F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

[ricnunes]

Everytime people say this airplane is not a serious contender, and everytime we are proven correct with the exception of Brazil, but of course Brazil is not exactly a powerhouse.

Well, actually Brazil is a powerhouse - it's a powerhouse of corruption!

I had a Rafale fan on Best Fighter 4 Canada tell me the idea of the F-35 replacing 3 airplanes would be impossible
Rafale replaces SIX aircraft

Absolutely, I fully agree.
I take that with six (6) aircraft (replaced or being replaced by the Rafale) are:
1- Mirage 2000C (air-to-air Mirage 2000)
2- Mirage 2000D (air-to-ground Mirage 2000)
3- F-8 Crusader
4- Super Etendard
5- Mirage IV
Which one would be the 6th? The Mirage 2000N (Nuclear Strike Mirage 2000), perhaps?

[Tiger05]

^
Jaguar and Mirage F1 too.

Mirage 2000Ds, however, arent being replaced by Rafales (at least not yet). They are going through a MLU to extend their service life until 2035 or so. It remains to be seen what will replace them.

[mikc]

Saab has meanwhile started assembling fuselage parts for test aircraft 39-8 and static test article 39-83 at its Linköping site, and also is producing the first components for flight test asset 39-9.

First flight of the lead test aircraft is scheduled for the second half of 2015, with the single-seat asset to be used primarily for airframe and flight control system testing. The next example will be flown in the first half of 2016, and will support tactical systems work. Any required adaptations will be embodied with flight test instrumentation-equipped aircraft 39-10, which will join the test campaign in early 2017 to prove the final E-model configuration.

A first production example will follow close behind, with Saab targeting military type certification in early 2018, clearing the way for deliveries to Sweden and then Switzerland later the same year, in the MS21 software standard.

Once at full rate, the company aims to be able to deliver a new-build aircraft within 18 months of a contract award, or to convert existing airframes within a year.

Sweden’s remanufactured aircraft will retain almost none of the previous airframe, but will reuse parts of its fuel and air systems, plus its ejection seat, windshield, canopy and outer wing elevons.

Yes SAAB pushed the first flight date to get a certified FMS before first flight, thats true and not argued but maybe JPO should have done the same looking att the F35 testprogram, SDD tests closed at almost twelve years and 9,200 sorties, accumulating over 17,000 flight hours and still so many problems remains. After 3 years the F35 testprogram flight envelope was 38,000 feet and Mach 1.1 and very limited G's for example.

The February 2013 contract between SAAB and FMV stipulated that 60 Gripen C´s would be modified with the first delivery being in the last quarter of 2018, that contract was modified several times on the initiative of FMV and ended up being for the delivery of 60 entirely new builds, the first delivery being in the third quarter of 2019.

The brazil contract from 27 October 2014 stipulates that the Gripen NG deliveries to the Brazilian Air Force will be undertaken from 2019 to 2024

They seem to be on time for now with 4 planned to be delivered this year, despite pushing the first flight. We have to wait and see...and if they do they would be one year late according to the Swiss schedule. Not bad att all in comparison.

Does it really matter if the first flight was delayed if they make up the time lost?

Comparing progress in the testprogram, F35 A (not B or C) vs Gripen E
Days to first flight from signed order F35 = 1876, Gripen = 1581 (84% of the time)
Days from first flight to 9 G and max speed F35 = 2939, Gripen = 715 (24% of the time)
Days from first flight to first missile launch F35 = 2511, Gripen = 502 (19% of the time)
Days from first flight to first BVR missile launch F35 = 2511, Gripen = 708 (28% of the time)
Days from first flight to second aircraft F35 = 1055, Gripen = 529 (50% of the time)

I wouldn't say the test progress is bad in comparison. (Calculated date of event as the first day of a given period for F35 and the last day for Gripen if only a period has been given when the event occurred)

[SpudmanWP]

lol.. NG is literally an upgrade to an existing model and is only a SINGLE version.

To compare the Gripen's timeline to the F-35's is "disingenuous" and that is an understatement.

[XanderCrews]

Yes SAAB pushed the first flight date to get a certified FMS before first flight, thats true and not argued but maybe JPO should have done the same looking att the F35 testprogram, SDD tests closed at almost twelve years and 9,200 sorties, accumulating over 17,000 flight hours and still so many problems remains. After 3 years the F35 testprogram flight envelope was 38,000 feet and Mach 1.1 and very limited G's for example.

F-35 did a short take off, broke mach 1 and then landed vertically before they even bothered to test max G and speed. They had some other things they felt take priority and rightly so. AA-1 was getting shot up and damage tested. When will we be getting the Gripen's vertical landing? Carrier certifications? 10 other countries with their own requirements and stipulations getting tested?

Its also the most comprehensive test program in aviation history of the largest (and multinational, globally supplied) defense program in history featuring a 5th generation fighter than can land vertically and also crash land onto a CVN (and thats without looking into the production scalle) vs what supposed to be a natural evolution of a fighter optimized for cost and simplicity being made a half dozen at a time by hand with an already proven new COTS engine.


Hell the mere fact that you're comparing the hellaciously expensive and delayed and complicated JSF program to whats supposed to be an evolution to an already in service bird should really tell you something about the NG program. The F-35 also LOST weight, while the Gripen has only gained it.

but but but the F-35. Yeah we know. Nothing new here. To say the F-35 was a bit more "ambitious" is putting it mildly. Its almost like that had some other things that took priority before they could tell a golden arm to go max speed for lulz. not a surprise the largest defense program with the most ambitious warplane being bought by 10 countries to be built in the thousands ran into some serious problems.

"still so many problems remains," right and its also been to war and deployed, you're going to keep finding problems I promise. We haven't seen the last F-35 trouble, I know this because We still haven't seen the last F-4 or F-16 trouble either. It turns out when you take airplanes into service and they actually have to perform across the globe and theres hundreds of them flying you discover (especially in combat dets) more problems. problems you don't run into with 3 planes testing around Linkopeg with the fairly easy stuff. that 3rd prototype has a whole 57 minutes under its belt.

The Gripen has had problems from the start, it suffered crashes in testing, went through retrofits (Aerial refueling- its a good thing to have it turns out) its been in constant evolution to the point where not even 10 years into service they pitch the Gripen NG which is a massive redesign to make up for a lack of range and capability.

The February 2013 contract between SAAB and FMV stipulated that 60 Gripen C´s would be modified with the first delivery being in the last quarter of 2018, that contract was modified several times on the initiative of FMV and ended up being for the delivery of 60 entirely new builds, the first delivery being in the third quarter of 2019.

The brazil contract from 27 October 2014 stipulates that the Gripen NG deliveries to the Brazilian Air Force will be undertaken from 2019 to 2024

They seem to be on time for now with 4 planned to be delivered this year, despite pushing the first flight. We have to wait and see...and if they do they would be one year late according to the Swiss schedule. Not bad att all in comparison.

Does it really matter if the first flight was delayed if they make up the time lost?

The constantly changing timeline is infinitely interesting. besides they aren't there yet. (no I'm not saying they'll fail.) I'm saying as I have said before I am in the "do it first then come talk to me." I've been following Gripen NG since 2007. You'll forgive me if I'm not popping the champagne for yet another "you'll see someday!"

Comparing progress in the testprogram, F35 A (not B or C) vs Gripen E
Days to first flight from signed order F35 = 1876, Gripen = 1581 (84% of the time)
Days from first flight to 9 G and max speed F35 = 2939, Gripen = 715 (24% of the time)
Days from first flight to first missile launch F35 = 2511, Gripen = 502 (19% of the time)
Days from first flight to first BVR missile launch F35 = 2511, Gripen = 708 (28% of the time)
Days from first flight to second aircraft F35 = 1055, Gripen = 529 (50% of the time)

Where did you find this?? what sources did you use?

talk about some cherry picking. Max speed and and G are fairly straightforward tests. Even the little NG Demo was able to go "supercruise" without much fuss fairly early on. Congrats on high speed level flight, that must have been really something. JSF program put off a lot of thise because it is simple.

Choosing to test other things first and then get to the other things later is really being put out there as a comparable metric? Really?

Hell the JSF program had already taken the B out to the ship for its first set of sea trials before they even bothered to test max speed and G the following month with an A. And even then no one seemed to bother or notice. It moved right onto the next tests. If I recall the airplane that did the 9.9G and clock Mach 1.61 was AF-2 as well. It wasn't the 30th example built because none of the ones before it could do it. They probably could have done that test on Day 1, but testing preaches safety and prudence and stair-stepped validation.

lol.. NG is literally an upgrade to an existing model and is only a SINGLE version.

To compare the Gripen's timeline to the F-35's is "disingenuous" and that is an understatement.

If only the JSF program was a block 70 F-16 with an imported engine that was already in service for decades

Super Hornet is a more accurate comparison, but even then it had to land on the boat and prove the F414.

Oh well Loke says you can't really compare them anyway.

[magitsu]

Yes SAAB pushed the first flight date to get a certified FMS before first flight, thats true and not argued but maybe JPO should have done the same looking att the F35 testprogram, SDD tests closed at almost twelve years and 9,200 sorties, accumulating over 17,000 flight hours and still so many problems remains. After 3 years the F35 testprogram flight envelope was 38,000 feet and Mach 1.1 and very limited G's for example.

I wonder how many problems Saab and their two adventurous customers are blissfully unaware of at 100 hours. Super Hornet flew over 4000 hours (with 7 test units) before Engineering, Manufacturing and Development was concluded and Operational Evaluation would start. At that time it was still justifying another low rate initial production lot. Saab on the other hand says theirs is in serial production right now. https://boeing.mediaroom.com/1999-01-18 ... -Test-Mark

At the time the operational evaluation began in May 1999, the F/A-18E/F Program Office was still in the process of correcting 21 major deficiencies identified during earlier operational tests.

https://media.defense.gov/1999/Jul/07/2 ... 99-205.pdf

[ricnunes]

^
Jaguar and Mirage F1 too.

Oops, I forgot about those two.

Thanks for the heads up.

Mirage 2000Ds, however, arent being replaced by Rafales (at least not yet). They are going through a MLU to extend their service life until 2035 or so. It remains to be seen what will replace them.

I didn't know this. Thanks again for the heads up Tiger.

[mikc]

lol.. NG is literally an upgrade to an existing model and is only a SINGLE version.

To compare the Gripen's timeline to the F-35's is "disingenuous" and that is an understatement.

But..but... someone is criticizing my precious f35 program... how dare he ? But this is a comparison thread isn't it? F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG so I'm comparing wether you like it or not.

Yes it's one plane (if excl. F) vs three but the organization of JPO and LM is more than ten times larger and not very effective are they, getting that hog to fly.The schedule was to be much faster, wasn't it? Eight years or so late by now. Every change seems to take an eternity and cost a fortune. It's lucky so many are willing to spend their tax dollars in this mess.

Gripen E is not an upgrade even if they at first intended do reuse some stuff like the canopy, windscreen, chair, fuel and air system but thats it. It's a completely new airplane with the basic characteristics and looks similar to Gripen C with canards and single engine but it has a completely new airframe with more carbon fiber, longer, wider, heavier, different engine, new FMS, MS, EW, radar, pylons, countermeasures, landing gear, improved data link with video, sensor fusion, decision support system, WAD, IRST, MAVS and additional hard points.

Gripen E is like any other new air plane filled with new tech, hardware and software that has to be integrated and tested. The question is the quality of work done and testing strategy and it seems like LM has some homework to do in this area in comparison.

[XanderCrews]

But..but... someone is criticizing my precious f35 program... how dare he ? But this is a comparison thread isn't it? F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG so I'm comparing wether you like it or not.

I really love it, I hope that we can continue to compare, but for someone who is harping on people getting the details right you sure are painting with a broad brush.

If its the F-35A VS the Gripen NG I have no idea why you are comparing timelines with a JSF program that had a lot more to test than just the A...

anyway people explained the rather obvious and wide differences.

You can Compare an F-22 with a hot air balloon if you please, everything is comparable if you want to argue it. For the purpose of time wasting here youre welcome to compare 2 very different test programs in the JSF and Gripen NG, but Loke even agrees there isn't much to compare between the 2 platforms.

Knock yourself out though.

Yes it's one plane (if excl. F) vs three but the organization of JPO and LM is more than ten times larger and not very effective are they, getting that hog to fly.The schedule was to be much faster, wasn't it? Eight years or so late by now. Every change seems to take an eternity and cost a fortune. It's lucky so many are willing to spend their tax dollars in this mess.

I'm amazed people spend their tax dollars on the Gripen E to be honest, not many do of course, but still.

Eternity? like say, 13 years to field 3 prototypes? The schedule was to be much faster, wasn't it? Oh right, sometimes I forget that the original plan when I first spotted this notional light fighter in 2006 was that 2023 would be IOC and Fully operational by only 2026. I sat back and thought "yes, only 20 years from now. thats practically tommorow." later that year AA-1 lifted into the air...

Check the requirements and get back to us. Are you honestly trying to compare the two seat Variant of the Gripen NG with F-35B and F-35C? really?

come now, They didn't just get that "hog to fly", its in service. it made history in many ways, and its actually deploying, combat tested and with hundreds built and flying. Thats a helluva hog, and at its excelling. But congrats on saab's 3rd prototype finally taking to the air. I like that LM are ineffective yet got a hog to fly, I like that the F-35 is a its hog yet its flying in service, I like that its a mess yet its selling. you really need to pick a narrative. LM made history with a hog? impressive. Whats it like being beat by a hog? Whats it like watching that hog fly around the alps in service and ready for war in a competition you got tossed out of twice? What does it mean when people are picking the hog instead of what you're pitching?



Why is this hog beating saab?

Theres basically 2 ways to look at this (though I'm open for more options of course)

Option 1. is that these airplanes are vastly different, different tasks, objectives, customers, so different in fact that they are almost not really worth directly comparing.

Option 2 (which is my favorite) is that they are most definitely worth directly comparing. In which case the Gripen E is vastly outclassed in nearly every metric, found wanting in nearly every competition to the extent they are almost not really worth directly comparing, and more than a few people have told Saab not to waste resources in F-35 competitions

Did you see that hog flying around Switzerland and Finland?

Gripen E is not an upgrade even if they at first intended do reuse some stuff like the canopy, windscreen, chair, fuel and air system but thats it. It's a completely new airplane with the basic characteristics and looks similar to Gripen C with canards and single engine but it has a completely new airframe with more carbon fiber, longer, wider, heavier, different engine, new FMS, MS, EW, radar, pylons, countermeasures, landing gear, improved data link with video, sensor fusion, decision support system, WAD, IRST, MAVS and additional hard points.

I Agree Gripen E is not an upgrade.

Its very comical that the Gripen C and Gripen E are completely different but the F-35 and Gripen E test program can be easily compared by counting the days... oh well

I love that a different engine, and different materials means "its a completely new airplane" but the F-35C having different flying surfaces and materials, and the F-35B having the STOVL lift system is completely hand waived and compared to adding a second seat to the gripen E.

But anyway youre saying the legacy Gripen was in need of replacement by a "new airplane" not even 10 years into service?? thats pretty fascinating. Was it a flawed design from the start?

tell us more more about that.

Gripen E is like any other new air plane filled with new tech, hardware and software that has to be integrated and tested. The question is the quality of work done and testing strategy and it seems like LM has some homework to do in this area in comparison.

Which part of the testing strategy is this?

Besides It looks like Saab is already copying LM homework, rebaselining the program, telling everyone its going to be ready sometime soon via its very active marketing department, goal post moving, long development time and scrambling to deliver airframes that wont be ready for service that are being built at the same time testing is going on, everyone wondering whats taking so long, weight gain, downgraded specs, constantly changing plans, prioritizing one varaint over another, so thats something there I think. Maybe LM is on to something or Saab wouldn't be doing it like that...

Loke assured us building the production frames while testing was sound since Gripen was known but now you're telling us its a NEW airplane. That seems rather risky now, don't you think? all those new parts and materials you mentioned? What could go wrong?

Maybe Saab can copy some of LM's homework regarding aircraft sales, and developing a 5th generation airplane?

The quality of work huh? wow LOL You realize this program did things a lot of people said was impossible? I heard for years how it was never going to work and would canceled any day now.

the F-35 is a different animal. Its not a secret that the program had troubles and got delayed and had issues, I'm not denying that. but the bottom line is the test priorities and thus schedules IE the "testing strategy" you mention there, was not the same as most others, which makes your timeline there fairly disingenuous.

If this idea of priorities and schedules is hard to comprehend you can look at how Saab is prioritizing the Gripen E far more heavily than the F. Have you noticed this? Why hasn't the Gripen F met any of these metrics? why isn't it flying now? how many prototypes of the Gripen F have been constructed? Why do you think that is? How many days until its hit 9G and max speed? Whats taken so long? god what a terrible program, do they not understand how to run things? are they doing their homework?


in some cases testing hinged on the availability of entire ships. The F-35 was landing on ships before they bothered to tinker with max Gs and top speed. If you don't understand the strategy behind ensuring the worlds first 5th gen mach capable STOVL airplane needed to "nail the landing" first before going balls to the wall on throttles, you're either ignorant or simply looking to start fights here. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt with ignorant, as you don't seem to comprehend the monumental task that making a 13+ ton stealth fighter stop in midair and then land vertically. But hey the Gripen has a new engine thats a growth of what its already using? Collier trophy in the mail?



plus 6 ship dets. 1500 vertical landings, and zero mishaps.

I'll be more than happy to concede the F-35 suffered delays and cost overruns if you'll admit that the JSF was a rather more "difficult" task, and the ALL NEW Gripen E, (not F yet) using an already in service engine and based on a previous design which is either an evolution of the old, or completely new depending on who you ask, is more simple to say the least

The idea behind the Saab rhetoric, hype, and even concept behind the NG was it wouldn't be anything like the F-35s roller coaster of a development If you wrestle with the hog, you're gonna end up dirty and the hog enjoys it. Comparing the NG program and JSF seems like either scoring "easy points" or more distressingly, that the programs bear some real similarities

[loke]

The company also is proposing the development of a short-range, “hard-kill” weapon that would engage incoming missiles. This would act as an “ultimate shield”, in addition to traditional countermeasures such as chaff and flare dispensers, decoys and jammers. The highly manoeuvrable defensive missile would be less than 1m (3.2ft) long and weigh under 10kg.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ca-458962/

Such a system could increase the survivability of 4.5 gen fighters like Gripen E/F quite significantly I would think.

Weight less than 10 kg -- so 8 of these would weigh the same or slighthly less than 1 AIM9X or Iris-T!

[vilters]

Back in the good old days, the B-58 had a 20mm gun in its tail.
Wikipedia for completeness:
Defensive armament consisted of a single 20 mm (0.79 in) T-171E-3 rotary cannon with 1,200 rounds of ammunition in a radar-aimed tail barbette.[16][17] It was remotely controlled through the Emerson MD-7 automated radar fire-control system only requiring the DSO to lock-on a selected target blip on his scope and then fire the gun. The system computed aiming, velocity or heading differential, and range compensation.

[XanderCrews]

The company also is proposing the development of a short-range, “hard-kill” weapon that would engage incoming missiles. This would act as an “ultimate shield”, in addition to traditional countermeasures such as chaff and flare dispensers, decoys and jammers. The highly manoeuvrable defensive missile would be less than 1m (3.2ft) long and weigh under 10kg.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ca-458962/

Such a system could increase the survivability of 4.5 gen fighters like Gripen E/F quite significantly I would think.

Weight less than 10 kg -- so 8 of these would weigh the same or slighthly less than 1 AIM9X or Iris-T!

just throw it onto those new hardpoints!

[ricnunes]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ca-458962/

Such a system could increase the survivability of 4.5 gen fighters like Gripen E/F quite significantly I would think.

Weight less than 10 kg -- so 8 of these would weigh the same or slighthly less than 1 AIM9X or Iris-T!

And such a system would increase even more the survivability of a 5th gen fighter like the F-35. So the point is?

What I mean with the above is that:
- All the systems that may/could/would improve a 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft survivability will also improve the survivability if 5th gen and even more so when compared to 4th/4.5th gen fighters (due to the combinations other features that 4th/4.5th gen fighters don't have, namely stealth).

[garrya]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ca-458962/

Such a system could increase the survivability of 4.5 gen fighters like Gripen E/F quite significantly I would think.

Weight less than 10 kg -- so 8 of these would weigh the same or slighthly less than 1 AIM9X or Iris-T!

And such a system would increase even more the survivability of a 5th gen fighter like the F-35. So the point is?

What I mean with the above is that:
- All the systems that may/could/would improve a 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft survivability will also improve the survivability if 5th gen and even more so when compared to 4th/4.5th gen fighters (due to the combinations other features that 4th/4.5th gen fighters don't have, namely stealth).

To play devil avocade, such system will take up valuable space in the weapons bay and 5th gen fighter will need higher number of misiles to penetrate the defense of aircraft protected by that system.

[ricnunes]

To play devil avocade, such system will take up valuable space in the weapons bay and 5th gen fighter will need higher number of misiles to penetrate the defense of aircraft protected by that system.

Or you could use such system when the F-35 is in "Beast mode".
- It will still have lower RCS compared to an equally configured 4th/4.5th gen fighter and as such and with that system it still be more survivable then a 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft.

Or even with the system taking up internal valuable space in "Stealth mode" its survivability will be far, far, far better than anything possible with a 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft.

Anyway, the point is: There's nothing that anyone can do to a 4.5th gen fighter aircraft that can't be done to the 5th gen and as such the 5th gen will always have a HUGE/MASSIVE advantage over a 4.5th gen fighter aircraft and there's nothing anyone can do to a 4.5th gen fighter aircraft that can change this reality.