F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

[lukfi]

I've looked at the video that @spazsinbad posted, as well as the PDF. The video, and the PDF most of the time, compare the F-35 to an aircraft with no data fusion whatsoever and avoid comparison with 4.5th gen aircraft that claim to do fusion, like Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen E.

What is unique about F-35 sensor fusion though is that there is enough computing power that the fusion is pro-active, if one sensor or data link has picked up a target other sensors automatically are told to gather more information on the target so EOTS and APG-81 could cue each other without pilot intervention and the RWR and DAS could before that process begins cue them with their 360 degree coverage. It makes identifying targets very automated and quicker shortening the OODA loop considerably.

My conclusion has been the same, that the main difference is not in how the F-35 fuses data and how it presents a complete picture to the pilot, but rather that it does some actions autonomously. Which other aircraft may or may not be doing (I don't know). It doesn't sound too difficult, in terms of processing power and algorithmic complexity, to point another sensor the same way if one sensor picks up something.

Of course the F-35 also has more sensors to work with, and that's a different topic.

Its still a federated system as well: basically each sensor does its own data processing, then develops a plot or track (in the case of an IRST,it may have to be designated by the pilot), then the track is correlated with other sensors. that means you don't get the benefit of bringing segments of data together from different sensors to create an assessment. Rather one sensor has to make a determination, then the system has a plot. That's what you get from link-16.

The F-35 does it differently. Sensors do signal processing, but so does the main avionics system. It also draws in information from other sensors, but not simply as plots and tracks. Rather the data itself is being constantly analyzed and pieces from different sources, onboard and offboard are brought and then processed. Another way to look at it is how much data is being processed to make a identification. With the F/A-18E the plot is developed from the information in a single sensor, like the -79. In an F-35 its based on ALL of the sensors' information available to it, so all of the radars, all of the IRST, all of the RWRs ect. That system is far in excess of what any legacy system can do.

I've heard this mentioned somewhere (that 4.5th gen fusion works with "complete tracks" while F-35 works with raw data). I have to admit that it's not clear to me how much better this actually is in real life. I can imagine that theoretically one sensor would pick up something that would otherwise be discarded but the aircraft uses another sensor to look in that direction and find something that otherwise wouldn't be found? But it's really hard to judge how often that would happen. And how do you even know where to look if that first sensor is giving you incomplete information?

How powerful was this? A few months ago a F-35 was out on the test ranges and was tasked with undertaking SEAD against a simulated AD system. However it initially difficulty in identifying the system as a threat. So they brought the aircraft back in and it was discovered that the aircraft had it correct. The range basically used the wrong chassis and missile combination with electronic signature it was simulating, so the F-35 identified it as a decoy that could be ignored. That level of granularity is non-existent elsewhere. In that scenario they would have almost certainly expended several ARMs or jamming assets on a fake target.

This doesn't seem to be a direct result of processing raw data but rather comparing information gathered with a database of known threats. Fusing together information on the chassis and electronic signature isn't something that the 4.5th gen fusion could not do. Deciding it's a decoy and not a threat, that they are probably not doing.
Now I'm wondering whether it would be possible to exploit this by modifying a real vehicle's electronic signature so that it wouldn't be considered a threat.

Can you explain to me how the Gripen E sensor fuses with a seperated federated system like a targeting pod? its a simple answer, it doesn't.

If we are talking about fusion between federated sensors, I'm not saying the Gripen 100 % does this but I don't see a reason why it couldn't, in principle. If what you're getting from the targeting pod is a sensor track like any other?

What most 4.5 generation fighters are, is generation 4 improved/perfected. But its not 5th generation by a long shot. To do such a thing the way you imagine it, (IE the only difference is muh stealth!) would be to take say an F-16 or F-18 or Typhoon, and completely gut it. tear everything out of it internally. Then start cutting holes in various areas of the structure and skin to start mangling and wedging built in sensors, avionics, electronics, and targeting pods, comms, etc (…)

I get your point but I was commenting strictly on sensor fusion, not how many sensors which aircraft has. I am not denying that F-35 has more sensors that other planes have to carry as external pods.

since youre so convinced 5th generation is a an arbitrary "marketing term" one has to wonder why the F-35 competitors don't claim to simply be 5th gen too.

Because the commonly accepted definition of 5th gen includes stealth and that they are not. But ask them if and how they are doing sensor fusion and networking. How they describe it, not necessarily how it works internally but what the end result is, is very similar to the F-35.

I think that's best understood by looking at the F-35's spiral development: you have avionics hardware upgrades (technical refreshes) every three to four years. The Gripen does not.

This is interesting, though. While the Gripen does not have regular hardware upgrades, there are things you can upgrade (like the PS-05/A radar, from Mk3 to Mk4) and things you can buy that were not integrated from the start (helmet mounted display). But those are optional and not everyone buys them. Similarly, I doubt that every F-35 user will upgrade their aircraft every 3-4 years, just as air forces are flying various versions of the F-16 and not immediately upgrading to the latest block spec.

I'm pretty sure most what you listed there the F-4 already had?

Maybe those surviving in service to these days have it, but when F-4s were flying over Vietnam they had a radar that got confused by the ground and definitely no HUD.
Btw, the fact that an F-16 out-turns it is no surprise, F-16 was designed to be maneuverable while the F-4 was designed to be an interceptor (which is the reason it originally had no gun). Pretty much anything can out-turn a Phantom, including but not limited to a MiG-17.

but even then what you have if you added F-16 tech is an improved 3rd generation fighter. the whole notion of Generations is that the difference is so great, you simply can't update the past into the new cutting edge. Technology marches on.
improvements in tech, avionics, design, tactics, computers, materials, safety, maintenance practices (like say LRUs and BITE you were telling us about that aren't in 3rd generation aircraft) and requirements not to mention legitimate technological breakthroughs (powerplants especially), etc over the years facilitate the "generational leap" another interesting aspect of the 4th generation was combining aircraft for example the Marines retired the A-6 and F-4 in favor of the F/A-18. I'm not exactly how we would have made an A-6 into a 4th generation fighter, or a F-4 for that matter. unless you want to argue I can give an F-5 Gripen E avionics and call it all the same. or we can break out the old Viggen and just add Gripen Magic to that as well. (why did they bother replacing it?) How about the EA-6B? what amount of whiz bang do I throw into that to make it like a Growler?

What you're talking about depends simply on when the plane has been designed and with which features. There are some features of the F-35 that F-22 will never have despite it is already 5th gen, and your example of cutting up an F-16 applies just the same. There are also features the F-22 doesn't have but 4.5th gen fighters do, like IRST, and as of last year it didn't have a helmet mounted display/cueing system that some aircraft had in the 1980s. (Probably it still doesn't have it?)

Brazil has been upgrading its F-5s. They have a new cockpit, radar, AWACS link, and can carry BVR missiles. Similarly, Romania upgraded its MiG-21s to "LanceR" standard; they have two versions, one primarily air-to-air but the other has gained air-to-ground capabilities that the MiG-21 originally did not have. I'm fine with calling it "improved 3rd gen" but it doesn't mean it's inferior to any and all 4th gen fighters. An early F-16A with 1970s tech is technically 4th gen but against an F-5E packed with 21st century tech, it would lose. MiG-17s gave F-4s a hard time over Vietnam and they were a generation behind and not even upgraded.

I'm not trying to muddy the waters but what I'm saying is that each aircraft has its set of features and abilities and the concept of generations is an artificial and overly simplistic categorization tool.

What really seals the deal is the EW/EA going through a 10-20kw AESA radar antenna. Any gaps in aspect RCS will be more than covered by such a powerful jamming signal working on a low RCS which need less power to jam to start with. This is how F-35s will be able to go to the doorstep of powerful fire-control S-400 radars and drop LGBs on their heads. Radar is now impotent against stealthy 5th gens with EW/EA, it will require IR counter-attacks but even then 5th gens have detailed complex IR reduction techniques applied to them. Russia knows it's lost this one which is why it's not throwing its fighter-bombers weight around any more, they are strictly for defensive purposes now . It's going to lose the next one too when the hypersonic 6th gen SR-72 is developed and produced.

You can't cheat physics, even a stealth airframe has an engine that produces heat and the aircraft heats up due to air friction. I think we are going to see continuous advances in both airborne and ground radars, sensors and EW, while the F-35 airframe is going to stay the same throughout the next 40 years.

I don't know about the vs F-35, but first it will need to match the F-16.

I don't know how did they get these numbers for the Gripen but the Slovak document has several incorrect claims and this seems to be one of them. For instance the document claims that Gripen can only carry 2 air-to-air missiles

[optimist]

Really, you want to hang your hat on that? Please read the document before making false statements.
It says in that mission, it is carrying 2 missiles. Not that it can only carry 2 missiles. If you look on page 17, it says the missile carriage available, max 9 aim-9 , max 4 aim-120 for gripen. Personally I'd be grateful they only had 2 missiles, if it had 4, like the F-16. It may not have even made 1 min on station.

Do you want to dispute the 12 min vs 113 min ? This should be interesting

Maximum range / tactical range / endurance:
Plane F-16 has a greater maximum range with auxiliary fuel tanks without refueling (3 940 km / 2
128 NM), equivalent to 1.3 times compared to the aircraft JAS-39 (3 000 km / 1 620 NM). Plane F-16
has a greater combat radius (1 570 km / 879 NM), representing 1.89 times compared to the aircraft
JAS-39 (830 km / 447NM).

Plane F-16 has a longer endurance in the air while conducting combat
operations in the distance of 740 km (400 NM) from home base without refueling in flight (113 minutes),
which represents a 9.4-fold compared to the aircraft JAS-39 (12 minutes).
This parameter is an important factor in the defense of the Slovak territory, because airspace is
thus possible to protect more efficiently even with fewer aircraft. At the same time, it is possible to
maintain air superiority over a longer period. When assessing the suitability of an aircraft under the
influence of the territory of the Slovak Republic this parameter is secondary, but important assessment
criteria for the advantageous use of aircraft in foreign operations.

[hythelday]

I don't know how did they get these numbers for the Gripen but the Slovak document has several incorrect claims and this seems to be one of them. For instance the document claims that Gripen can only carry 2 air-to-air missiles

Wrong again. The document says maximun of 6x AIM-9 or 4x AIM-120 for Gripen, look up stats at page 5.

Now 1) admit you were wrong about "it says Gripen can only carry two AAMs" and 2) point out other incorrect data in the document or admit that you were wrong about that too.

[XanderCrews]

My conclusion has been the same, that the main difference is not in how the F-35 fuses data and how it presents a complete picture to the pilot, but rather that it does some actions autonomously. Which other aircraft may or may not be doing (I don't know). It doesn't sound too difficult, in terms of processing power and algorithmic complexity, to point another sensor the same way if one sensor picks up something.

its very difficult and its very expensive to get sensor fusion to the 5th generation level beyond even the investment of the sensors themselves.

This is why Gripen doesn't compare. It costs lots of money to do this and saab still doesn't have gen 4.5 in operation. just saying "That sounds easy" or "someone else can probably do that too" just goes to show you don't understand the differences between peewee hockey and the NHL.

Of course the F-35 also has more sensors to work with, and that's a different topic.

yes far more.

This doesn't seem to be a direct result of processing raw data but rather comparing information gathered with a database of known threats. Fusing together information on the chassis and electronic signature isn't something that the 4.5th gen fusion could not do. Deciding it's a decoy and not a threat, that they are probably not doing.
Now I'm wondering whether it would be possible to exploit this by modifying a real vehicle's electronic signature so that it wouldn't be considered a threat.

False.

If we are talking about fusion between federated sensors, I'm not saying the Gripen 100 % does this but I don't see a reason why it couldn't, in principle. If what you're getting from the targeting pod is a sensor track like any other?

The 1st big difference is the F-35s targeting is constantly searching for and finding threats thousands of times a second and with enough precision you can actually launch weapons and hit them as it automatically targets them and beams it directly to the pilots face in a panoramic view. while also searching for more targets. This is why its not the same thing.


A targeting pod is basically a stabilized camera with Night/IR capability and a Laser as steered and managed by the pilot or WSO. its a straw that then beams the image to an MFD thats typically 8 inches by 8 inches targeting is done again manually, and the pod does not automatically pick up targets while searching for more. Its also up to the operator to figure out if he is looking at an 18 wheeler, or a Scud launcher while also navigating the pods FOV around things like drop tanks and other obstructions on the aircraft.

Thats just off the top of my head there are even more differences and this is why the old generations will be quickly left behind. An F-35 will fly over a battlefield once and have hundreds of targets, automatically categorized and shared instantly and automatically with far greater detail in every measure and a Gen 4.5 fighter will spend 5 minutes staring at a milk truck through a targeting pod as the pilots try to decide if its enemy.

Thats why 5th generation is the future, and will be used to scout out with ruthless precision enemy targets and threats, while a gen 4.5 fighter won't be trusted with such important business.

its basically different and improved and vastly more capable from start to finish. big difference between "fusing" two federated systems together.

Because the commonly accepted definition of 5th gen includes stealth and that they are not. But ask them if and how they are doing sensor fusion and networking. How they describe it, not necessarily how it works internally but what the end result is, is very similar to the F-35.

There are key differences. this is why I keep talking about the difference between a 1945 nightfighter radar and a 2020 AESA. yes they are both radars. no they are not at all equivalent.

Similarly, I doubt that every F-35 user will upgrade their aircraft every 3-4 years, just as air forces are flying various versions of the F-16 and not immediately upgrading to the latest block spec.

the point is the option is there. That won't be happening with Gripen. "not everyone will do the upgrade" is not some kind rebuttal

Btw, the fact that an F-16 out-turns it is no surprise, F-16 was designed to be maneuverable while the F-4 was designed to be an interceptor (which is the reason it originally had no gun). Pretty much anything can out-turn a Phantom, including but not limited to a MiG-17.

This just proves my point.

What you're talking about depends simply on when the plane has been designed and with which features. There are some features of the F-35 that F-22 will never have despite it is already 5th gen, and your example of cutting up an F-16 applies just the same. There are also features the F-22 doesn't have but 4.5th gen fighters do, like IRST, and as of last year it didn't have a helmet mounted display/cueing system that some aircraft had in the 1980s. (Probably it still doesn't have it?)

Given what ATF requirements were a lack of IRST is no surprise. and IRST sensors go back to the 1950s and go in and out of Fashion in the US.

MiG-17s gave F-4s a hard time over Vietnam and they were a generation behind and not even upgraded.

This really had to do with the lack of US training and preparedness. Once the US pulled their heads out of the sand the F-4 suddenly became lethal nearly overnight.

I'm not trying to muddy the waters but what I'm saying is that each aircraft has its set of features and abilities and the concept of generations is an artificial and overly simplistic categorization tool.

you are desperately trying to muddy the waters with your wild guesses.

You can't cheat physics, even a stealth airframe has an engine that produces heat and the aircraft heats up due to air friction.

luckily for us we all know that LO is more than just Radars and thus they are also hardened against detection for IR, electronics/signals emmisions control etc.

I think we are going to see continuous advances in both airborne and ground radars, sensors and EW,

That the F-35 will be able to take great advantage of thanks to its very concept. However for anyone fielding a Gen 4.5 fighter in the 2020's with an order book of under 100 that includes neutral Sweden and Brazil the news is less than cheery.

This argument always makes me laugh. for some reason the improvements only go one way, and actually hurt the superior aircraft while somehow sparring the less advanced aircraft.

airframe is going to stay the same throughout the next 40 years.

oh so like a Gripens amazing airframe "revolution" we are seeing already? The one that looks externally the same? its always funny how technology will never catch up to a 4th generation airframe...

ill break this down really simply. Even if LO went obsolete somehow Tomorrow the F-35s sensors and other features would still ensure its purchased in the same amounts. In fact people like yourself fretting about the cost of maintaining stealth features could now rest easy as its irrelevant, and of course the F-35 will still have the kinematics of an F-16/F-18 just like it does now. Which in some cases is better than Gen 4.5 fighters. Again any increase in lethality on the battlefield will still see the more survivable airplane as superior and the gen 4, gen 4.5 only become even more obsolete, not less. the reason stealth exists is because the light bulb went on that the lethality of enemy air defenses was outstripping the ability to use kinematics to get away from them, and massive amounts of money and mission sets were going into SEAD. it was going to take fleets of aircraft to drop a handful of bombs.

Your entire arguement was that based on the idea that outside of LO, theres no difference between gen 4.5 and 5th. That's been demonstrated to be false. So why are we still insisting?

anywho. more to come later... what's left price comparison?

[spazsinbad]

Xander again many thanks for your replies.

[lbk000]

lukfi, as far as I gathered the "F-4 cant dogfight" trope is yet another myth perpetuated by poorly researched general knowledge authors. It's an aircraft with lots of lift (intrinsic to carrier aircraft) and lots of grunt, it's not a slouch in maneuvering. Airforce pilots crying for the onboard gun claimed they were frustrated with having to let MiGs go after getting behind them. You don't get behind them if you're an incapable dogfighter. Once the Navy figured out the best moves to abuse against MiG-17s they absolutely crushed them in maneuvering engagements.

Saying what you did about the F-4 only demonstrated your ignorance on the subject. You've barely scratched the surface compared to even the most amateur of enthusiasts.

[charlielima223]

My
Lack of IRST or helmet mounted cueing/sight on the F-22 hasn't been a real detrement to the F-22 being the first 5th generation fighter. As explained by former F-22 pilot here...
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=56305
The F-22 had no real operational need for JHMCS against majority of non-stealthy opponents. Something slinging slammers at you well before you are even close enough to detect it an any meaningful range or showing up very late detected at your side or behind you drilling holes into you or sending a heater up your tail pipe. Also at the the shape of the canopy wouldnt allow the use of JMHCS. Though currently some sort of helmet system is on the wish list for the F-22s MLU.

Lack of IRST hasnt really handicapped the F-22s ability either. IRSTs is always being billed as the anti-stealth capability for fighter aircraft but in truth and practice, it really isnt. Compared to traditional radars on fighter aircraft, IRSTs have a narrow FoV, short ranged, and effected by weather and atmospheric conditions. F-22 and F-35 that have IR reducing measures and designs that further reduce the range of their detection against IRST unless they're seen off angle towards their tail pipe. IRST capability for the F-22 is also being looked at but how they will implement it is anyone's guess.

The F-35s stealth give it access and its sensor fusion gives it control. Not just on the offensive but also on the defensive role as well.

https://seapowermagazine.org/orange-fla ... tegration/

While the Gripen is good for what it designed to be, the capability gap between the Gripen and F-35 might as well be a football field apart.

[lukfi]

Really, you want to hang your hat on that? Please read the document before making false statements.
It says in that mission, it is carrying 2 missiles. Not that it can only carry 2 missiles. If you look on page 17, it says the missile carriage available, max 9 aim-9 , max 4 aim-120 for gripen.

Right, sorry, I did not see this page and misunderstood what it is saying. By the way, do you by any chance have the original document in Slovak? I'm pretty sure I've seen it already but I can't for the life of me find it anymore. This was obviously mangled by an automatic translator and is really hard to read.

Do you want to dispute the 12 min vs 113 min ? This should be interesting

I can't dispute that because I have no idea how they arrived at these exact numbers. How much fuel did they consider for each plane, and how much fuel burn. I know for a fact no flight tests were done so this is a calculation. This is one of the problems of this document: they just throw around numbers and statements without explanation.

Now 1) admit you were wrong about "it says Gripen can only carry two AAMs" and 2) point out other incorrect data in the document or admit that you were wrong about that too.

Yeah I admit I was wrong about the 2 AAMs. Now please provide a source that corroborates that Gripen C can only ever reach Mach 1.4, or admit that it's nonsense and the document cannot be trusted.

Other incorrect data? One thing I can point out is not outright incorrect, but misleading. Well, you be the judge. It is stated that F-16 can carry AIM-120C-7 while the Gripen C is only compatible with the older AIM-120C-5. This may have been technically true in 2018, but since the 120C-5 is no longer being produced, Saab is working on integrating the 120C-7. This should be available in 2020 according to https://www.armadninoviny.cz/moznosti-d ... l-acr.html - well before Slovakia would have received its Gripens had it selected them (2021-2022). Hungary was buying AIM-120C-7 in mid-2019 https://thedefensepost.com/2019/08/28/u ... -missiles/ - would they be so stupid to buy missiles their Gripens could not fire?

Second, and more importantly, it deliberately ignores the fact that Gripen can also carry European missiles (both short and medium range - IRIS-T, MBDA MICA & Meteor, and more). Slovakia operates no aircraft capable of carrying any Western munitions and therefore has no existing stock (unlike Finland, for instance). They can buy anything, it doesn't make sense to limit the comparison to American missiles only.

Another thing that is suspicious is the price. The document says that price is the same, but Sweden offered a longer service contract which was "tactfully ignored".

I'm not disputing the validity or correctness of the Slovak choice. But if you're trying to show an example of a fair and transparent competition where the Gripen lost, this isn't it. It's too bad you can't read Czech or Slovak to know the background behind this deal. The document posted has been rightfully criticized because it mentions all the advantages of the F-16 and none of the Gripen, and throws around claims and numbers willy-nilly. And it was made available to the Parliament and the public less than a week before the Parliament voted on it, and the coalition just pushed it through with no public discussion.

The 1st big difference is the F-35s targeting is constantly searching for and finding threats thousands of times a second and with enough precision you can actually launch weapons and hit them as it automatically targets them and beams it directly to the pilots face in a panoramic view. while also searching for more targets. This is why its not the same thing.

A targeting pod is basically a stabilized camera with Night/IR capability and a Laser as steered and managed by the pilot or WSO. its a straw that then beams the image to an MFD thats typically 8 inches by 8 inches targeting is done again manually, and the pod does not automatically pick up targets while searching for more. Its also up to the operator to figure out if he is looking at an 18 wheeler, or a Scud launcher while also navigating the pods FOV around things like drop tanks and other obstructions on the aircraft.

Thats just off the top of my head there are even more differences and this is why the old generations will be quickly left behind. An F-35 will fly over a battlefield once and have hundreds of targets, automatically categorized and shared instantly and automatically with far greater detail in every measure and a Gen 4.5 fighter will spend 5 minutes staring at a milk truck through a targeting pod as the pilots try to decide if its enemy.

Thats why 5th generation is the future, and will be used to scout out with ruthless precision enemy targets and threats, while a gen 4.5 fighter won't be trusted with such important business.

its basically different and improved and vastly more capable from start to finish. big difference between "fusing" two federated systems together.

This is pretty cool and I'm not arguing that. But you seem to be using "F-35" and "5th gen" interchangeably. Can all other aircraft that are commonly described as 5th gen do the same?

Btw, the fact that an F-16 out-turns it is no surprise, F-16 was designed to be maneuverable while the F-4 was designed to be an interceptor (which is the reason it originally had no gun). Pretty much anything can out-turn a Phantom, including but not limited to a MiG-17.

This just proves my point.

That an upgraded aircraft can never overcome the limitations of its original design? Sure, that was never in question. But whenever we're talking about avionics and software, that can be upgraded more easily than speed, maneuverability or maintenance systems. The Phantoms flying in this century probably have much better capabilities than in the 1960s and comparable to what 4th gen can do.

This really had to do with the lack of US training and preparedness. Once the US pulled their heads out of the sand the F-4 suddenly became lethal nearly overnight.

lukfi, as far as I gathered the "F-4 cant dogfight" trope is yet another myth perpetuated by poorly researched general knowledge authors. It's an aircraft with lots of lift (intrinsic to carrier aircraft) and lots of grunt, it's not a slouch in maneuvering. Airforce pilots crying for the onboard gun claimed they were frustrated with having to let MiGs go after getting behind them. You don't get behind them if you're an incapable dogfighter. Once the Navy figured out the best moves to abuse against MiG-17s they absolutely crushed them in maneuvering engagements.

Yes, against obsolete and underpowered MiG-17s. Great success. Are there any data on how the F-4 fared against its contemporary opponent, the MiG-21? Information seems to be scarce on this.
By the way, the F-4E only ever achieved 6 kills with its guns, a very small number compared to missile kills. (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X1dAjMLKb8)

luckily for us we all know that LO is more than just Radars and thus they are also hardened against detection for IR, electronics/signals emmisions control etc.

How do you harden against IR detection? You can design the airframe so that you're hiding the hot engine exhaust from most angles, sure. But even then, the plane heats up. Engine and internal systems produce waste heat which heats up the airframe. Friction heats up the airframe. You can probably do some optimizations to spread the heat more evenly instead of having hot spots. You can sink the heat into fuel but then the aircraft is still leaving a trail of hot air behind.

This argument always makes me laugh. for some reason the improvements only go one way, and actually hurt the superior aircraft while somehow sparring the less advanced aircraft.

You twist my argument, as always. Of course the F-35 will get these upgrades, and if we have better radars, non-stealthy fighters will still be detected and fired upon at greater range than stealth ones. In some situations it may be irrelevant whether you can see a non-stealthy plane 300 or 400 km far, but it makes a difference if you detect a stealth one 40 or 30 km far. Anyway, I don't want to get into this "what if" discussion. My point was that in the future, not always will you be able to freely use radar even though it's LPI today.

[basher54321]

Yeah I admit I was wrong about the 2 AAMs. Now please provide a source that corroborates that Gripen C can only ever reach Mach 1.4, or admit that it's nonsense and the document cannot be trusted.

Other incorrect data? One thing I can point out is not outright incorrect, but misleading. Well, you be the judge. It is stated that F-16 can carry AIM-120C-7 while the Gripen C is only compatible with the older AIM-120C-5. This may have been technically true in 2018, but since the 120C-5 is no longer being produced, Saab is working on integrating the 120C-7.

Google Translate gives similar translation (maybe better for English) and the M1.4 figure appears twice so perhaps not just a mistake. The asterisk by the figure denotes that is with an unspecified number of Air to Air missiles. Although Air to air missiles may not reduce its aerodynamic top speed by that amount it doesn't rule out another imposed speed limitation - you would need a pilot or someone with the performance manual to confirm that.


The report suggests only AIM-120-C5 had been integrated at that point - and thus only those are mentioned as you would expect. Also no weapons or pods were part of the SAAB offer and there is nothing about what weapons options they had.

This is from another document...if the original deadline was Sept 2017 then the information they had may have been correct at that point.

Resolution of the Government of the Slovak Republic no. 444 of 29 September 2016 stipulated direct negotiations at the government-government level with the aim of discussing the conditions of procurement of tactical aircraft and after their completion to submit to the Government meeting by 30 September 2017 for approval relevant contract documents together with quantification of financial costs. On the basis of the written consent of the Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic, the deadline was postponed to 29 June 2018.

  During the preparation of the material and the evaluation of the bids, the project team members had several bilateral meetings at expert level with representatives of countries operating F-16 and JAS-39 aircraft, including airport visits: JAS-39: Sweden (Såtenäs and Linköping), Hungary ( Keckemet) and Czech Republic (Caslav). Aircraft F-16: Republic of Poland (Krzešiny and Lask), Italy (Aviano) and Greece (Volos). Scientific articles, international studies, professional military and aviation journals and other background documents, the full list of which is given in the analytical material, have also been taken into account in the analysis and decision-making process.

https://rokovania.gov.sk/RPO/Material/1702/1

You also need to remember that the one and only thing a government must be good at is not putting official reports on their own website that can be used as legal ammunition against them later!

[optimist]

Sorry mate, saying you don't believe it counts for nothing. 'Oh no, say it ain't true, but, but, but "it's nonsense and the document cannot be trusted" '
Has SAAB contradicted it? I have full confidence in SAAB to correct any misinformation in the official report. I wouldn't expect them to do anything less. I take as fact, it was max speed M1.4 with at least 2 missiles. Until SAAB's statement is posted saying otherwise. You could even email SAAB, asking for clarification. The document is dated 2018, they have had enough time, nothing but crickets chirping.

page 17
* Aircraft F-16 carries a greater amount of air missiles and ammunition
F-16: 2 x AIM-120, 2 x AIM-9X, 2 x pylon
JAS-39 : 2 x missile air-air (unspecified type of missile)

page 15
F-16 aircraft reaches his full network access improved Mach number (a small amount of 1.2/2.0
at high altitude) than aircraft JAS-39 (in a small amount of 1.0/1.4 at high altitude). This parameter,
along with acceleration and hill-starting ability is a crucial factor in countering air targets. Larger values
of Mach numbers provide shortening capture intruder airspace SR, quickly taking a space countering
means of air attack and rapid response in support of ground troops. For countries with less land area
(such as SR) is the early detection of intruder airspace key.

[hythelday]

Yeah I admit I was wrong about the 2 AAMs. Now please provide a source that corroborates that Gripen C can only ever reach Mach 1.4, or admit that it's nonsense and the document cannot be trusted.

Other incorrect data? One thing I can point out is not outright incorrect, but misleading. Well, you be the judge. It is stated that F-16 can carry AIM-120C-7 while the Gripen C is only compatible with the older AIM-120C-5. This may have been technically true in 2018, but since the 120C-5 is no longer being produced, Saab is working on integrating the 120C-7.

SAAB is working on integrating AIM-120C-7? So you admit that it is not yet part of the inventory? And it wasn't in 2018?
Yet you say that this document can't be trusted based on this information? Or is it because it is less enthusiastic about Gripen than you were led to believe by SAAB salesmen?

Mate, at this point you might just quit and reappear on this forum under a new name, because as of now nobody takes you seriosly.

[ricnunes]

Mate, at this point you might just quit and reappear on this forum under a new name, because as of now nobody takes you seriosly.

Yeah, I'm starting to agree with you. I actually kinda vouched/defended for him in the recent past but I must say that I now regret having done that!
He seems to constantly ignore most sources which doesn't favor his line of reasoning which BTW doesn't seem be about learning about military aviation but instead to spread "Gripen propaganda". I would say that F-16.net really isn't the place for him - he should go to BF4C even because he seems to have started here with the logic that the Gripen E should be the best fighter aircraft for Canada and I'm sure everyone will agree with his line of reasoning there (BF4C).

[optimist]

I think he was at bf4c or somewhere similar. He arrived pumped up and ready to tell us why the F-35 brick is obviously inferior to the mighty Gripen. He has a fanboy propaganda response to facts. SAAB can R&D on a shoestring budget of $2B including 3 test aircraft and achieve greatness. While the US and partners had to spend around $60B R&D and came up short. What a waste of 8 million lines of software code and 30 times the cost.

The Gripen E may produce over its life, 100 units? Less than 1 year of current F-35 production. I guess like the F-22, 100 tails is enough.

[ricnunes]

I think he was at bf4c or somewhere similar.

Ok, that explains a lot!

[XanderCrews]

This is pretty cool and I'm not arguing that. But you seem to be using "F-35" and "5th gen" interchangeably. Can all other aircraft that are commonly described as 5th gen do the same?

A lot of this stuff is classified. I have no idea what China's 5th generation aircraft are actually capable of and how good their sensors are. Whats happened with 5th generation fighters is once again the bar has been raised all across and we have to look at even more things beyond just kinematic performance. With each generation more things that matter are added. Maybe China's 5th gen is more kinematically impressive but more easily detected, maybe it lacks in sensors and fusion. Like I said more stuff to weigh now.

But whenever we're talking about avionics and software, that can be upgraded more easily than speed, maneuverability or maintenance systems. The Phantoms flying in this century probably have much better capabilities than in the 1960s and comparable to what 4th gen can do.

I would say that really depends, a lot of the things you mention there in that list can be enhanced with an engine upgrade for example, this might be vastly more easier than adding avionics.

Yes, against obsolete and underpowered MiG-17s. Great success. Are there any data on how the F-4 fared against its contemporary opponent, the MiG-21? Information seems to be scarce on this.
By the way, the F-4E only ever achieved 6 kills with its guns, a very small number compared to missile kills. (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X1dAjMLKb8)

this is getting sidetracked. you constantly mention some offshoot to try and "prove" something, which people then correct as a poor example, which you then counter which suddenly makes it all off-topic.

How do you harden against IR detection? You can design the airframe so that you're hiding the hot engine exhaust from most angles, sure. But even then, the plane heats up. Engine and internal systems produce waste heat which heats up the airframe. Friction heats up the airframe. You can probably do some optimizations to spread the heat more evenly instead of having hot spots. You can sink the heat into fuel but then the aircraft is still leaving a trail of hot air behind.

even first generation stealth took IR into account. its full spectrum, so not just radars, but also electronic emission. This is going to sound like moving the goal posts but yes, its impossible to move through air without disturbing it in some way down to a single molecule, but the point is that single molecule still doesn't necessarily mean a firing solution thats what the whole "breaking the kill chain" is about. Whats happened is people are so obsessed as trying to paint LO/5th generation aircraft as on the verge of some "revealing" or "exploited magic formula" by the enemy that they go out of their way to the point of absurdity to try and disqualify the stealth aircraft. People get very desperate about it.

You twist my argument, as always.

spare me. You've been twisting yourself just fine. I've written plenty explaining things in a calm and factual manner throughout this thread. I've tried to make it as simple and easy to understand as possible. You on the other hand repeat propaganda and make wild guesses on things you have no idea about. Then you get upset when I start to treat most of what you say as already twisted or agenda driven just based on your past posts, because that's really most of what you post. if I twisted one true thing in the 99 falsehoods you've posited here, I deeply apologize for the 1 But certainly not for the 99-- that's where you can apologize.