F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

[garrya]

plot.PNG (24.25 KiB) Viewed 90708 times

[XanderCrews]

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.

Its not F-35 fans picking this fight Loke. It almost never has been.

The Napoleon complex, rests with the little guy

again about 1 in 100 Gripen Fanboys isn't delusional. For the other 99 the news is not so cheery, and if you understand those odds you can understand the kind of Gripen fans people are likely to encounter and are sick of hearing from? I mentioned earlier there seems to be a real correlation between Gripen fans also being the most ignorant on fighter aircraft and their development and operations. Its not a coincidence. All those guys on BF4C are convinced this thing is a cut above everything else in nearly every metric.

Even the "well intentioned" and "reasonable" or "slightly biased" Gripen Fanboys were utterly bamboozled by the plethora of misinformation (that you blame on Saab Marketing) were making what turned out to be grossly inaccurate assessments based on completely flawed and fabricated data. So even the "good ones" it turns out were spouting non-sense.

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".

Who or what gave the impression to all these fanboys that the Gripen was so amazing Loke?

I'll give you 4700 guesses per hour.

It wouldn't be mountains of company propaganda pumped out to the public for years now, would it?

Do they bring up things like Austrian Typhoons?

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...)

They're buying whats cheap, South Africa as it turns out had bribery going on, and they just scraped them anyway so i'd say it was a mistake, (though for a few select people I'm sure it was wonderful choice )

Austria is great example of what seems to be the exception all the other Typhoon operators don't seem to mind there, but I can set my stop watch on how long it takes a Gripen fanboy to bring it up. Why is that? Oh no Austria overpayed for something which totally validates they could have picked something cheaper? Default win for Gripen? Take that Austria!
They overpaid for a eurocanard? I'll call CNN. This is some real headline stuff...

A lot of people will tell you that there are no points for second place

Or

that if you're second place in combat, you're dead last

Or

the only thing more expensive than a first class air force is a second class air force...

I'm glad that these countries lease or buy gripens, I'm happy they contribute to NATO.If the Gripen was there would they have nothing at all?? F-5s seem to equip a lot of poor air forces and are cheap to operate, As are various MiGs.

Saab didn't invent the cheap lightweight fighter no matter how much people seem to think so.

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.

The "overactive marketing dept" strikes again I guess? LOL

[alphaxraylima]

I would just like to chime in with my thoughts on the subject.

The F-35 and the Gripen are two fundamentally different aircraft with two different concepts of operation and, as result of that, different design philosophies. What they have in common is what most modern fighters have in common, trying to achieve superiority over the enemies sensors to, in extension, allow the own side to dictate the battle.

Something that generally comes up when the Gripen is discussed is its electronic warfare capabilities and this is particularly true where the Gripen Echo is concerned. A Saab representative recently said that the "Gripen E electronic warfare system is the most advanced to ever fly in a combat aircraft. The US and Russia may have something better, but using open sources we haven't been able to find it" and at the time of this writing the Gripen E is the only fighter, be it in development or otherwise, that currently flies with a GaN AESA based internal EW suite.

Electronic warfare is more than just electronic attack and the CONOPS of the Echo is based on entering the battle silent (as in no radar emissions) the real enabler here is the Gripen's ESM capabilities with LPI radar ID and three dimensional geolocation. During a recent seminar an employee said that the Gripen E EW Suite "can identify one single radar-pulse at a long range in a contested environment".

This, combined with the IRST, beamed data links and sensor fusion is what enables the Echo's (to the enemy) silent CONOPS. So the thinking is (me speculating here) that the Echo will be able to detect, even AESA, radar emissions before said radar will be able to detect the Gripen which allows the pilot to dictate the engagement from that point. After that the mission dictates what can or has to be done, either a kinematic engagement, EA, taking a different route to target or a combination.

This is not me trying to preach the greatness of the Gripen as much as its me trying to explain why I believe the Gripen E is designed the way it was and why Saab say what they say.

Whether or not they will succeed is another question and one that the future has to answer. However, at least from my standpoint, I think it's fair to say that in a situation where a silent aircraft (using ESM) can locate a nonsilent aircraft first, a full VLO stealth design isn't really required.

[XanderCrews]

I would just like to chime in with my thoughts on the subject.

The F-35 and the Gripen are two fundamentally different aircraft with two different concepts of operation and, as result of that, different design philosophies. What they have in common is what most modern fighters have in common, trying to achieve superiority over the enemies sensors to, in extension, allow the own side to dictate the battle.

Something that generally comes up when the Gripen is discussed is its electronic warfare capabilities and this is particularly true where the Gripen Echo is concerned. A Saab representative recently said that the "Gripen E electronic warfare system is the most advanced to ever fly in a combat aircraft. The US and Russia may have something better, but using open sources we haven't been able to find it" and at the time of this writing the Gripen E is the only fighter, be it in development or otherwise, that currently flies with a GaN AESA based internal EW suite.

Electronic warfare is more than just electronic attack and the CONOPS of the Echo is based on entering the battle silent (as in no radar emissions) the real enabler here is the Gripen's ESM capabilities with LPI radar ID and three dimensional geolocation. During a recent seminar an employee said that the Gripen E EW Suite "can identify one single radar-pulse at a long range in a contested environment".

This, combined with the IRST, beamed data links and sensor fusion is what enables the Echo's (to the enemy) silent CONOPS. So the thinking is (me speculating here) that the Echo will be able to detect, even AESA, radar emissions before said radar will be able to detect the Gripen which allows the pilot to dictate the engagement from that point. After that the mission dictates what can or has to be done, either a kinematic engagement, EA, taking a different route to target or a combination.

This is not me trying to preach the greatness of the Gripen as much as its me trying to explain why I believe the Gripen E is designed the way it was and why Saab say what they say.

Whether or not they will succeed is another question and one that the future has to answer. However, at least from my standpoint, I think it's fair to say that in a situation where a silent aircraft (using ESM) can locate a nonsilent aircraft first, a full VLO stealth design isn't really required.

What color was the Kool aide?

[alphaxraylima]

What color was the Kool aide?

If I were to go to a Gripen seminar and they didn't serve something similar to this I would be quite disappointed.

But if you completely disregard what people that doesn't agree with you write, why are you even doing here?

[XanderCrews]

What color was the Kool aide?

If I were to go to a Gripen seminar and they didn't serve something similar to this I would be quite disappointed.

But if you completely disregard what people that doesn't agree with you write, why are you even doing here?

HAHA!

because I think that what they told you was a lot of cleverly constructed half truths. "we can't fund anything like it open source!" No joke, most of F-35's Barracuda system is classified, along with other things like the F-22. Hell, there's still lots of stuff on SH and Growler that are classified. Saab is beating Rafale?

Or is this just more of the "overactive marketing dept." I hear so much. I hear so much hype around this airplane its become very hard to keep track of whats real and whats hand waive as "creativity" of an over active department within the company. And a lot of it had turned out to be just that. I've had to hear about capabilities for years now that when we asked where they went the same people using those "facts" to beat up on anyone are now hand waiving it. "twas but marketing!" So exactly like we said?

And fans seem to use them seemingly interchangeably.

The F-35 is now through its major testing, has all 3 variants in service, and 2 of those 3 variants have already been to combat. So now I'm turning my attention to the amazing model of a Saab program only to see it has 2 flying prototypes and only one with the avionics...

For years every fact or evidence on the F-35 was dismissed nearly as fast as it could be produced (source? prove it, oh thats just marketing) by Saab's ardent fans, while they conversely spoke of the Gripen NG as if it was already tested and flying and in service when in reality it had never even produced a single prototype, and they were operating off ever changing powerpoint slides and marketing brochures. Well now the F-35 has arrived, and undisputedly so and I am now putting the onus of proof on the Gripen program as I look and see its moved at a snails pace, and a lot of the things that I was told were irrefutable fact have turned out to be total fabrications. I've had my fill of lies.

[prof.566]

En France, le fait d'avoir opté pour un mandat présidentiel quinquennal et surtout d'avoir couplé l'élection législative à la présidentielle tend également à faire des différentes élections des référendums autour de la figure présidentielle. C'est encore bien dommage.

I was a few years ago because leading edge had to be done of titanium for resistance purposes. Thins evolved since. Still it is not a good point for stealth despite enourmous improvements.

[alphaxraylima]

Well now the F-35 has arrived, and undisputedly so and I am now putting the onus of proof on the Gripen program as I look and see its moved at a snails pace, and a lot of the things that I was told were irrefutable fact have turned out to be total fabrications. I've had my fill of lies.

I can't speak for anyone else, what I will say is that I have seen redicolous statements from people ("fans" if you will, even though I don't really like or necessarily even agree with the term) claiming how this fighter or that fighter is the greatest thing ever.

This usually boils down to things like turn rate or speculating on radar range or RCS down the thousandth decimal. I have for sure been guilty of this, and while it can be quite fun, and I will probably still take part in such discussions, though on a strategical or even tactical level it matters little.

The more fundamental aspects of aircraft design and CONOPS are more interesting and is what actually matters, employing the assets you have to the best of their abilities. Would a VLO aircraft be able to get closer to a A2/AD threat than a non-VLO aircraft, undoubtedly so but from my position the more interesting question becomes, what is the safest and/or most effective way to tackle that threat in the first place? That might be taking the discussion a bit to far from where it were so let me take a step back.

What I tried to do with my original comment (other than finding an outlet for all my kool aide drinking of course) was trying to take the previous RCS discussion to a place I find more interesting, and like I said that is not discussing dbsm down to redicolous preciseness but instead what a VLO aircraft can do that non-VLO aircraft can't and what the consequences of VLO are.

I agree with you when you say that "the onus of proof [is now] on the Gripen program" which is why I ended my original comment with that we won't know whether or not Saab succeed with what they set out to do until the thing is actually operational but, also like I said in my previous comment, I think the CONOPS of the Gripen E could make sense. And if the sensors (and data processing and so on) of the aircraft in general and ESM in particular are good enough it could be a way to counter aircraft like the SU-35 or the SU-57 without having to deal with the (primarily economical) hassles of a VLO design.

[eloise]

I think it's fair to say that in a situation where a silent aircraft (using ESM) can locate a nonsilent aircraft first, a full VLO stealth design isn't really required.

Detection and getting targeting solution aren't the same though. https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... olocation/

[ricnunes]

You are saying that Gripen is inferior to Rafale, SH and Typhoon.

Yes, indeed and clearly and without any reasonable doubt, I'm actually saying that!

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?

Are you aware that countries sometimes or often (depending on the country) decide buy and 'Y' over 'X' military equipment which includes fighter aircraft not based on pure and sheer capabilities but based on:


But something tells me that you already knew this and you were just being a "smart a$$" with your reply above. Pardon me if I'm mistaken here...

Speaking of Money, Hungary, Czech Republic and Gripen, do you actually know that these countries haven't actually bought the Gripen but instead leased them?? So here you go on one of the reasons why these countries "acquired" the Gripen and not other fighter aircraft (i.e. This wasn't related to fighter aircraft capability).

Regarding your question above, that isn't IMO the question that you should make. Your question should have been something like:
- If the Gripen is such as a cheap aircraft to purchase and even even cheaper to maintain and on top of that apparently extremely capable (if we go with the rumors) why was/is it an export failure?

I don't think that 36 Gripen E for Brazil, 26 Gripen C/D for South Africa, 12 Gripen C/D for Thailand plus 14 leased Gripen C/D for Czech Republic and another 14 leased for Hungary is anywhere near a commercial/export success but each one with its own expectations...

Anyway, my take or my reply to my own question above would actually be around the inferior capabilities that this aircraft (Gripen) has when compared to the other western competitors. So here's the reply to your question above.

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...

Besides capabilities and money there's another HUGE reason that makes countries buy the 'Z' aircraft over the 'Y' aircraft: Politics (which usually goes hand-to-hand with money). I believe that Austria's case was something along those lines...

[XanderCrews]

You are saying that Gripen is inferior to Rafale, SH and Typhoon.

Yes, indeed and clearly and without any reasonable doubt, I'm actually saying that!

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?

Are you aware that countries sometimes or often (depending on the country) decide buy and 'Y' over 'X' military equipment which includes fighter aircraft not based on pure and sheer capabilities but based on:


But something tells me that you already knew this and you were just being a "smart a$$" with your reply above. Pardon me if I'm mistaken here...

Speaking of Money, Hungary, Czech Republic and Gripen, do you actually know that these countries haven't actually bought the Gripen but instead leased them?? So here you go on one of the reasons why these countries "acquired" the Gripen and not other fighter aircraft (i.e. This wasn't related to fighter aircraft capability).

Regarding your question above, that isn't IMO the question that you should make. Your question should have been something like:
- If the Gripen is such as a cheap aircraft to purchase and even even cheaper to maintain and on top of that apparently extremely capable (if we go with the rumors) why was/is it an export failure?

I don't think that 36 Gripen E for Brazil, 26 Gripen C/D for South Africa, 12 Gripen C/D for Thailand plus 14 leased Gripen C/D for Czech Republic and another 14 leased for Hungary is anywhere near a commercial/export success but each one with its own expectations...

Anyway, my take or my reply to my own question above would actually be around the inferior capabilities that this aircraft (Gripen) has when compared to the other western competitors. So here's the reply to your question above.

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...

Besides capabilities and money there's another HUGE reason that makes countries buy the 'Z' aircraft over the 'Y' aircraft: Politics (which usually goes hand-to-hand with money). I believe that Austria's case was something along those lines...

Yes this is kind of how the "moving goal post" game goes. If we are going to look at the countries that have picked it as "success" what does that mean for all the countries that rejected it, or never even bothered to invite it? What does that tell us? Oh that tells us nothing! Why did it lose!? Politics of course!


I took one look at the F-35 program and it was essentially a battering ram. A giant sledgehammer. Its messy, and a tad imprecise, and makes up with sheer force that which it lacks in subtlety. But it also had 10 countries behind it, and the biggest one happens to be the country that spends trillions in defense, considers itself the leader of the free world, and likes blowing stuff up. I'd bet heavily on that program doing better, which "shockingly" turned out to be the right call as we watches a long winding road of the Gripen NG seeking customers.

The Gripen is all about cost savings, yet if someone says it was picked based on cost, theyre the bad guy. Even though thats its primary reason to exist, because not also crediting performance makes you the bad guy. "yes you praised it, but you did not praise it ENOUGH!" Kill the non-believer

And heres the bottom line on this. While a nation might make a hard choice, between say an F-35 and a super Hornet, or a Super Hornet vs a Rafale when a country picks the Gripen, thats a choice thats beyond subtle differences in performance o cost numbers, thats relegation to a defensive and 2nd line posture.

thats why i get a kick out of "Best Fighter For Canada's" kool aide crew. You really are seriously talking about Canada going to a force posture like Brazil or Botswana? Really? like Canada didn't build and use CF-5s for decades and used them right alongside the CF-18s and "somehow" chose to get rid of CF-5s, and not CF-18s? Any hints there? and "clues"? to decipher? Its that lightning bolt moment I mention.

"hey I was right in the middle of comparing a Cf-18's and F-35s range to a Gripen E over the great white north to the thousandth decimal place, when all of the sudden I realized that one is a "light fighter" with worse T/W than an F-16 and can't carry a CF-18 loadout anywhere and the F-35 carries double the internal fuel of a CF-18, with no additional stores, pylons, EFTs, or external drag whatsever!"

Well now the F-35 has arrived, and undisputedly so and I am now putting the onus of proof on the Gripen program as I look and see its moved at a snails pace, and a lot of the things that I was told were irrefutable fact have turned out to be total fabrications. I've had my fill of lies.

I can't speak for anyone else, what I will say is that I have seen redicolous statements from people ("fans" if you will, even though I don't really like or necessarily even agree with the term) claiming how this fighter or that fighter is the greatest thing ever.

This usually boils down to things like turn rate or speculating on radar range or RCS down the thousandth decimal. I have for sure been guilty of this, and while it can be quite fun, and I will probably still take part in such discussions, though on a strategical or even tactical level it matters little.

The more fundamental aspects of aircraft design and CONOPS are more interesting and is what actually matters, employing the assets you have to the best of their abilities. Would a VLO aircraft be able to get closer to a A2/AD threat than a non-VLO aircraft, undoubtedly so but from my position the more interesting question becomes, what is the safest and/or most effective way to tackle that threat in the first place? That might be taking the discussion a bit to far from where it were so let me take a step back.

What I tried to do with my original comment (other than finding an outlet for all my Kool aid drinking of course) was trying to take the previous RCS discussion to a place I find more interesting, and like I said that is not discussing dbsm down to redicolous preciseness but instead what a VLO aircraft can do that non-VLO aircraft can't and what the consequences of VLO are.

I agree with you when you say that "the onus of proof [is now] on the Gripen program" which is why I ended my original comment with that we won't know whether or not Saab succeed with what they set out to do until the thing is actually operational but, also like I said in my previous comment, I think the CONOPS of the Gripen E could make sense. And if the sensors (and data processing and so on) of the aircraft in general and ESM in particular are good enough it could be a way to counter aircraft like the SU-35 or the SU-57 without having to deal with the (primarily economical) hassles of a VLO design.

I can appreciate that, and your sense of humor.

[optimist]

Ever played whack-a-mole?
A batch of new poster have arrived. To set us straight on how superior the Gripen is.

[knowan]

I would just like to chime in with my thoughts on the subject.

The F-35 and the Gripen are two fundamentally different aircraft with two different concepts of operation and, as result of that, different design philosophies. What they have in common is what most modern fighters have in common, trying to achieve superiority over the enemies sensors to, in extension, allow the own side to dictate the battle.

Something that generally comes up when the Gripen is discussed is its electronic warfare capabilities and this is particularly true where the Gripen Echo is concerned. A Saab representative recently said that the "Gripen E electronic warfare system is the most advanced to ever fly in a combat aircraft. The US and Russia may have something better, but using open sources we haven't been able to find it" and at the time of this writing the Gripen E is the only fighter, be it in development or otherwise, that currently flies with a GaN AESA based internal EW suite.

Electronic warfare is more than just electronic attack and the CONOPS of the Echo is based on entering the battle silent (as in no radar emissions) the real enabler here is the Gripen's ESM capabilities with LPI radar ID and three dimensional geolocation. During a recent seminar an employee said that the Gripen E EW Suite "can identify one single radar-pulse at a long range in a contested environment".

This, combined with the IRST, beamed data links and sensor fusion is what enables the Echo's (to the enemy) silent CONOPS. So the thinking is (me speculating here) that the Echo will be able to detect, even AESA, radar emissions before said radar will be able to detect the Gripen which allows the pilot to dictate the engagement from that point. After that the mission dictates what can or has to be done, either a kinematic engagement, EA, taking a different route to target or a combination.

This is not me trying to preach the greatness of the Gripen as much as its me trying to explain why I believe the Gripen E is designed the way it was and why Saab say what they say.

Whether or not they will succeed is another question and one that the future has to answer. However, at least from my standpoint, I think it's fair to say that in a situation where a silent aircraft (using ESM) can locate a nonsilent aircraft first, a full VLO stealth design isn't really required.

Even giving all that a pass and just assuming it is true, it is still pretty much useless when considering a sortie against targets protected by a modern air defense network, because the aircraft still has to get close enough to the targets to release weapons.
Sure aircraft like the Gripen can carry stand-off weapons and even long range cruise missiles, but no nation can rely exclusively on those for warfare; getting the aircraft close enough to launch cheaper and more numerous munitions is required.


You're also talking about relying exclusively on passive sensors. What happens when the Gripen is facing aircraft that are passive too, but being guided to the Gripen by long-range ground based radar or AWACS?

The answer: a dead Gripen.

[magitsu]

No Gripen owner has been known to carry proper cruise missiles. Sweden has also bought only 213 AMRAAMs for all ~200 Gripens during their whole lifetime. Norway in the meanwhile bought 500 and Finland 445+300 later (shared with NASAMS).

It's the plane to go for if you don't want to really commit. Unfortunately what happens by doing so is that you commit into paying the development, which is far from over. The two-seater F is still only a vision. Apparently they expect to lengthen the frame by 65 centimeters etc. (and that's how you get EW Gripen - lol) but won't admit that these kind of changes might require a significant amount of extra testing on top of E's already challenging schedule.

It's going to be interesting to see how complete a package the E/F are by the time transition into European 5th/6th generation projects starts. No-one will be buying these when that starts to feel in any way tangible.

[squirrelshoes]

You're also talking about relying exclusively on passive sensors. What happens when the Gripen is facing aircraft that are passive too, but being guided to the Gripen by long-range ground based radar or AWACS?

The answer: a dead Gripen.

Or when one F-22/F-35 is flying passive while the other is active? The Gripens close on the RF source but get dead by the passive fighter they never knew was in the sky. The active doesn't even have to be a LO aircraft, an F-15/F-18 flying missile truck duties would do just fine as the eyes/ears.

There is no rule saying all aircraft must go active/passive together, and I expect that is one of the many tactics F-22/F-35 pilots have been refining as they learn to use their sensors and LO in collaboration among aircraft.