F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

[playloud]

BTW, does anyone know if the Gripen E can carry 2000lb bombs on those two fuselage stations?

In case NO (which is what I suspect) then this even makes things worse for the Gripen since in order to carry 4K PGM's the Gripen would either carry 2x2000lb PGM's on the inner wing pylons and thus would only carry a single external fuel tank (instead of two) in the centerline fuselage pylon or would carry 4x1000lb (2 on the fuselage pylons as seen in the picture above and 2 on the inner pylons) but then it wouldn't carry any external fuel tanks as all!

I also doubt those stations hold 2k bombs. But even if they do, the configuration would push it above MTOW with the 450g tanks. It could probably get by with 2x 300g tanks.

[loke]

About cost for Gripen and F-35

There was a good article in a swiss newspaper comparing System Price for F-35 ( Belgium, Netherlands ect) vs Gripen price offered to Switzerland. And its seems the F-35 could be even cheaper then the NG.

https://translate.google.ch/translate?h ... 9h0RnNVfAE

It is very tricky to compare across competitions... it is in most cases not an "apples-to-apples" comparison. Each deal is different.

Nevertheless we know from the Danish competition that the F-35 is comparing quite well to both the Typhoon and the SH (although I believe for the SH they used the F model in the Danish competition, which is presumably more costly than the E?).

In any case the F-35 will be cheaper than Rafale, Typhoon, and most likely also the SH (even if the Swiss most likely will stipulate the SH E model(?)). Whether it will come out cheaper than than the Gripen E or not is IMHO a moot point -- it will be by far the most capable of all the fighters, and most likely "cheap enough" to be acceptable to the Swiss.

I can think of only two potential issues with the F-35 (which are also somewhat linked): political issues (not sure exactly how they would manifest themselves?) and/or noise... I recall that in the previous Swiss competition noise was measured and was one of the parameters been taken into account. Of course it will be a political decision to determine how much the noise level should count in the final decision making process. As for politics -- look no further than Canada... which is even a close US ally and NATO member, and even F-35 partner...!!!!

[kimjongnumbaun]

I was not referring as much to the power or size of the radar as I was of the jammer itself. Most AESA radars can be used as jammers, and these will, in the case of pretty much all modern fighters, be X-band. This, combined with the fact that the radar is probably the single largest available transmitter on most fighters will mean that the frequency band that an AESA radar equipped fighter will be able to most effectively jam is the same that radar is intended for.

On just internal fuel the F-35 is probably the fighter with the longest range, no question about that. The other ones are intended to use external tanks. In that situation the Rafale probably has the furthest reach. The Gripen E, configured with two 450 gallon EFTs, two BRU-61s with SDBs, three AIM-120s, two AIM-9s and a targeting pod would have a very slight advantage in fuel fraction over the F/A-18C carrying the same air-to-ground ordnance load but with two fewer AIM-120s and three 330 gallon EFTs. If my memory serves that image is actually from a presentation made by Dassault so I would take it with a grain of salt when it comes to the performance of the other two aircraft.

According to what can be found on Saab's website the air-to-air combat radius of the Gripen E is 1500 km with 30 minutes of on station time. Like you pointed out that is most likely with three EFTs (two 450 gallon tanks under the wings and one 300 gallon centreline tank), two IRIS-Ts and two BVR missiles. The Gripen E uses basically the same F414 engine as the Super Hornet so going by the range and endurance charts in the F/A-18E/F flight manual 30 minutes of flight at a maximum endurance speed translates to over 400 km at optimum cruise (at the same altitude) which is how I came up with the 1700 km maximum combat radius. Assuming that replacing the centreline fuel tank with two BVR missiles doesn't change the total drag index of the aircraft (which would result in a conservative estimation based on the F-16C/D flight manual) the Gripen E should have a combat radius of about 1550 km with two 450 gallon EFTs, four BVR missiles and two wingtip IR missiles (going by the change in fuel fraction). Which is similar to claims made for the SH, which is 1490 km with the same missile load and three 480 gallon EFTs. Obvious exclaimer, most of this last paragraph are based on my own speculations and calculations but I don't think they are too unreasonable.

I'm glad that we've boiled this whole thing down to the point that the Gripen is ineffective compared to the F-35. The only metric that it can possibly have an advantage is range if it's a triple bag Gripen, but with a massive penalty to agility, payload, RCS, and capability.

So the Gripen E is most likely 100% or more of the price of an F-35 with 20% of the capability.

[loke]

It seems the the Skyward can do passive ranging:

The JAS 39E/F Gripen NG features the SkyWard which is based on the experience gained from the Eurofighter Typhoon's PIRATE. This system uses a LWIR focal plane array sensor (with dual band capability as a potential upgrade) and is stated to be “capable of detecting low-RCS targets at distances compatible with a beyond-visual-range missile launch”. The SkyWard is claimed to exhibit anti-stealth capabilities, since “some infrared absorbent paints cause more friction than standard surfaces, and that causes kinetic heating that the IRST will pick up”, according to manufacturer's officials [5]. It can also perform “kinetic ranging”, where the carrier aircraft performs a specific manoeuvre and the range is determined by the change in azimuth angle to the target. The range can be estimated with the help of another Gripen via triangulation, with data exchanged over the TAU-Link (Tactical Air Unit data link).

In this paper they also try to estimate the range by modelling:

From the above results, it is clear that, in good weather conditions, a target (e.g., an F-35, as in our case) can be detected at quite long distances, in the order of 100 km, or even more in drought conditions. Comparable detection distances have been reported for real systems in actual trials [20], indicating the plausibility of the proposed approach

http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%209_1_3.pdf

Nevertheless, Gripen E will not stand a chance against the F-35, however against an opponent with: a less stealthy airframe (both in terms of RCS but also in terms of IR stealth); less advanced sensors; not very sophisticated sensor fusion, and also much poorer missiles, I would not be surprised if the Gripen E actually would do quite well. (Yes I am thinking about the Su-57...).

[eloise]

It seems the the Skyward can do passive ranging
In this paper they also try to estimate the range by modelling:

From the above results, it is clear that, in good weather conditions, a target (e.g., an F-35, as in our case) can be detected at quite long distances, in the order of 100 km, or even more in drought conditions. Comparable detection distances have been reported for real systems in actual trials [20], indicating the plausibility of the proposed approach

http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%209_1_3.pdf
[/quote]
To be fair, that is the detection range from the rear aspect.
Frontal detection should be 30-40% that at most.

[hornetfinn]

Those simulated IRST ranges seem a bit odd. Narrow FoV detection ranges are only 25-40% longer than with WFoV, although the difference should be significantly larger. Narrow FoV is said to be 8x6.4 degrees and WFOV is 30x24 degrees. The difference between the detection range should be something like 3 times longer for NFOV than in WFOV. For example real product detection ranges according to manufacturer:

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/defau ... 071005.pdf

As can be seen here the detection range is almost directly proportional to used FOV. NFOV has three times smaller FOV which gives something like 2.6 times longer detection range. That makes sense since halving the FOV also means that single pixel covers similar area at twice the range. Atmospheric attenuation is what causes that slight drop in NFOV due to longer ranges involved.

I think those NFOV figures from those simulations are probably close to what could happen in real world especially in clearer conditions. WFOV figures are probably about two times too high and for example clean atmosphere figures should be something like 29-45 km. MFOV figures should be something like 44-70 km.

[wrightwing]

Without knowing the level of IR reduction versus conventional jets, it's nothing but wild speculation in terms of detection range vs the F-35 (or F-22).

[loke]

Without knowing the level of IR reduction versus conventional jets, it's nothing but wild speculation in terms of detection range vs the F-35 (or F-22).

True. However, as mentioned above, for most Gripen E customers detection range vs F-35 or F-22 is probably not the most critical... 4. gen fighters, and Su-57 (4.75 gen?) are probably more relevant than F-35 -- it has been quite some time since Sweden was planning on invading Norway or Denmark! (Or vice versa).

Anyway, Selex are not shy and make pretty strong claims:

The system also has a significant ‘counter-stealth’ capability and, when used alone or in conjunction with Gripen’s other sensors, it can produce high-fidelity tracking information against complex targets over long ranges, well beyond visual range.

https://www.leonardocompany.com/news-an ... ard-g-irst

In that regard, during a briefing to present the Gripen system on board the aircraft, it has been claimed that the Skyward-G is able to see aircraft flying at subsonic speeds, in regimes therefore characterized by reduced exhaust emissions. As stated, this capability depends on whether the system is able to detect the aerodynamic heating of the surfaces of the aircraft and engines absorbed from the same case.

Machine translated from: https://www.analisidifesa.it/2019/05/le ... -leonardo/

[optimist]

It all depends on the credibility of the authors of the paper, posted on scienpost. At a quick look, they have no clearance and nothing to do with the actual systems they are reviewing. As such, it may not be reliable.

[loke]

Saab will later this year conduct a first test flight of a Gripen C/D carrying a pod-housed electronic attack jammer, as it eyes potential sales opportunities with European air forces.

A product of the Swedish company's Arexis family of electronic warfare equipment, the low-band jammer is contained within a demonstrator pod that is 4m (13.1ft) long and weighs 350kg (770lb).

Development work and ground testing has been conducted at Saab's Stockholm facilities, along with trial installation beneath a Gripen airframe's outer wing pylon. Wing-like surfaces will be used to contain its low-frequency antennae.
"Our focus at the moment is to do the escort jammer – a pod to go on a few aircraft to accompany a strike package," says Petter Bedoire, Saab's head of electronic warfare marketing and sales. Currently, such duties must be performed by the US Navy's Boeing EA-18G Growler fleet, he notes.

A deployable stand-in jammer version is also being developed, which Bedoire describes as "like an annoying fly", based on its ability to generate a false target to confuse enemy air defence systems.

The Arexis range adapts equipment installed on Saab's developmental Gripen E. Bedoire describes the new-generation type's suite of sensors – which has already undergone extensive airborne testing – as "by far the most advanced electronic warfare system ever installed in a fighter". So-called quadrant receiver and transmitter systems housed within the aircraft's wing-tip pylons can provide a "spotlight jammer" capability, he notes.

While initial flight testing will be conducted on board an older Gripen, Saab is also promoting the Arexis range for possible integration on other aircraft types, potentially including the Eurofighter. Germany has a Lubis requirement to acquire a new jammer capability, and Bedoire says some installation study work has already been conducted to assess the potential use of the Swedish company's equipment with Eurofighter or the Panavia Tornado.

Saab plans to conduct a series of customer demonstrations with the equipment, Bedoire says, while noting: “Within NATO there's a surge in interest in this capability."

Rivals including Elettronica and Thales are also developing similar equipment, but Bedoire says that excluding US-owned assets, "there is no military-qualified capability in NATO today". Saab believes it could deliver an operational system within 12 months of securing a launch order, he adds.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... en-458693/

It would be strange if Sweden do not go for this -- due to the lack of stealth fighters in their inventory they should definitely expand on their jamming capabilities. The FCAS is probably 20 years away...

[loke]

Indian Air Force chief Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa is heading to Sweden on a four-day visit beginning Monday, an IAF spokesperson said.
He said the air chief will visit a slew of operational and training units and also interact with top officials of the Swedish Air Force. “The visit would provide an impetus to defence cooperation and pave the way for greater interaction and cooperation between the two air forces,” the spokesperson added.

India and Sweden concluded a security protection agreement in February 2019 in order to share classified information with each other, in a sign of deepening military cooperation. Interestingly, Swedish Company SAAB is a contender in the Indian Air Force’s multi-billion dollar 114 fighter aircraft programme. Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had visited Sweden in February this year.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... yT53N.html

Did they not read the posts by mr XanderCrews? Don't they know that Saab are just lying and lying and lying and there is absolutely nothing to see in Sweden? Only paper planes?

[optimist]

It is all pie in the sky, till some actually puts up the money. Any manufacturer can put up a wish list. I'm sure there is one for all programs..

Just to add that the EW system on the F-35 doesn't require the growler. The specs are to go in without any assistance and it is meeting it's specs.

[XanderCrews]

Indian Air Force chief Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa is heading to Sweden on a four-day visit beginning Monday, an IAF spokesperson said.
He said the air chief will visit a slew of operational and training units and also interact with top officials of the Swedish Air Force. “The visit would provide an impetus to defence cooperation and pave the way for greater interaction and cooperation between the two air forces,” the spokesperson added.

India and Sweden concluded a security protection agreement in February 2019 in order to share classified information with each other, in a sign of deepening military cooperation. Interestingly, Swedish Company SAAB is a contender in the Indian Air Force’s multi-billion dollar 114 fighter aircraft programme. Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had visited Sweden in February this year.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-ne ... yT53N.html

Did they not read the posts by mr XanderCrews? Don't they know that Saab are just lying and lying and lying and there is absolutely nothing to see in Sweden? Only paper planes?

Wow loke you sure did cream your pants over a four day visit by a defense minister. And yes they have been caught lying many times.

How does this visit change the history of this program we've been outlining for years now? One visit from an Indian defence administrator alters all that?


Hold the F up, Is the Gripen in Service yet? They have two prototypes flying only in the last 2 years. This is only recently not a paper airplane and its still in testing and not in service yet. Maybe hes finally showing because theirs not really been much to see before now? (which is what I've been screaming this whole time)


Didn't you yourself blame every BS Saab claim thats turned out to be patently false blame it all on the "marketing dept"?? You also claimed, In a blatant lie yourself that Saab never tried to connect the Gripen NG demo with the Gripen E.

Many times on many occasions Saab has claimed Falsehoods that have been to be exactly that, and I don't care how many times you put up the little passive aggressive winky face, I'm going to call out your and their lies and half truths




The absolute state of you walking back their ridiculous claims with a "muh marketing dept" just so you can do the same thing again with the exact same types of puff pieces is absolutely absurd, disingenuous, and deceptive. When will you be walking this claim back like so many of the others we have on record? You've been embarrasing yourself on this for 10 years now and you still keep up.

"That was all marketing Xander, OMG the Indian air boss!! This is really something! "

You fall for it every. time. I honestly would have been more impressed if it was a team of engineers. but his little 4 day free jaunt (I bet Sweden is nice this time of year, probably had nothing to do with anything of course) will really speed up the evolution of the Gripen E. I hope he enjoy his vacation.

My argument and its been very straightforward and repeated many times, was that Saab made claims based on utter falsehoods and incorrect assumptions and yes LIES with absolutely no actual aircraft performance to point to, since the Gripen NG had yet to fly a single flight. When Saab did finally begin to construct it, reality interceded and suddenly the airplane picked up 1000 kilos in empty weight, and again "out of nowhere" its performance claims, which were exactly that "claims" which even you agree were false, turned out to be completely fabricated. The only difference between me and you, on these points is I blame the company as a whole, and you blame the "marketing department" but what we agree on, is yes they lied. They gave inaccurate performance numbers to the public, in order to create an online following that would gain popularity and pressure leadership to take a look at the Gripen and in some cases perhaps actually buy it. and those numbers still exist online, because Saab has never bothered to update or attempt to remove them. Which is why I can still find those PAPER AIRPLANE numbers and LIES online.

No more games, if this post was meant to be cheeky and friendly I didn't take it that way. If it was meant to be not friendly or not cheeky, I'm going to take the gloves off on Saabs Brazilian sub-F-16 wunderfighter even more. I'll quit giving them the "benefit of the doubt" and start hammering them and their fans for being the lying liars they are and propagate propaganda even more. One of the reasons I come to F-16.net is to learn and cut through the hype and learn the truth, not suffer through more hype and deception. I've had my fill of Saab puff pieces. If LM put out a presser everytime a foriegn general walked through the door, there'd be no trees in the amazon for the gripen E to crash into someday

Good god, slow news day? This nothing story will give all the other nothing stories validity? is he bringing a time machine?

[XanderCrews]

If my memory serves that image is actually from a presentation made by Dassault so I would take it with a grain of salt when it comes to the performance of the other two aircraft.

I'm sure the calculations are based on already flawed Saab claims from back then, so if anything it might be generous.

About cost for Gripen and F-35

There was a good article in a swiss newspaper comparing System Price for F-35 ( Belgium, Netherlands ect) vs Gripen price offered to Switzerland. And its seems the F-35 could be even cheaper then the NG.

https://translate.google.ch/translate?h ... 9h0RnNVfAE

It is very tricky to compare across competitions... it is in most cases not an "apples-to-apples" comparison. Each deal is different.

Nevertheless we know from the Danish competition that the F-35 is comparing quite well to both the Typhoon and the SH (although I believe for the SH they used the F model in the Danish competition, which is presumably more costly than the E?).

In any case the F-35 will be cheaper than Rafale, Typhoon, and most likely also the SH (even if the Swiss most likely will stipulate the SH E model(?)). Whether it will come out cheaper than than the Gripen E or not is IMHO a moot point -- it will be by far the most capable of all the fighters, and most likely "cheap enough" to be acceptable to the Swiss.

I can think of only two potential issues with the F-35 (which are also somewhat linked): political issues (not sure exactly how they would manifest themselves?) and/or noise... I recall that in the previous Swiss competition noise was measured and was one of the parameters been taken into account. Of course it will be a political decision to determine how much the noise level should count in the final decision making process. As for politics -- look no further than Canada... which is even a close US ally and NATO member, and even F-35 partner...!!!!

its very hard apples, cue Canada. deflect, diffuse

A fighter so cheap it costs what an F-35 does? That's Saab engineering folks, you pay extra for low cost. all those Saab powerpoint presentations aging really well

[XanderCrews]

The whole gun/rounds thing in US fighters has been interesting to follow.

The F-15 if I'm not mistaken carried a whopping 940 rounds of 20mm ammo! That's a lot of squeeze time. The F-14 had 675 rounds, 510 in the F-16 and 400 or so in the F-18. So as time's marched on, the weapon has largely remained the same and the round count has declined.

Bigger rounds, and the F-15 is truly an exception.

Now it's down to 180 rounds in the F-35A, and 220 rounds for the gun pod in F-35B/C. The big change here though as I understand it is the move to 25mm shells. Can also be shot in multiple ways/rates of fire. I'll be honest... I cringed when I saw no internal gun for the F-35B and C.

...ok

I'm still not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, they still have a gun (if they opt to carry it). OTOH, I'm not sure how much it degrades performance and RCS. I understand the pilots when given a choice chose more gas, but to me that's more important in a C vs. a B. The B can set down anywhere in a pinch, whereas the C will be flying over water/open ocean with only one landing strip available - the carrier.

We don't care about your feelings. NAVAIR doesn't even care about the feelings of the people in NAVAIR. The military is funny like that.

There are usually alternate landing areas, plus the fighter sized tanker. The public's perception of CVN and the reality has been bearing fruit since Maverick in 1986.

It will be interesting to see how the B/C gun pod thing plays out. One thing I always liked about it: A gun can't be jammed or spoofed. If stealth on stealth results in dogfights, they'll be glad they're carrying one. Although now that I think about it, the J-20 has none.

Hmmmm...

the notion that the gun is infallible needs to stop.