F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

No "Cost" either

[geforcerfx]

Second this. Hate to say it but (in my opinion) this conversation is for naught. The 2nd Swiss eval will be a waste of time and money for participants due to the referendum. And Swiss AF will be flying QRA in ultralights catching thermals over the Alps in 2030 if the voters decide.

[linkomart]

Is it possible to provide that same evidence of this?

Not evidence exactly... look in your inbox.

OK, so a lot of you sent me an PM.... I'll start a new thread.
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=55527&p=419993#p419993

[spazsinbad]

Saab Ramps Up Gripen E Flight Testing For First Deliveries [lots of text left out - BEST READ AT SOURCE]
22 May 2019 Tony Osborne

"LINKOPING, Sweden—Saab plans to have eight of its new-generation Gripen E combat aircraft flying by the end of this year as it ramps up flight testing. The company already has two JAS 39Es flying from its Linkoping base, 39-8 and 39-9, with company officials revealing that the third aircraft, 39-10, could fly in the next couple of weeks.

Serial production of the aircraft already is underway, with four aircraft currently undergoing final assembly, including the first aircraft destined for Brazil.

Several of these will be production-standard aircraft but equipped with flight test instrumentation. The second aircraft is also now flying with its extensive sensor suite, including the electronic warfare suite, the Leonardo-developed Raven active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and infrared search and track….

...“We are getting more out of each individual flight test hour, which we didn’t anticipate,” said Eddy de La Motte, the head of the Gripen E program at Saab.... ['what exactly' - is it good/bad info - more problems to solve? crikey sport]

...Saab currently has orders for 60 Gripens from Sweden and 36 aircraft for Brazil including eight two-seat versions, development of which is taking place in Brazil with a joint Swedish/Brazilian team....

...Development of the two-seat Gripen F is proceeding apace. The addition of a second cockpit requires the lengthening of the fuselage by 65 cm and adjustments to the electrical system to cope with the additional avionics and oxygen system. The design of the ducting from the air intake to the engine also is being redesigned and the fuselage strengthened, to deal with increased bending moments.

“We are trying to keep everything as similar as possible. All the systems are the same. All the displays are the same. Minor changes will also be needed to the flight control system,” de La Motte [head of the Gripen E program at Saab] said.

The two-seat version is designed to be fully operational, with the two cockpits independent from each other to enable the rear-seater to operate the EW system. De La Motte says he does not expect any significant impact on the two-seat model’s performance. First flight of a two-seat Gripen is expected in 2022."

Source: https://aviationweek.com/defense/saab-r ... deliveries

[XanderCrews]

Saab Ramps Up Gripen E Flight Testing For First Deliveries [lots of text left out - BEST READ AT SOURCE]
22 May 2019 Tony Osborne

"LINKOPING, Sweden—Saab plans to have eight of its new-generation Gripen E combat aircraft flying by the end of this year as it ramps up flight testing. The company already has two JAS 39Es flying from its Linkoping base, 39-8 and 39-9, with company officials revealing that the third aircraft, 39-10, could fly in the next couple of weeks.

Serial production of the aircraft already is underway, with four aircraft currently undergoing final assembly, including the first aircraft destined for Brazil.

Several of these will be production-standard aircraft but equipped with flight test instrumentation. The second aircraft is also now flying with its extensive sensor suite, including the electronic warfare suite, the Leonardo-developed Raven active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and infrared search and track….

...“We are getting more out of each individual flight test hour, which we didn’t anticipate,” said Eddy de La Motte, the head of the Gripen E program at Saab.... ['what exactly' - is it good/bad info - more problems to solve? crikey sport]

...Saab currently has orders for 60 Gripens from Sweden and 36 aircraft for Brazil including eight two-seat versions, development of which is taking place in Brazil with a joint Swedish/Brazilian team....

...Development of the two-seat Gripen F is proceeding apace. The addition of a second cockpit requires the lengthening of the fuselage by 65 cm and adjustments to the electrical system to cope with the additional avionics and oxygen system. The design of the ducting from the air intake to the engine also is being redesigned and the fuselage strengthened, to deal with increased bending moments.

“We are trying to keep everything as similar as possible. All the systems are the same. All the displays are the same. Minor changes will also be needed to the flight control system,” de La Motte [head of the Gripen E program at Saab] said.

The two-seat version is designed to be fully operational, with the two cockpits independent from each other to enable the rear-seater to operate the EW system. De La Motte says he does not expect any significant impact on the two-seat model’s performance. First flight of a two-seat Gripen is expected in 2022."

Source: https://aviationweek.com/defense/saab-r ... deliveries

Serial production while still testing!? concurrency!?

But ive been told by Team Gripen Fanboy thats a disastrous mistake made by LM on the JSF program thanks to the disastrous effects of the American MIC!

[loke]

Serial production while still testing!? concurrency!?

But ive been told by Team Gripen Fanboy thats a disastrous mistake made by LM on the JSF program thanks to the disastrous effects of the American MIC!

What is MIC?

There is a huge difference between Gripen E and F-35 -- the former is basically an evolution of an existing aiframe (Gripen C), with a different engine (but a very mature one); and new avionics and sensors (for the most part also quite mature, like the IRST which is basically an evolution of the one in Typhoon, and the MAWS which is an evolution of some Israeli stuff; ditto for HMD, etc. etc.). The latter is a brand-new and very complex piece of eqiupment. New materials, new airframe, new sensors, new engine, new HMD, etc. etc.

There is always a risk of starting production before all testing has been completed, however it seems quite clear that the risk is much smaller when the system being tested is an evolution of an existing, mature system, and not a brand new system. Also, as already mentioned above, the risk is smaller when the system is less complex, compared to a system that is more complex.

I hope you see the difference...

[ricnunes]

In any case this it somewhat OT; the main point was clearly that a canard solution does not necessarily score very poorly in the RCS department...

I wasn't sure if I should comment this in this thread or in the thread that linkomart created.
Anyway since the above was posted in this thread I'll comment the above here as well.

Well, the canards may not score very poorly (whatever "very poorly" means?) in the RCS department but nonetheless they will score worse and still degrade RCS in most cases (specially in aircraft where the Canards aren't aligned with the wing) compared to non-canard aircraft.

From my conversation with linkomart, here's what I learned:
- Canards may not degrade RCS at all if the radar source is located directly in front of the Canard equipped aircraft or 0 deg azimuth and this even if the radar is located above (or below I guess) the Canard equipped aircraft (let's say 30 or 40 degrees above or below).
But once the radar source or the Canard equipped aircraft moves away from the 0 degree azimuth then the RCS will suffer (there will be a RCS penalty). Of course how much will be this "RCS penalty" (versus degree azimuth of course) is open to debate.

My point is that even after the enlightening conversation with linkomart, I reached the conclusion that Canards will still bring RCS penalties (unless the radar is directly in front in terms of azimuth) specially if the Canard's aren't aligned with the main wing.
So and again, it is no surprise (IMO that is) that none of the actual VLO/Stealth aircraft that ever entered in service have them.

[swiss]

From my conversation with linkomart, here's what I learned:
- Canards may not degrade RCS at all if the radar source is located directly in front of the Canard equipped aircraft or 0 deg azimuth and this even if the radar is located above (or below I guess) the Canard equipped aircraft (let's say 30 or 40 degrees above or below).
But once the radar source or the Canard equipped aircraft moves away from the 0 degree azimuth then the RCS will suffer (there will be a RCS penalty). Of course how much will be this "RCS penalty" (versus degree azimuth of course) is open to debate.

Thanks for your explanation Ric. Very interesting. I assume this is the reason way the Rafale has serrated patterns at the underside of the canards

[XanderCrews]

What is MIC?

Military industrial complex

There is a huge difference between Gripen E and F-35 -- the former is basically an evolution of an existing aiframe (Gripen C), with a different engine (but a very mature one); and new avionics and sensors (for the most part also quite mature, like the IRST which is basically an evolution of the one in Typhoon, and the MAWS which is an evolution of some Israeli stuff; ditto for HMD, etc. etc.). The latter is a brand-new and very complex piece of eqiupment. New materials, new airframe, new sensors, new engine, new HMD, etc. etc.

There is always a risk of starting production before all testing has been completed, however it seems quite clear that the risk is much smaller when the system being tested is an evolution of an existing, mature system, and not a brand new system. Also, as already mentioned above, the risk is smaller when the system is less complex, compared to a system that is more complex.

I hope you see the difference...

Its been "testing" for over 10 years, loke.

Most people were complaining about the fundamental notion of production while testing, that it was NEVER a good idea etc

Besides I'm betting they're having to start production whether its ready or not-- they have a schedule, after all.

In my experience the Gripen hive mind has a really hard time with things like honest comparison and differences they're usually lost on Gripen fans in general Like all the wacky ones who have been so utterly confused about whats real and whats the product of that "overactive marketing branch" the last 10 years. or people like yourself who told us Saab never drew parallels with the Gripen Demo and the Gripen NG performance, despite them explicitly saying exactly that, and you then denying it here.


Its really hard to sort through all the lies, shifts, changes, and double speak. Even its biggest fans can't keep up

Its just a simple low risk evolution that's only been in gestation for 15 years. no big deal nothing to see here.

[ricnunes]

Thanks for your explanation Ric. Very interesting. I assume this is the reason way the Rafale has serrated patterns at the underside of the canards

You're welcome Swiss.

While all of this Stealth (i.e. Low or Very Low RCS) subject is a very complex (and top-secret) one, one thing seems to be sure:
- Serrated surfaces/patterns are vital for any aircraft that aspires to have a Low RCS value (i.e. to be Stealthier or Stealth). Hence one of the reasons why I doubt the below 1 m2 RCS value (average frontal aspect of course) for the Gripen E.

So yes, it seems clear to me that applying serrated patterns on surfaces such as landing gear doors and/or for those who have them, weapon bay doors will greatly reduce RCS. So I guess that applying serrated patterns on Canards will also and indeed help reducing RCS somehow - although I doubt it will the same level of RCS reduction as with landing gear or weapon bay doors since the Canards surfaces are "more exposed" if you will than those other surfaces.

[ricnunes]

In my experience the Gripen hive mind has a really hard time with things like honest comparison and differences they're usually lost on Gripen fans in general

I would say that the reason is because when you start to do honest "apples with apples" comparisons it becomes pretty much clear that the Gripen is and will be an inferior fighter aircraft even compared with its supposed "peers", the Rafale, Typhoon and Super Hornet (let alone against a F-35).
Like I previously said, the Rafale, Typhoon and Super Hornet will soon become "2nd line" fighter aircraft so this means that the Gripen E will become a "3rd line" fighter aircraft (while the F-22 and F-35 are and will continue to be "1st line fighter aircraft).

I even have my doubts that the Gripen E will be as good (I won't even mention "better than") as the F-16V but that would be another subject, I guess...

So, I believe that this is a clear reason why the Gripen fans do what you mentioned above.

[spazsinbad]

Gripen E testing ahead of schedule, vendor claims
24 May 2019 Christina Mackenzie

"LINKÖPING, Sweden — Flight-testing of Saab’s Gripen E combat aircraft is moving faster than anticipated, according to Eddy de la Motte, vice president and head of the Gripen E/F business unit at Swedish manufacturer Saab.

De la Motte told a media briefing that tests to fire MBDA’s Meteor missile had been carried out by test aircraft 39-8 and 39-9 in northern Sweden. “We’d planned two weeks for the testing and were able to get everything done in one,” the executive remarked, adding, “We’re getting more out of each individual flight test hour than we’d anticipated, which is helping to move the program forward.”

Today the flight envelope is being expanded, with 9g being achieved earlier this month, according to the company. Test pilot Marcus Wandt explained that although the aircraft is heavier than the Gripen C, “the agility is still there because it’s stronger and carries its weight very well.” Wandt and his five colleagues have flown 125 test hours...." [wot does 'carry weight very well' mean?]

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... or-claims/

[loke]

Saab Ramps Up Gripen E Flight Testing For First Deliveries [lots of text left out - BEST READ AT SOURCE]
...“We are getting more out of each individual flight test hour, which we didn’t anticipate,” said Eddy de La Motte, the head of the Gripen E program at Saab.... ['what exactly' - is it good/bad info - more problems to solve? crikey sport]

Source: https://aviationweek.com/defense/saab-r ... deliveries

What he is referring to is explained below:

LINKÖPING, Sweden — Flight-testing of Saab’s Gripen E combat aircraft is moving faster than anticipated, according to Eddy de la Motte, vice president and head of the Gripen E/F business unit at Swedish manufacturer Saab.
De la Motte told a media briefing that tests to fire MBDA’s Meteor missile had been carried out by test aircraft 39-8 and 39-9 in northern Sweden. “We’d planned two weeks for the testing and were able to get everything done in one,” the executive remarked, adding, “We’re getting more out of each individual flight test hour than we’d anticipated, which is helping to move the program forward.”

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... or-claims/

More about recent testing:

The second aircraft is also now flying with its extensive sensor suite, including the electronic warfare suite, the Leonardo-developed Raven active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and infrared search and track.

The company also has tested the swashplate that gives a level of mechanical steering to the AESA radar, boosting its field of view.

Saab currently is finishing up modifying aircraft 39-7, the two-seat Gripen demonstrator that is now being used as a flying test rig for Gripen E systems, including the new wide-area display that is being fitted in the rear. Sweden elected to adopt the wide area display developed by Brazilian firm AEL Sistemas last year, and the configuration will now be the standard fit for production Gripen Es. The Gripen Es are currently flying with three multifunction displays in the cockpit. The first Gripen E to receive the wide-area display will be the first aircraft destined for Brazil.

Saab 39-7, along with one of the Gripen Es, will go to Switzerland to support flight evaluation for the country’s fighter contest.

Recent milestones for the program include flights maneuvering up to 9g. The aircraft also achieved the highest-ever level speed by a Gripen-family aircraft, but the company did not disclose the speed.

Seems the testing is progressing well at the moment

[loke]

I would say that the reason is because when you start to do honest "apples with apples" comparisons it becomes pretty much clear that the Gripen is and will be an inferior fighter aircraft even compared with its supposed "peers", the Rafale, Typhoon and Super Hornet (let alone against a F-35).
.

I would say that your "honest apples with apples" comparison is not really that at all. As I have stated repeatedly, Rafale, Typhoon and SH are one weight class above the Gripen. The only a/c that is in the similar weight class (to Gripen E) is F-16C, it seems.


To illustrate this with an example: nobody would do an "honest apples with apples" comparison of a say, a middleweight and bantamweight (or whatever it's called, I am not expert) in the world of boxing.

It is actually the same with fighters. Gripen is a lightweight fighter. This affects the load it can carry, the range, and also the endurance. The other fighters you mentioned above are not lightweight, they are medium weight (whereas Su-30 and F-15 would be "heavy weight").

Your premise of "honest apple with apple" comparison is basically flawed.

I hope this is clear.

Regarding the F-35: It is clearly not a light weight fighter. However, more importantly, it is a 5. gen fighter, with all that entails of stealth, sophisticated sensors, sensor fusion, etc. So in addition to being a different weight class it is also a different generation. So no "apples with apples" comparison is possible!

Another thing to keep in mind is that for the most part it is fanboys on forums like this that are so pre-occupied with doing comparisons, with endless discussions on which fighter is "best".


In the real life, this is rarely very important. Instead what professionals are doing is that they define requirements, obtain information from each prospective vendor, and checks the technical information on each fighter jet against the requirements (so not against each others). Clearly the requirements will be different for different countries. Just like people buying cars have different requirements. Some would be happy with a cheap, simple Skoda, others would prefer a BMW or Mercedes. Different requirements will lead to different solutions.

You are saying that Gripen is inferior to Rafale, SH and Typhoon. So countries like Hungary, Czhechia and South Africa has then in your opinion done a mistake when choosing the much simpler and cheaper Gripen C? Would you also claim that Austria made a the correct choice when they selected Typhoon over Gripen C some years ago? (I strongly encourage you to read up on the sad story of Austrian Typhoons...)

If you really hold those opinons well then I think we just need to agree to disagree...

[zerion]

I would say that your "honest apples with apples" comparison is not really that at all. As I have stated repeatedly, Rafale, Typhoon and SH are one weight class above the Gripen. The only a/c that is in the similar weight class (to Gripen E) is F-16C, it seems...

Sure but they keep entering the Gripen into the same competitions with all the medium weight fighters. So if it shouldn’t get compared they should stay out of the class, division, conference, bracket or whatever. They say that the Gripen punches above its weight, if this is true then shouldn’t we see how it stacks up against the big boys.