F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

[hornetfinn]

I'd also like to know whether it was politicians or air force personnel that decided that Gripen E/NG was "good enough" for Switzerland?

[swiss]

1. Gripen E was not the highest performing
2. Gripen E did meet minimal technical requirements.

A leaked 2009 report shook that confidence, as it revealed that the Gripen finished below the Rafale and Eurofighter in almost all areas, and was rated as not meeting competition specifications in key areas like air superiority. Swiss authorities countered that the JAS-39E version offered in the 2010 RFP was fully compliant, and subsequent ratings did give it a “good enough” score.

Sorry Loke you are wrong. The Swiss Government was laying. The leaked Results say clearly the Gripen-E didn't reach the expected Capabilities. ( score 6) Which also means the Gripem was inferior to the Hornet C/D.










Here you can read the complete leaked evaluation.

https://de.scribd.com/doc/81390363/Swis ... the-Rafale
Sorry but the leaked report did not include what happened later, please read the link I provided above.

There was no evaluation later. Yes Gripen E did meet minimal technical requirements. But this don't mean he meet the minimal requirement of the AF. Which was the F-18 C/D.

In 2009 there was the 2 evaluation. In 2011 our MOD Ueli Maurer said he choose the Gripen. In 2012 the the evaluation was leaked by several newspapers.So after 2010. In 2014 was the referendum. And in 2015 the first Gripen should be delivered to the swiss AF.

And in the Link that i give you, there are both evaluations. And as you can read the AF said nearly in every category.

"The Gripen MS21 can be engaged all type of ... missions. However the likelihood of being unable to carry out with success ....missions is considered somewhat possible."

So yes technically the Gripen E can do this missions. With success? We are not sure. And of course Saab said later we can built a Gripen E that can fulfill the minimal requirements of the Swiss AF. But this was never a result of an evaluation by the Swiss AF.

[ricnunes]

Ricnunes: I do not know if this was the document you were referring to?

I'm not sure if the document you're referring to is the same that I was referring to even because I can't read Swedish. However it's quite possible that it is.
And before you accuse me of not posting sources you should actually read my post in where I actually posted a source however that site was down for maintenance as anyone who tried to access that same site would notice by reading the message on the loaded web page which was something that I previously mentioned as well (it is not my fault that my source was down for maintenance ).

Fortunately and in the meanwhile the site is now up again and here's the document that I was actually referring to:


Sounds like a legit Swedish government document with the exception of the small read translation text in English.

And before you come up with the argument that the Swedish government is not Saab, bla bla bla, then:
- If you really believe that the Swedish government doesn't have a HUGE participation on the Gripen program then I have lots of bridges to sell you!

Again: hopefully the level of precision will from now on increase in this discussion...

You want "precision" on this discussion?? Ok, I'll give you pin-point "precision"/accuracy:
1- All values and stats regarding the Gripen E have been proven to be wrong! Values from Weight, Range and even Cost are all wrong! And on top of this we even have these ridiculous RCS claims (obviously also wrong!).
2- If we consider aircraft Super Hornet, Rafale or Typhoon to be "first line" fighter aircraft (actually second line if we consider the F-22 and F-35) than the Gripen E is a "second line" fighter aircraft (actually "third line" if again we take into account the F-22 and F-35).
Trying to compare the Gripen E to a Super Hornet, Rafale or Typhoon is a bit akin to trying to compare a F-5E with the F-16A in the early 1980's!
3- The Swiss evaluation noticed that the Gripen E was only marginally better than the LEGACY HORNET (yeah, that US fighter aircraft from the 1980's!) and actually worse in certain aspects of the evaluation than that same legacy Hornet. You can't get better precision that this - And the Swiss are people well known for this (precision!).

[linkomart]

Ricnunes: I do not know if this was the document you were referring to?

I'm not sure if the document you're referring to is the same that I was referring to even because I can't read Swedish. However it's quite possible that it is.
And before you accuse me of not posting sources you should actually read my post in where I actually posted a source however that site was down for maintenance as anyone who tried to access that same site would notice by reading the message on the loaded web page which was something that I previously mentioned as well (it is not my fault that my source was down for maintenance ).

Fortunately and in the meanwhile the site is now up again and here's the document that I was actually referring to:

The real documet is here
https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI-R--0338--SE
I’ve just read it and it doesn’t claim that the 39 has that RCS.
It’s a report about..... operational analysis simulations (sort of) and the model used in the simulation has that RCS.
(Page 50) Hovever the auhtor claims that the data comes from ”Radarmålareor är erfarenhetsvärden från FOI Försvarsanalys personal. ”(p54)
Witch translates to something like ”RCS values (that you can use in public*)are from experieced personells guesses”
*is my interpretation
Sorry for the text, my pad tries to change every word in to swedish, I might have missed a few...
My 5 cent

[optimist]

The real documet is here
https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI-R--0338--SE
I’ve just read it and it doesn’t claim that the 39 has that RCS.
It’s a report about..... operational analysis simulations (sort of) and the model used in the simulation has that RCS.
(Page 50) Hovever the auhtor claims that the data comes from ”Radarmålareor är erfarenhetsvärden från FOI Försvarsanalys personal. ”(p54)
Witch translates to something like ”RCS values (that you can use in public*)are from experieced personells guesses”
*is my interpretation
Sorry for the text, my pad tries to change every word in to swedish, I might have missed a few...
My 5 cent

Thank you for your effort, you just saved another 20 pages of it being the RCS of a pixie.

[madrat]

[loke]

Ricnunes: I do not know if this was the document you were referring to?

I'm not sure if the document you're referring to is the same that I was referring to even because I can't read Swedish. However it's quite possible that it is.
And before you accuse me of not posting sources you should actually read my post in where I actually posted a source however that site was down for maintenance as anyone who tried to access that same site would notice by reading the message on the loaded web page which was something that I previously mentioned as well (it is not my fault that my source was down for maintenance ).

Fortunately and in the meanwhile the site is now up again and here's the document that I was actually referring to:


Sounds like a legit Swedish government document with the exception of the small read translation text in English.

I hope you have read the posting above which basically explains to you what these research documents are saying -- completely in line with what I was explaining to you earlier. I also hope that you understand this a bit better.... As I said earlier, the 0.1 m2 claim was done by Gripen fanboys...

[loke]

There was no evaluation later. Yes Gripen E did meet minimal technical requirements. But this don't mean he meet the minimal requirement of the AF. Which was the F-18 C/D.

In 2009 there was the 2 evaluation. In 2011 our MOD Ueli Maurer said he choose the Gripen. In 2012 the the evaluation was leaked by several newspapers.So after 2010. In 2014 was the referendum. And in 2015 the first Gripen should be delivered to the swiss AF.

And in the Link that i give you, there are both evaluations. And as you can read the AF said nearly in every category.

"The Gripen MS21 can be engaged all type of ... missions. However the likelihood of being unable to carry out with success ....missions is considered somewhat possible."

So yes technically the Gripen E can do this missions. With success? We are not sure. And of course Saab said later we can built a Gripen E that can fulfill the minimal requirements of the Swiss AF. But this was never a result of an evaluation by the Swiss AF.

What you describe above does not seem to be quite in line with the description in the following document (from 2012):

https://www.admin.ch/opc/it/federal-gaz ... 2/8145.pdf

where it says (google translated):

2011
The Federal Chambers have decided to increase the spending limit starting in 2014
of the army at 5.0 billion francs and to guarantee partial replacement
of the Tiger fleet (federal decree of 29 September 2011 6 concerning the report
on the army 2010). The purchase was therefore initiated under the Program
of armament 2012.
On 5 September 2011, the fourth call for tenders was presented to the
for the purpose of updating the offers according to a purchase within the framework of the
2012 weapons program. The offers dated 28 October 2011 have been analyzed.
and the evaluation report has been updated (state: 18 November 2011). The
30 November 2011 we chose the model of plane by opting for the Gripen.

So according to this document it seems that updated offers were submitted 28. October 2011, and the evaluation report was updated in November 2011.

[loke]

No it doesn't. The engine face has always been hidden on Gripen (kudos) but the Canards are the dogs bullocks sticking out. And there is no lipstick one can put on them. Even if they are planformed to the delta wing, its been explained in here several times that theres no fixing them.

Sonar/Radar Transparency
Composites are very well known for their transparency to radar and low damping properties.
Non-magnetic
The non-magnetic properties of glassfiber reinforced composites are a major advantage especially in sonar and radar applications.

https://www.solico.nl/why-composites

https://www.icas.org/media/pdf/Workshop ... Nordin.pdf

Seems the Gripen canards are made of CFRP, and it seems that CFRP could be made radar transparant...?

If the Gripen canards are transparant to radar, could that affect the RCS?

Interestingly CFRP can also be designed to become RAM:

RCS reduction requires absorbers with broad-band characteristics since surveillance radars often employ wide bandwidths. Carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) composites are made of short carbon fibers embedded in a polymer matrix. They allow broad-band radar absorbing materials (RAMs) characterized by low reflection coefficient against impinging electromagnetic fields, and high resistance against environmental hazards.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4720745

[swiss]

What you describe above does not seem to be quite in line with the description in the following document (from 2012):

https://www.admin.ch/opc/it/federal-gaz ... 2/8145.pdf

where it says (google translated):

2011
The Federal Chambers have decided to increase the spending limit starting in 2014
of the army at 5.0 billion francs and to guarantee partial replacement
of the Tiger fleet (federal decree of 29 September 2011 6 concerning the report
on the army 2010). The purchase was therefore initiated under the Program
of armament 2012.
On 5 September 2011, the fourth call for tenders was presented to the
for the purpose of updating the offers according to a purchase within the framework of the
2012 weapons program. The offers dated 28 October 2011 have been analyzed.
and the evaluation report has been updated (state: 18 November 2011). The
30 November 2011 we chose the model of plane by opting for the Gripen.

So according to this document it seems that updated offers were submitted 28. October 2011, and the evaluation report was updated in November 2011.

Yes the report was updated with possible improvements from the manufacturers. But there was no evaluation from the AF. And its seems very likely, that the manufacturers where aware of the result from the first two evaluations. And our MOD said always he would like to work toghter with sweden because its a "small" and neutral country like Switzerland. So it was easy "optimize" the Gripen E, that he was good enough for the swiss AF.

[ricnunes]

The real documet is here
https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI-R--0338--SE
I’ve just read it and it doesn’t claim that the 39 has that RCS.
It’s a report about..... operational analysis simulations (sort of) and the model used in the simulation has that RCS.
(Page 50) Hovever the auhtor claims that the data comes from ”Radarmålareor är erfarenhetsvärden från FOI Försvarsanalys personal. ”(p54)
Witch translates to something like ”RCS values (that you can use in public*)are from experieced personells guesses”
*is my interpretation
Sorry for the text, my pad tries to change every word in to swedish, I might have missed a few...
My 5 cent

Thanks for the clarification about the subject.

[XanderCrews]

They ended up purchasing it based on cost anyway.

Cost and technical requirements... They made clear 2 things: 1. Gripen was not the most capable of the three (actually it was the least capable)

Agreed

and 2. in the end it was deemed to meet minimal requirements.

*The proposal as far as they could tell met minimum requirements, the flying prototype was not happening for another 5 years.

Also strange that it was invited to this second round, especially since SH and F-35 are also in the race this time around. If for some (political) reason F-35 is not chosen then the SH seems the obvious choice, right? Highly capable and much cheaper than Rafale/Typhoon. Thus that leaves no room for a fighter that does not meet requirements -- unless of course it does...

everyone enjoys Saabs free food, innovative sales exaggerations and snazzy company swag before telling them they lost and completely wasting their time again. Have you ever heard of the "friend zone"?

According to all the fans still hurting over Norway, the fix was in anyway when Gripen competed. The fix is always in when F-35 wins. Its like magic. now of course I could end up wrong. Maybe Gripen NG/E wins again. Maybe they really did invite them seriously, maybe its their competition to lose. Or maybe they felt they needed to invite the last winner in to avoid the look of impropriety (don't want a Canada situation where you call for a "free and open" competition then exclude the winner.)

What does it cost the Swiss to invite them anyway? how is that strange exactly Loki? explain what you mean?

[XanderCrews]

We all started somewhere. I'm just glad it's in text. So I can link it back to you in a few years. We can reminisce. Remember when you used APA as a source and then doubled down with 2 links? They were fun times.
I'm not that far from Goon, I last spoke to him probable 5 years ago. He's not doing much, just rambles on twitter now. All the dreams and $2 companies of the group of misfits, have faded.

BURN

Yes, when they are quoting actual scientific studies. I am not biased against sources unlike some others here who seem very tribal in their arguments.

Complains about "Tribal arguments" and " bias" qoutes APA




APA has ZERO credibility, and are the exact personification of things you are railing against. I could on and on but I don't want to derail the thread. APA even contradicted themselves and then threatened to sue anyone who dare pointed out. Its an actual forward in some of their "articles"

You can take anything they've done with their various aviation studies and put it up there with George RR Martin's flying dragons, the difference being Martin knows what he writes is fiction.

Oh and he made money writing his fictional flying things.

[XanderCrews]

The real documet is here
https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI-R--0338--SE
I’ve just read it and it doesn’t claim that the 39 has that RCS.
It’s a report about..... operational analysis simulations (sort of) and the model used in the simulation has that RCS.
(Page 50) Hovever the auhtor claims that the data comes from ”Radarmålareor är erfarenhetsvärden från FOI Försvarsanalys personal. ”(p54)
Witch translates to something like ”RCS values (that you can use in public*)are from experieced personells guesses”
*is my interpretation
Sorry for the text, my pad tries to change every word in to swedish, I might have missed a few...
My 5 cent

Thank you for your effort, you just saved another 20 pages of it being the RCS of a pixie.

Indeed thank you Linkomart.

I'd also like to know whether it was politicians or air force personnel that decided that Gripen E/NG was "good enough" for Switzerland?

It was the politicians, which is why it "mysteriously" leaked. It seemed and "Swiss" here would probably know more, that their air force kicked and screamed and let it be know they favored Rafale.

Yes the Gripen was cheapest, no it was not the best value.

Gripen fans were fast to talk about how brilliant a decision Gripen was, until the swiss voted it out, then we were told how dumb and silly and what a joke their air force is on BF4C. harsh times I suppose.

Sweet Irony is complaining the F-35 is bad and always wins on Politics when Gripen is superior, but then Gripen wins in Switzerland based on politics, and not superiority.

Are you referring to the MS32 upgrades that were taken into account? Or are you referring to the Gripen E that was a paper airplane at the time(and still is)?

This is what I'm constantly screaming


Speaking of Linkomart, he was kind enough to PM me and let me know that he knew his stuff about this, (and I do indeed believe he does from all the posts here) to inform me that the RCS penalty I though that Canards carried was not nearly the penalty it was, and so I apologize for getting it wrong on the Canard canard. Apologies to Loke, Marsavaian, and him. The Gripen is still not LO but not for the reason I thought. I was wrong on the canard Radar return.

[viper12]

Gripen fans were fast to talk about how brilliant a decision Gripen was, until the swiss voted it out

Note I wouldn't be surprised a lot of the no vote was just because they thought it was a waste of money to get new fighters to replace (technologically-wise) Vietnam-era F-5E/Fs, whether it was a Rafale, Eurofighter or Gripen. I know some of them who think an air force is a complete waste of money...