It is prudent use of money that can be used for other defence needs.

aprichelieu wrote:Gripen is designed to be serviced by a few conscripts and one regular with equipment loaded on a few trucks.
If you bring in the equivalent of a full airbase, then of course you can operate from roads.


And conscripts doing a very minimal maintenance, refuel and rearm from a prepped BAS90 facility is just that. Could be done with F-16, F-35 and others.

In particular because the dispersed road runways almost always where inside a km of the full main base support! The dispersed operations were basic, fall back, and not meant for intensive sustained sortie generation.

Because BAS90 or dispersed operations is 95% ground setup and 5% airplane. If Gripen has a e.g.100 m less take off and landing requirements means close to nothing.


Exactly.

aprichelieu's entire argument is 3 parts:

1. The cost of F-35s is so expensive Certain countries have had to go to one airfield. That IS FALSE. The Base strategy predates F-35 selection

2. Single Airfield automatically precludes distributed operations. That is also FALSE


3. That the Gripen is Superior, unique, or otherwise the only airplane capable of distributed/expeditionary operations. This is also false, and probably the most easy to prove false.

So not only is aprichelieu factually inaccurate he is taking those inaccuracies and creating false narratives based on assumptions and double standards.

Gripen fans whip out all these "facts" and they are not even accurate and are based on surface level analysis. Doesn't the swedish method of operation predate the Gripen?


Image

Why is everyone acting like the Gripen invented the wheel? no doubt it improved it. But people think this was never a thing until the mid 1990s??
Choose Crews
Offline

aprichelieu

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 20 Apr 2011, 19:25
  • Location: Stockholm

Unread post15 Aug 2018, 06:07

SpudmanWP wrote:The "deficiencies" with Block 3F are being addressed in the Bi-Annual C2D2 updates. They are not waiting for Block 4.1 to fix them.

When Block 4.1 arrives, it's basically a freebie since it's total cost should be about $10k per jet thanks to being all software. That, and throw UAI (Which Gripen will likely never get) which gives it the ability (and cost /time savings) to add a host of weapons without going through multi-year (and $10s of millions) of integration costs.

Btw, the F-35A can use a chute and has a hook so short field ops are doable.


And updates to all deficiencies are for free?

The Gripen E App based S/W architecture which allows weapons to be integrated without going though multi-year requalification of the complete S/W is probably what triggered a similar move in the F-35.
Offline

gideonic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 280
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015, 13:54

Unread post15 Aug 2018, 09:39

aprichelieu wrote:The Gripen E App based S/W architecture which allows weapons to be integrated without going though multi-year requalification of the complete S/W is probably what triggered a similar move in the F-35.


Oh boy, sure, everything sure revolves around the gripen. It sure has nothing to do with being already there for the F-16.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2749
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post15 Aug 2018, 09:44

aprichelieu wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:The "deficiencies" with Block 3F are being addressed in the Bi-Annual C2D2 updates. They are not waiting for Block 4.1 to fix them.

When Block 4.1 arrives, it's basically a freebie since it's total cost should be about $10k per jet thanks to being all software. That, and throw UAI (Which Gripen will likely never get) which gives it the ability (and cost /time savings) to add a host of weapons without going through multi-year (and $10s of millions) of integration costs.

Btw, the F-35A can use a chute and has a hook so short field ops are doable.


And updates to all deficiencies are for free?

The Gripen E App based S/W architecture which allows weapons to be integrated without going though multi-year requalification of the complete S/W is probably what triggered a similar move in the F-35.


And there are no similar or worse deficiensies in Gripen? Just because all that information is not public does not mean there are no problems with Gripen. Of course there have been all kinds of problems, just like every other fighter aircraft ever:

https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/de-tekni ... en-6394008

Google translate does a decent job on that for those who don't understand Swedish well enough. So it has had quite a lot of problems in Swedish service, some of which have been there for years and have introduced quite serious limitations.

I really doubt Gripen E SW architecture has had anything to do with F-35 development...
Offline

gideonic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 280
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015, 13:54

Unread post15 Aug 2018, 13:00

hornetfinn wrote:And there are no similar or worse deficiensies in Gripen? Just because all that information is not public does not mean there are no problems with Gripen. Of course there have been all kinds of problems, just like every other fighter aircraft ever:


Yes that too. Gripen is underdog and the only game in town for Sweden. That's why blowing the weight budget by a ton (way worse than whatever weight problems F-35 had) doesn't even reach the news-outlets. F-35 in contrast, is the biggest defense program ever, with plenty of interested parties to see it fail.

Out of the "problems" aprichelieu listed most are sensationalist BS created by news-sites to generate clicks on a controversial and popular subject (bashing US Military programs):
aprichelieu wrote:Guns not hitting the target
Overheating problems
Fixing unanticipated cracks
Achieving advertised service life
Breaking refuel probes

The best example is the "Overheating problem". Endre (a person, AFAIK is working in the Norwegian MoD) had a good answer to that here:
endre wrote:Had another interesting discovery last week ref: what does the DOT&E-report actually tell us. A Norwegian critic sent out this newsletter where he tried to ridicule the F-35 for having to "wave its skirts around" all the time, referencing the comment in the DOT&E-report about the 10 minute limitation on closed weapons bays at certain altitudes and at certain speeds. So I started digging and asking around - and the answer surprised me.

First of all - the reason for this limitation is not found in the design of the F-35, as many would have you think. What is really the case is that certain components belonging to the avionics, that have been installed in the weapons bays for ease of maintenance, have not been qualified at the required temperatures. Until these components are re-qualified, their temperature limitations by definition become the temperature limitations of the weapons bay as a whole, and anything above that becomes "excessive." So while the contents of the report on this area are factually correct, it in no way tells the whole story, and creates the impression that an isolated issue is indicative of an issue with the aircraft as a whole.

Also, the real tactical implications of this are quite limited. Our pilots at Luke report that they have not once had to adapt any of their plans to work around this issue, nor have any of those that have flown the aircraft a lot more aggressively than our guys have so far.

Not that this rational explanation will have an impression on anyone who has already decided what to think about the issue...

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25623&start=1860

The "unanticipated cracks" For example are totally ordinary as well, once you factor in multiple lifetime tests (that all F-35 versions have run!). If these are run and you find nothing ... then you built your aircraft too heavy. Things that were found are fixed ...
[PDF] download/file.php?id=19095
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 399
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post15 Aug 2018, 13:25

Dispersed ops have more to do with basing concepts than the planes themselves.
For example Singapore manages to run even a bloody F-15SG from a highway (besides the F-16). Russians have shown many planes doing so. Finland operates F-18C/D very nicely, with probably the most amount of actual practice since it's so central in their operating plan. Sweden only recently realized they wanted to keep doing that, starting by sending Gripens to Finnish road base trainings.

Nothing really exceptional about the Gripen. It's just that it might be good enough for some buyers. If the requirements are low, it might be value for money. If the evaluations are not just pass/fail and instead grade things then it's in trouble. Beyond that certain adversary scenarios might prove impossible to deal with their capabilities. Operating inside Russian/Chinese A2AD coverage in 2030+ scenario... different challenge than limited air space defense.

One of the key difficulties is that nobody that operates Gripen actually is going actively to war with them. That means less experience to draw lessons from. For example the air to ground game is laughable. Anything is potential in Saab's brochures, but when the host country doesn't even have a proper cruise missile... that's like blind leading the fools.

One of the biggest initial challenges with F-35 is the arrangement with threat data. Several partners have opted for building specific labs for them in order to deal with the separation between joint threat data and their own nationally sensitive data. FMS buyers are currently all hosted in one lab. These are all in the CONUS. I'm not sure about Israel though... It's reasonable to assume that F-35 means less independence than certain solutions. But it has it own trade-offs and boni for each user to consider. Like the fact that all parts are US Gov owned until they are installed to a specific F-35.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2749
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post15 Aug 2018, 13:56

bumtish wrote:
aprichelieu wrote:Denmark and Norway are going for one airbase each, because of the high cost of an airbase capable of servicing the F-35. The Gripen family have much less requirements from their airbases.


You have so many factual errors that leads you to false conclusions that it is hard to know where to start.

Denmark consolidated all the F-16s on one airbase back in 2006. It had nothing to with costs of the F-35 which was chosen in 2015. Norway will have one main and one forward airbase. Does Denmark and Norway need more "main" bases? No, because both countries maintain a capability to operate in dispersed mode during crisis and conflict, just as they can receive NATO reinforcements.

It is prudent use of money that can be used for other defence needs


Exactly. Besides Sweden also currently has only two real bases for Gripen, so it's no different to Norway. All would likely use other airfields and possibly roads in the event of shooting war. I'd also see any kind of proof that Gripen has any significantly lesser requirements for their airbases compared to F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22984
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Aug 2018, 14:23

'gideonic' posted above:
…"The "unanticipated cracks" For example are totally ordinary as well, once you factor in multiple lifetime tests (that all F-35 versions have run!). If these are run and you find nothing ... then you built your aircraft too heavy. Things that were found are fixed … [PDF] download/file.php?id=19095 [ download/file.php?id=19095 ]

Something is rong with the URL for the file - in IE 11 in Windows 10 anyway - URL works in Edge. Original PDF is:

F-35 Full Scale Durability Modeling and Test 05 Mar 2014

http://www.fatigue2014.com/presentation ... /35502.pdf (2.9Mb)
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8368
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post15 Aug 2018, 17:46

aprichelieu wrote:And updates to all deficiencies are for free?
Software fixes are coming out of the JPO office at a rate of 2 per year as part of the C2D2 program. They are applied in the field by local techs so for all intents & purposes, they are free. Every partner nation is also part of the post-SDD program to develop new features (ie Blocks 4.x and forward). When new Blocks are released, they only pay for the kits & install (as needed) since they already paid for the dev.

aprichelieu wrote:The Gripen E App based S/W architecture which allows weapons to be integrated without going though multi-year requalification of the complete S/W is probably what triggered a similar move in the F-35.

Please provide the source info that says that a Gripen can mount a weapon that it has never seen before and within an hour be able to use all of it's features without needing to change any part of the Gripen's software, because THAT is what UAI can do.

Btw, the whole "multi-year" thing is due to the entire block update ("version #" in Saab terminology) usually involving a lot of weapon & feature changes. It's not saying that a single weapon by itself would take multiple years.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5907
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Aug 2018, 20:47

hornetfinn wrote:
aprichelieu wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:The "deficiencies" with Block 3F are being addressed in the Bi-Annual C2D2 updates. They are not waiting for Block 4.1 to fix them.

When Block 4.1 arrives, it's basically a freebie since it's total cost should be about $10k per jet thanks to being all software. That, and throw UAI (Which Gripen will likely never get) which gives it the ability (and cost /time savings) to add a host of weapons without going through multi-year (and $10s of millions) of integration costs.

Btw, the F-35A can use a chute and has a hook so short field ops are doable.


And updates to all deficiencies are for free?

The Gripen E App based S/W architecture which allows weapons to be integrated without going though multi-year requalification of the complete S/W is probably what triggered a similar move in the F-35.


And there are no similar or worse deficiensies in Gripen? Just because all that information is not public does not mean there are no problems with Gripen. Of course there have been all kinds of problems, just like every other fighter aircraft ever:

https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/de-tekni ... en-6394008

Google translate does a decent job on that for those who don't understand Swedish well enough. So it has had quite a lot of problems in Swedish service, some of which have been there for years and have introduced quite serious limitations.

I really doubt Gripen E SW architecture has had anything to do with F-35 development...


Sweden does not have the same level of government scrutiny that applies to US programs. Even more so with the F-35 as several nations have to publish reports and audits on the program for the public repeatedly.

Meanwhile Gripen fans cant even tell you the date they consider Gripen NG to have "actually started"
Choose Crews
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 763
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post15 Aug 2018, 21:11

Why so much noise?

As stated before: The F-35 and Gripen E are apples and oranges.

One is a full-blown 5. gen fighter, in the medium/heavy weight class

The other is a 4.5 gen fighter, in the light weight class.

One is developed by the US in collaboration with several partners over many years, with a massive budget.

The other is developed on a "shoe-string" budget by a country having a population smaller than many cities around the world.

The awesomeness of Gripen does not come from it's capabilities, but that a small country like Sweden manage to develop it at all.

Look at where India is whith their Tejas LCA "homegrown" program.... decades late, lots of foreign technology, and still not there yet!
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 291
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post15 Aug 2018, 22:30

hornetfinn wrote:
aprichelieu wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:The "deficiencies" with Block 3F are being addressed in the Bi-Annual C2D2 updates. They are not waiting for Block 4.1 to fix them.

When Block 4.1 arrives, it's basically a freebie since it's total cost should be about $10k per jet thanks to being all software. That, and throw UAI (Which Gripen will likely never get) which gives it the ability (and cost /time savings) to add a host of weapons without going through multi-year (and $10s of millions) of integration costs.

Btw, the F-35A can use a chute and has a hook so short field ops are doable.


And updates to all deficiencies are for free?

The Gripen E App based S/W architecture which allows weapons to be integrated without going though multi-year requalification of the complete S/W is probably what triggered a similar move in the F-35.


And there are no similar or worse deficiensies in Gripen? Just because all that information is not public does not mean there are no problems with Gripen. Of course there have been all kinds of problems, just like every other fighter aircraft ever:

https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/de-tekni ... en-6394008

Google translate does a decent job on that for those who don't understand Swedish well enough. So it has had quite a lot of problems in Swedish service, some of which have been there for years and have introduced quite serious limitations.

I really doubt Gripen E SW architecture has had anything to do with F-35 development...


Don't wave that around to Gripen fanboys, their heads will explode.
Offline

bumtish

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 378
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 15:59

Unread post15 Aug 2018, 23:58

loke wrote:Why so much noise?

As stated before: The F-35 and Gripen E are apples and oranges.

One is a full-blown 5. gen fighter, in the medium/heavy weight class

The other is a 4.5 gen fighter, in the light weight class.

One is developed by the US in collaboration with several partners over many years, with a massive budget.

The other is developed on a "shoe-string" budget by a country having a population smaller than many cities around the world.

The awesomeness of Gripen does not come from it's capabilities, but that a small country like Sweden manage to develop it at all.

Look at where India is whith their Tejas LCA "homegrown" program.... decades late, lots of foreign technology, and still not there yet!


I don't disagree with you on this, but there is a claim in the thread that Sweden is doing the same (and more) on a shoe-string budget as the US and partners do. Obviously, the Swedish budget essentially covers the systems integration of off-the-shelf hardware on a Swedish developed aeroshell and software development (flight control, sensors, weapons). This also a lot less ambitious project concerning capabilites.

In the opposite corner is the fully fledged RDT&E effort of three variants of a stealth fighter including a STOVL and CV version. It includes development of an engine, avionics, the whole bondoggle. A lot of basic research also went into the program. It has a lot more capabilities and a LOT more future development potential. It also includes devolping/maturing a mass production line, not cheap, but pays off in the end. (Compared to this what is going on in Linköping is cottage industry (not disparaging their setup, given the means it is an effective way of doing it, but they don't have that part of the cost either)).

On top of that, the testing regime in the US is just a lot more rigorous than what we do in Europe (it is both good and bad).

I know you know this. And I think Gripen E is a good idea for Sweden and a number of potential customers.

I can also understand that posters react when presented for the idea that because fighter A costs $2B to develop and fighter B costs $55B then fighter B just wasted money and the people who developed fighter A are just 27 times smarter.

This is then garnished with a list of F-35 deficiencies at end of SDD lifted from DOT&E and GAO to show that F-35 is a troubled jet when public oversight like DOT&E and GAO is just non-existent for European fighter projects. You don't get yearly lists of current deficiencies, availability rates and mission capable rates on European fighters in development.

Gripen is most likely subject to all kind of ailments we just don't hear about, but they fix it somehow eventually just like in other fighter programs.

Also, the reliability and maintenance specification of F-35A is nearly identical to Gripen C, but somehow there is a notion out there on the internetz that the F-35 is a ludicrously unreliable and maintenance. OK, F-35 has not met all yet but here is still time to go before it has to.

Without the prerequisite understanding it is easy to think that the Gripen programme is a true wonder that just breaches all convention.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5907
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post16 Aug 2018, 06:40

loke wrote:Why so much noise?

As stated before: The F-35 and Gripen E are apples and oranges.

One is a full-blown 5. gen fighter, in the medium/heavy weight class

The other is a 4.5 gen fighter, in the light weight class.

One is developed by the US in collaboration with several partners over many years, with a massive budget.

The other is developed on a "shoe-string" budget by a country having a population smaller than many cities around the world.

The awesomeness of Gripen does not come from it's capabilities, but that a small country like Sweden manage to develop it at all.

Look at where India is whith their Tejas LCA "homegrown" program.... decades late, lots of foreign technology, and still not there yet!


It's not F-35 fans that go full retard on this subject. Its gripen fans with inferiority complexes who think the gripen is comparable, and the better because it costs a fraction less.

F-35 fans are defensive, Gripen fans are delusional.

I agree loke and I'm glad you chimed in. I don't think they are comparable. But people invariably will. As we see here.

Speaking for me, This F-35 fan doesnt really care for or even about the Gripen at all when it comes to comparing the two. I think the Gripen E is basically too little too late. Neat plane, but F-35 is the big leagues like it or not.

I'm sorry it's hard to now sound condescending toward the Gripen but I just really think about it as realistic competition. Theres gripen countries and F-35 countries. Rarely is there a crossover
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests