F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6366
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 Mar 2020, 19:23

loke wrote:The next fighter jet from Saab after Gripen will be in collaboration with either UK/Italy or France/Germany/Spain. Currently UK/Italy and Tempest seems the most likely scenario. BAE will of course be dominant partner however Saab will surely contribute on many aspects.


how will Saab take all the credit?

Even France had to accept they could not develop the next-gen fighter on their own.


Image

never underestimate their stubbornness :mrgreen:
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6366
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 Mar 2020, 19:26

magitsu wrote:They have T-X business with Boeing. No doubt they'll do a FA-50 treatment (armed KAI T-50) to it because of eventual popularity of the platform.


Thats where Gripen E is going to run into trouble, a cheaper air policer. No it won't be as good, but it will be "nearly as good, At HaLf T3h CoSt"
Choose Crews
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 323
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post14 Mar 2020, 02:41

mixelflick wrote:Someone should have told them going into this: Go big or go home...

Isn't that just the problem with the Gripen E? They tried to go big with a small jet for small nations.
You simply can't go US big unless you are US-big.

Putting my mock-serious hat on...
Saab never should have tried to upgrade the Gripen to the "universal fighter" standard. It's an automatic non-starter. The British realized since the late 50's that a smaller nation simply does not have the resources to keep up with a larger nation in a straight arms race. Saab's paradigm should have been to shift costs off from manned platforms onto sophisticated standoff weapons in order to elaborate upon the insurgency-style system established with Bas 60.

Shifting costs to weaponry would certainly incur a higher net expense in war, but for a full scale war for a small nation would be invariably unsustainable, making it somewhat a moot point. For deterrence, maintaining potency is key, and there is no sense operating a highly effective system if the expenses would render it unsustainable. As Human proficiency is the most perishable element in the system, minimizing the amount of "stuff" tied to the requirement of keeping personnel practicing should lower the cost of peacetime attrition and sustain potency.

saabnu.png
A. is a nominally supersonic afterburning design, B. is a high-subsonic design based around a (rather ridiculous) high bypass turbofan, C. and D. are even less serious ideas, D. being a commercial turboprop re-fuselaged for weapons carriage.

For fun I doodled some stuff that would constitute a class of "super-COIN" aircraft, which I must admit here I executed with a fair dose of tongue-in-cheekery. Predicating everything on standoff weapons results in dispensing with stealth and last-ditch self-defense weaponry; climb rate would be the most favored trait for what is essentially a pop-up missile launcher, something of an aerial equivalent of the homely Hilux.

Well that's my night's entertainment.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6366
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post14 Mar 2020, 14:57

lbk000 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Someone should have told them going into this: Go big or go home...

Isn't that just the problem with the Gripen E? They tried to go big with a small jet for small nations.
You simply can't go US big unless you are US-big.

Putting my mock-serious hat on...
Saab never should have tried to upgrade the Gripen to the "universal fighter" standard. It's an automatic non-starter. The British realized since the late 50's that a smaller nation simply does not have the resources to keep up with a larger nation in a straight arms race. Saab's paradigm should have been to shift costs off from manned platforms onto sophisticated standoff weapons in order to elaborate upon the insurgency-style system established with Bas 60.



Image


This is what I've been trying to say in other threads. The direction NG went is a fundamental misstep.


Shifting costs to weaponry would certainly incur a higher net expense in war, but for a full scale war for a small nation would be invariably unsustainable, making it somewhat a moot point. For deterrence, maintaining potency is key, and there is no sense operating a highly effective system if the expenses would render it unsustainable. As Human proficiency is the most perishable element in the system, minimizing the amount of "stuff" tied to the requirement of keeping personnel practicing should lower the cost of peacetime attrition and sustain potency.


Interesting.

saabnu.png

For fun I doodled some stuff that would constitute a class of "super-COIN" aircraft, which I must admit here I executed with a fair dose of tongue-in-cheekery. Predicating everything on standoff weapons results in dispensing with stealth and last-ditch self-defense weaponry; climb rate would be the most favored trait for what is essentially a pop-up missile launcher, something of an aerial equivalent of the homely Hilux.

Well that's my night's entertainment.



I like these designs. 8)
Choose Crews
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 958
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post14 Mar 2020, 16:34

Saab did not really have a choice -- Sweden required more than a "juiced up" trainer, but at the same time Sweden could not afford to pay for the development of a 5. gen fighter. Thus a a 4.5 gen fighter instead.

Looking at where Russia is with the Pak Fa right now, it seems to me that Gripen E/F most likely will be good enough for Sweden for quite some time, and most likely until the "Tempest" fighter is ready.

A Gripen E with IRIS-T and Meteor will be able to offer a decent resistance against what Russia got today and in the near future. The AESA radar in combination with the Skyward IRST and a good internal EW package means that it should not be underestimated. No 5th gen, but it does have some sensor fusion which is always better than no sensor fusion.

Put a couple of RBS-15 mk4 (range 300 km) on it and it becomes a threat to surface ships, as well as high value land targets.

Currently Sweden has Erieyes that are becoming a bit old however there are plans to upgrade to Erieye ER I believe. The combo of Gripen E, Erieye ER, Gripen F with jammer pods should not be underestimated, in particular since the potential opponent does not have any "real" 5. gen jets themselves. However they do have a lot of missiles and the greatest threat to Swedish jet fighters are neither Su-35 nor Pak Fa but rather missiles hitting their air bases. With a very small number of air bases with well known locations it should not be too hard for Russia to launch a surprise saturation attack at each airbase that will knock out most of the Swedish air force. Not sure if the F-35 is more survivable than Gripen E in such an attack.

Anyway, as stated already, even France (much bigger than Sweden) realized that they cannot develop a 5. gen on their own. Only big countries like the US and China can do that. We see that even Russia is struggling to fully fund development of a 5. gen a/c without external customers....
Offline

pron

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 126
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28

Unread post14 Mar 2020, 19:37

loke wrote:Anyway, as stated already, even France (much bigger than Sweden) realized that they cannot develop a 5. gen on their own. Only big countries like the US and China can do that. We see that even Russia is struggling to fully fund development of a 5. gen a/c without external customers....

And still you say - "and most likely until the "Tempest" fighter is ready."
With Japan out of the "Tempest" I don't see any way that this prosject will ever fly.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6366
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post14 Mar 2020, 22:44

loke wrote:Saab did not really have a choice -- Sweden required more than a "juiced up" trainer, but at the same time Sweden could not afford to pay for the development of a 5. gen fighter. Thus a a 4.5 gen fighter instead.



no of course they had a choice, They could have purchased something else and made Saab the lead contractor to make it "Swedish compliant" F-16V (F-16Swe) or god forbid F-35A. And a lot of fanboyz would die at the very mention of such a crazy idea, mighty saab falling to the "lowly job" of subcontractor-- but guess whats happening anyway and BEFORE the Service entry of the Gripen E.

the light bulb should be going on for some people. It actually kind of stinks because had the Brazilians passed, and after the Swiss dropped out that might have been the end of this, but Brazil went for it and now we have to go through with it so mighty brazil (with no enemies or threats) can produce 4 of them a year.

This all involves hindsight and I understand that. Theres lot of hindsight with F-35 too. Hopefully war never comes but this whole thing is silly. It would be terrible if the Swaf got crushed because we had to make sure we kept jobs and allowed the Brazilians to buy and build fighters. That would be a dumb way to die.

Gripen NG was a jobs program at best and a national vanity project at worst. and guess what? you still don't have Gripen NG/E and your subcontracting for a larger 5th gen program fighter anyway. I really don't know how to show the writing on the wall anymore. Even Europe is moving on to the 5th gen, 5th gen plus ( AND HEY LOOK AT THAT!!-- it looks stealthy I guess Saabs rumors of Stealths death were premature. Who knew?!) and they STILL havn't fielded the 4.5 Gripen NG

the US navy is literally stopping Gen 4.5 fighters now. not going to bother with them anymore. Saab is still waiting to start theirs.

Looking at where Russia is with the Pak Fa right now, it seems to me that Gripen E/F most likely will be good enough for Sweden for quite some time, and most likely until the "Tempest" fighter is ready.


look at where Sweden is with the Gripen E.


Put a couple of RBS-15 mk4 (range 300 km) on it and it becomes a threat to surface ships, as well as high value land targets.


one of the reasons the F-35 exists is because we realized that we would never have enough cruise missiles or stand off weapons, there's simply too many target points, along with BDA becoming a massive problem. The great western Iraq scud hunt highlighted the need for ISR too. And this was against a relatively immobile and crippled Iraqi army. not anything

A Gripen E with IRIS-T and Meteor will be able to offer a decent resistance against what Russia got today and in the near future. The AESA radar in combination with the Skyward IRST and a good internal EW package means that it should not be underestimated. No 5th gen, but it does have some sensor fusion which is always better than no sensor fusion.

Currently Sweden has Erieyes that are becoming a bit old however there are plans to upgrade to Erieye ER I believe. The combo of Gripen E, Erieye ER, Gripen F with jammer pods should not be underestimated, in particular since the potential opponent does not have any "real" 5. gen jets themselves.


you tell yourself whatever you want. if Russia actually attacks and doesn't completely botch it (this is Russia, so no promises) they're going to hit with land, sea, air, and mobile SAM belts, IADs etc. they'll gladly trade jets or other assets knowing 60 fighters aren't going to be enough to stop them. and they'll hit the weak links in the chain like refueling C-130s and other critical nodes. there will be no Battle of Britian where a vastly outnumbered fighter force beats the big Goliath. It will be more like Poland. They got some decent kills for what it was worth.

With a very small number of air bases with well known locations it should not be too hard for Russia to launch a surprise saturation attack at each airbase that will knock out most of the Swedish air force. Not sure if the F-35 is more survivable than Gripen E in such an attack.


F-35 has bases all over europe, a retreat of a few hundred miles is feasible. There might be battles OVER sweden but trying to fight them from inside Sweden is going to be short lived. range is really nice to have. attrition replacements, are really nice to have.

Anyway, as stated already, even France (much bigger than Sweden) realized that they cannot develop a 5. gen on their own. Only big countries like the US and China can do that. We see that even Russia is struggling to fully fund development of a 5. gen a/c without external customers....


its really early yet, lets not talk about Tempest the same way people were talking about the NG over a decade ago. nothing is for sure. especially in an ever turbulent europe.
Choose Crews
Offline

mikc

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2019, 17:38
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post14 Mar 2020, 23:37

XanderCrews wrote:
Secondly, Yes, there are some articles quoting SAAB as saying 85 million $,

So why are we arguing?

Just because someone prints something it’s not always true, you have to look and evaluate the sources. But I can understand that The National Interest is your main source and reference.
XanderCrews wrote: I've posted plenty of sources and figures. They are rejected as quickly as I can provide them.

If you used credible sources, it wouldn’t be a problem.
XanderCrews wrote:
F35A CPFH for FY18 44 000$ !!! That’s a lot “You reap what you sow”

MikC: Where does it say that!?

https://youtu.be/7du-vfIWl2A?t=4660 (19:20)
“I will tell you that our current F35A CPFH is 44000$, that’s on the record, it’s actuals from FY18”, Vice Admiral Matt Winter, deputy program executive officer for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office at the time, testifying in U.S. House Armed Services Committee 20190502.
Offline

eagle3000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 17:17

Unread post15 Mar 2020, 00:17

loke wrote:I can think of 4 reasons why Gripen E ferry range should be roughly equal to early block F-16, and perhaps even a bit above the early-block F-16 ferry range:

1. They are in the same weight class
2. Gripen E has 7% more internal fuel than F-16.
3. Gripen E has 7% more wing area than F-16 (excluding the "extra lift" E has compared to the C, provided by a wider body)
4. Gripen E has a more modern and (presumably) more fuel efficient engine compared to the early-block F-16

Separately, each of these may not contribute much however taken together I guess they would add up?


1. Well, Block 10 had an operating empty weight of about 7300 kg. Quite a bit lighter.
4. I don't think so. The F404, on which the F414 is based, has higher SFC compared to the F100. About 10% higher SFC. Uninstalled, static of course, and F414's SFC I don't know. But I doubt the F414 could close the gap.

loke wrote:I can think of only one reason why the ferry range of Gripen E may be lower than what one would otherwise expect:

1. The Gripen E has a low TWR, and a lower TWR than the F-16.

I am not an expert so I do not know how these factors all play out. There are so many unknowns including the Gripen engine. According to GE it is not the F414-400 but the F414-GE-39E: https://www.geaviation.com/military/engines/f414-engine.

This engine belongs to the "F414 class" of engines. We do not really know how it differs from the F414-400 and the F414-INS6 for instance.


A lower TWR can improve range if if allows the engine to run closer to its optimal power setting during cruise. But again, either F-16 or Gripen could be closer to running at optimal settings during cruise, I don't know. But the Hornet of course is not known for its fuel efficiency, unlike the F-16.

IMHO, the F414-GE-39E is just a -400 engine adapted for single engine operations.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6366
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Mar 2020, 00:18

mikc wrote:Just because someone prints something it’s not always true, you have to look and evaluate the sources. But I can understand that The National Interest is your main source and reference.

If you used credible sources, it wouldn’t be a problem.


luckily this wasn't "National Interest" was it? it was both Business Insider AND Military Embedded Systems for the record. youre making accusations based on sources no one even brought up, save for yourself. Do you know what a straw man argument is? when you attach a position no one held and then slander them for it? This isn't the National Interest. No one used the National Interest at all all and yet you're trying to say it is our "main source" and not credible. Well good news, that no one uses National Interest, and luckily people can see that.

In 2010, company representatives stated the aircraft’s per unit flyaway cost would be US $57 million dollars (in 2012 dollars). In 2012, this was revised to approximately US$80 million, only then to reveal that the Swiss government’s fixed cost is approximately US$105 million. Similarly, operational costs estimates have also witnessed significant escalation.


https://www.skiesmag.com/news/18883-fig ... ipen-html/


Switzerland will pay far less for the 22 fighter jets it is planning to buy from the Swedish company Saab than Sweden itself would pay for the aircraft, the Swiss public broadcaster SF reported.
Switzerland is to buy the JAS-39 Gripen combat jets for 100 million francs (82.9 million euros, $107 million) each, SF reported late Sunday, citing unnamed sources in both Switzerland and Sweden.

That price is between 15 to 30 percent below the level Sweden itself has agreed to pay for the planes, according to the broadcaster's sources.

Stockholm has said it plans to buy between 40 to 60 Gripen jets, but has not said revealed how much it will pay for each.


https://www.thelocal.ch/20121210/swiss- ... ain-report

Given these reports $85 million might actually be the conservative estimate from Saab. it also may have climbed since 2016 when Saab said that as well.

How does that make you feel?


XanderCrews wrote:
F35A CPFH for FY18 44 000$ !!! That’s a lot “You reap what you sow”

MikC: Where does it say that!?
https://youtu.be/7du-vfIWl2A?t=4660 (19:20)
“I will tell you that our current F35A CPFH is 44000$, that’s on the record, it’s actuals from FY18”, Vice Admiral Matt Winter, deputy program executive officer for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office at the time, testifying in U.S. House Armed Services Committee 20190502.



Image

I think this was covered already wasn't it?
Last edited by XanderCrews on 15 Mar 2020, 14:16, edited 2 times in total.
Choose Crews
Offline

eagle3000

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2016, 17:17

Unread post15 Mar 2020, 00:28

linkomart wrote:Now with this background.
The wing on Gripen E is moved outwards.
The reference area of the E is the same and due to that many of the old calculations can be re-used.
The higher span on the (airplane) wing means that the eficciency of the wing is slightly, slightly improved.
(look in to the term span loading if you want to dig deeper)
The wing internaly is slightly different due to higher weight and new landinggear and a few other things.
(so I say it is wrong to say its "the same" wing, it looks the same)


But how can reference area be the same, if the span is higher? That doesn't make any sense.
I understand if wing area stays the same for marketing purposes.

Changed wing internals imho only affect the inner part of the wing which is structurally part of the fuselage, no?
The outer wing i.e. the actual wing, is the same. Except tip pods of course.
Btw, if you look at pictures, the inner, more forward swept part of the flaps appears to have grown quite a bit from C to E.


linkomart wrote:And, for the Record, Gripen NG, Gripen E to Norway and Gripen E today are not the same. Gripen Demo is a demonstrator, perhaps to be compared to X-35 for F-35.
It's ok to be confused about it, but don't draw too many conclusions about it.


Yeah, thanks for another reminder about that.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1247
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post15 Mar 2020, 05:08

XanderCrews wrote:the light bulb should be going on for some people. It actually kind of stinks because had the Brazilians passed, and after the Swiss dropped out that might have been the end of this, but Brazil went for it and now we have to go through with it so mighty brazil (with no enemies or threats) can produce 4 of them a year.

They only need to produce one unit. I think it was mainly for tech transfer to aid Embraer.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

avon1944

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 406
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2004, 02:03

Unread post15 Mar 2020, 07:54

I have read/heard resently that in most recent "Red Flag" type exercises of which the JAS-39 Gripens participated in, the only fighter in NATO that has a positive kill ratio against the JAS-39 Gripen is the F-22A!
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24277
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Mar 2020, 08:31

All Hail the Conquering GRIPEN 13 Feb 2020 RED FLAG ALASKA?:
Former Swedish Air Force Flight Engineer explains how the Saab Gripen can Dogfight and Win Against (Almost) Any Dissimilar Aircraft
13 Feb 2020 DARIO LEONE

"...‘The only plane that Gripen E should be compared with will be the F-35,’ points out Englund. ‘As the people describing F-35 use to say “They will not even know what hit them”. Gripen E looks just like a Gripen but it is a completely new fighter, with completely new features and capabilities more or less only comparable to the F-35 with the difference that Gripen E is not built with stealth technology even if it has a lower RCS than any other fighter except F-35 and F-22 and probably but not certain, the Russian and Chinese stealth. Gripen will be equipped with a GaN [gallium nitride] based EW-suite which probably will make it a ghost.’"

Source: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former- ... -aircraft/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1247
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post15 Mar 2020, 12:36

spazsinbad wrote:All Hail the Conquering GRIPEN 13 Feb 2020 RED FLAG ALASKA?:
Former Swedish Air Force Flight Engineer explains how the Saab Gripen can Dogfight and Win Against (Almost) Any Dissimilar Aircraft
13 Feb 2020 DARIO LEONE

"...‘The only plane that Gripen E should be compared with will be the F-35,’ points out Englund. ‘As the people describing F-35 use to say “They will not even know what hit them”. Gripen E looks just like a Gripen but it is a completely new fighter, with completely new features and capabilities more or less only comparable to the F-35 with the difference that Gripen E is not built with stealth technology even if it has a lower RCS than any other fighter except F-35 and F-22 and probably but not certain, the Russian and Chinese stealth. Gripen will be equipped with a GaN [gallium nitride] based EW-suite which probably will make it a ghost.’"

Source: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former- ... -aircraft/

Gee, no wonder airforces are lining up 10 deep to buy them. Even the f-22/35 lose some in exercises. So that would make the gripen the bestest ever
Aussie fanboy
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests